First Darwin and then Homos? Never!

[Spiffor]

ok, no problem.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


You guys are still not getting the point (amazingly!).

The argument that things should not be illegal if they are between consenting adults (or on your own) is wrong. There are plenty of things out there which are (rightly) illegal which do not harm anyone other than the consenting adults who take part.

I am sick to death of your tirades against anyone who might even remotely disagree with a post made by a member of poly's 'gay community'. What is wrong with you people? Do you have no opinions of your own?

For ****s sake, get a grip.

We get it -- loud and clear -- that you are still ignorant about sexual orientation.


Since there is no harm with sex between two competent, mutually consenting adults, regardless of their gender and/or sexual orientation, your argument makes no sense.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Homosexuals have a constitutional right to live where they want free from institutionalized discrimination.

How does the constitution distiguish between gay rights and the rights of, say, consenting cannibals?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrFun
We get it -- loud and clear -- that you are still ignorant about sexual orientation.

What makes you less ignorant about sexual orientation? What makes you think you understand straight issues?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
How does the constitution distiguish between gay rights and the rights of, say, consenting cannibals?

How does it distinquish between straight rights and consenting cannibals?

AFAIK, the SCOTUS has not upheld any constitutional right to consentual cannibalism, while they have for homosexuality. This might have something to do with the "compelling interest" I mentioned above. It's pretty easy to recognize the compelling interest of a state to avoid cannibalism, consentual or not.

[Arrian]

SHUT UP, YOU CANNIBAL! YOU PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE! YOU PROVIDE NOTHING!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yeah you got that whole "uninspected meat thing" and then the FDA gets its panties in a bunch. Next thing you know we have to have governmental inspections at the cannibals home. It just doesn't work.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
AFAIK, the SCOTUS has not upheld any constitutional right to consentual cannibalism, while they have for homosexuality.

What was their reasoning for upholding gay constitutional rights? I mean, which part of the US constitution do they refer to?

(I am genuinely interested, so enough of the facetious remarks, OK?)

[Elok]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Don't worry, it is

Elok finds it enjoyable to play the devil's advocate on religious matters, but this time he really has trouble finding any stretch of defendable thing

The thing is, this isn't really a religious matter to begin with. This is just a bizarre, irrational form of knee-jerk xenophobia dressed up as piety, and that only as an aside. True, most Christian sects traditionally oppose homosexuality, but then, prior to WWII it was fashionable to think of the Jews as the filthy usurers who killed Jesus. Hitler just used the rooted hatred as grist for his own agenda; the Holocaust wasn't a Christian persecution of Jews in the same sense that the Spanish Inquisition was, it just borrowed a whipping-boy from the existing tradition. I see this as more of the same. They don't mention religion in their justification so much as a lot of stuff about "crimes against nature." Which is weird and ironic-they oppose evolution, but also oppose gays on the vaguely Darwinian grounds that they are a threat to social progress of the human species and blah blah blah.

Ultimately, of course, all such persecutions have nothing to do with religion, or politics, or whatever. It is hard to argue that gays are somehow *more* immoral in the judeo-christian sense than heterosexual fornicators, which they aren't chasing (watch your back, Ted), and the local newspaper gossip column is surely a far greater threat to public well-being than a few men secretly having unconventional relations with other men. The arguments in these cases are only justification for acts that begin as a declaration of insularity, revulsion, and fear. Maybe that's obvious, I just want to make it clear that I'm not "siding against the religious people" on this. I'm siding against the people using unrelated societal conventions like ventriloquist's dummies to chatter approval for their own deep-seated neuroses.

[Boris Godunov]

From Justice Kennedy on Lawrence vs