North Carolina continues to enforce Unconstitutional Sodomy Law.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by TCO
And again privacy means not having people watch or be near you. It does not mean "right to take an action". That is just English.

Courts don't always use the common meaning of terms, just look at the Supreme Court decision back in the 80s that about Cuban refugees that said that return meant that you had to arrive first. In which case the US was not bound by one of those refugee treaties it was supposed to be bound by, because of a change in definition of a common word.

How many of you are going some place, forget something, and say well I'm going to return home. According to the court, that isn't valid usage of the word in spite of the common usage. The significance is the US can send refugees back into to harms way where they can be tortured, imprisoned, or executed.

I can cite this stuff if anyone here doesn't take what I say to be true of course, but I don't like spending the energy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sodomy is what they did in Sodom. right? The Bible is pretty clear on the point that the men of Sodom were demanding, not requesting, the pleasure of the company of Lot's visitors. It stands to reason then that Sodomy was originally meant to refer to a non-consensual relationship.

That's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure. You are wrong, that the Bible calls only non-consentual relationships sodomy, it includes all forms of gay sex.

Genesis 19:5-8

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.


Even in the passage you cite, it is not clear that the wicked thing was the lack of consent, but rather, the desire of the men to have sex with the other men.

There are many other passages that confirm the wicked thing as the homosexual conduct, no the lack of consent.

Leviticus 18:22

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.


Judges 19:22-23

"While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

Romans 1:24-27

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[Dinner]

Leviticus is filled with all sorts of rubbish and should be scorned. Did you catch Laz's thread on the animals which were not to be eaten if one followed Leviticus? Clearly modern Christians have choicen to ignore that part of the bible so why can we ignore some parts but not others? Either the whole thing is the word of god or it is the invention of a bunch of primative sheep herds.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And if you really want to take things back to their original meanings, there is a little matter of the 9th you'd have to deal with.

Well if you really want to go to an intent argument, you will find that in that the 9th Amendment was simply to protect the rights that states had already granted to their citizens. Therefore, it isn't valid to say a state granted right is invalid simply because it does not exist in the Constitution.

It doesn't mean that you can claim everything under the sun to be a 'right'.

Oh, Boris, you are incorrect. Goldberg's decision in Griswold is a CONCURING opinion. Justice Douglas has the majority opinion, saying that the 'right to privacy' comes from a 'penumbra' of rights arising from the Bill of Rights.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo
And if you really want to take things back to their original meanings, there is a little matter of the 9th you'd have to deal with.

I just read it. It does not gaurantee rights. Only says that they are not taken away. Since the right to sodomy was never a traditional right, it will be pretty hard to come up with anything to help you there.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by TCO


I just read it. It does not gaurantee rights. Only says that they are not taken away. Since the right to sodomy was never a traditional right, it will be pretty hard to come up with anything to help you there.

There is a right to sex, it is international customary law that has been incorporated into our country from the beginning.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I doubt there was a customary international law to a 'right to sex' back in 1776. I STILL doubt there is a customary international law to a right to sex, because there are many countries that do not allow homosexual sex and even fewer countries that allowed all consentual sex 50 years ago.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo
And if you really want to take things back to their original meanings

We should take things by the original meaning or pass an amendment. I don't have an issue with reasonable interpretation of scope/intent (for instance if there are new technologies.) I do have a problem with creating stuff that is not in the document, often by very tenous twisting. I recognize that there are some gray areas and am easy-going when they go against me. But "privacy" is a sham. It's a fabrication.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I doubt there was a customary international law to a 'right to sex' back in 1776. I STILL doubt there is a customary international law to a right to sex, because there are many countries that do not allow homosexual sex and even fewer countries that allowed all consentual sex 50 years ago.

It is on one of those UN documents, there is also a cooresponding one that applies only to Europe.

In that one the UK was found in violation (they signed and radified it), and was forced to allow gays into the military, and remove any other sodomy related laws.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is on one of those UN documents

UN documents are only evidence of international law, they are not sources of international law, and they are NOT custom. UN resolutions have been held not to be custom (such as in the Libya/Texaco Arbitration).

In that one the UK was found in violation (they signed and radified it), and was forced to allow gays into the military, and remove any other sodomy related laws.

That's because they signed onto a treaty which said so.

[Thorn]

UN documents are only evidence of international law, they are not sources of international law, and they are NOT custom. UN resolutions have been held not to be custom (such as in the Libya/Texaco Arbitration).

Yeah I know, I'm taking a course on international law, quite depressing really. But Imran this defeats my arguement you meany.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Watch out when someone who understands stuff is around .

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure. You are wrong, that the Bible calls only non-consentual relationships sodomy, it includes all forms of gay sex.

Genesis 19:5-8

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.


Even in the passage you cite, it is not clear that the wicked thing was the lack of consent, but rather, the desire of the men to have sex with the other men.

There are many other passages that confirm the wicked thing as the homosexual conduct, no the lack of consent.

If you had read further you would have discovered that when Lot refused to give up his guests the men of Sodom tried to force their way. This certainly means that they, the men of Sodom, attempted to force their way upon Lot's guests.

Leviticus 18:22

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Quoting Leviticus? How does your wife take to being locked up during her menestrual cycle?

Judges 19:22-23

"While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

Does it say that the man they wanted to "take" was agreeable with the idea of going with them? Obviously not, for that would have made a very different story. Please have the courtesy to read the entire story, because if you do you will discover that it's not really about homosexual sex at all. The story goes that the men do indeed settle with just taking the daughter, and proceed to molest her so brutally that when the man takes her home she dies on the way. This causes the man to gather his tribesmen, and they annhilate the offending village.

Romans 1:24-27

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Oh man! Ppuuuuhhhhllllleeeeeaaasssseeeee don't throw me into that briar patch Br'er Fox! READ THE ENTIRE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF PAUL'S LETTERS TO THE ROMANS IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THIS!!! In the subsequent passages Paul agrees qwith his audience that people who would do this surely deserve to be put to death. He then goes on to point out that according to various parts of the Hebrew scriptures many other common offenses deserve such treatment - including not only murder and rape, but also lying, braging, argueing, boasting and at least twenty other common human activities. He goes on to propose that his audience is composed of two types of people: gentiles, who do not obey traditional Hebrew religious laws and who are shunned by the other type, and Jews, many of whom may indeed be able to rightfully boast have lived their lives in complete compliance with Hebrew law. He then drops the othwer shoe on the floor - any Jew who BOASTS about being in complete compliance with scriptural law is as guilty of sin and as worthy of death as.....what? You guessed it - the people he described at the beginning of his speech who had traded their love of God for mere earthly pleasure!!!


If you're goping to quote the Bible please read the whole section you're quoting and make certain that you truly understand what is being said. It is evident in this case that Paul did not intend his letter to stand as a diatribe against homosexual behavior, but instead to mend a rift within the early Roman church. He also compels his readers to weigh mere technical compliance with written law against the true intentions of their hearts.

[Ramo]

I just read it. It does not gaurantee rights. Only says that they are not taken away. Since the right to sodomy was never a traditional right, it will be pretty hard to come up with anything to help you there.

You're misreading the Amendment as per the founders interpretation. What it's saying (along with the 10th) is that the state's powers are bounded by the constitution, and that if there is no explicit legitimization of the usurpation of certain liberties of the people in the constitution, the state cannot usurp these liberties.

We should take things by the original meaning or pass an amendment. I don't have an issue with reasonable interpretation of scope/intent (for instance if there are new technologies.) I do have a problem with creating stuff that is not in the document, often by very tenous twisting. I recognize that there are some gray areas and am easy-going when they go against me. But "privacy" is a sham. It's a fabrication.

I call the entire Constitution of 1789 a sham and a fabrication. I don't see why so many people have such reverence to an over 200 year old anti-democratic document created by a bunch of mercantilistic industrialists and feudalistic slave owners, who had absolutely no regard for the liberties of the marginalized in society, created primarily because the powers that were were afraid of popular rebellion (see Shay's Rebellion). The Constitutional principles establishing individual liberties forged after the Civil War, while still having numberless problems, is something I have far more respect for. Not only do these principles shape a far more free society, these principles were shaped far more by the common person. I don't see why we should totally ignore the principles regarding individual liberty that we've been operating under for over a century just because some people have sticks up their asses.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And if you really want to take things back to their original meanings, there is a little matter of the 9th you'd have to deal with.

Well if you really want to go to an intent argument, you will find that in that the 9th Amendment was simply to protect the rights that states had already granted to their citizens. Therefore, it isn't valid to say a state granted right is invalid simply because it does not exist in the Constitution.

Huh? Where'd you get this, an article by Hamilton or Madison or someone? I still can't find 'State' in the text.

Oh, Boris, you are incorrect. Goldberg's decision in Griswold is a CONCURING opinion. Justice Douglas has the majority opinion, saying that the 'right to privacy' comes from a 'penumbra' of rights arising from the Bill of Rights.

I wonder, could the penumbral region from which these rights emanate be the 9th Amendment?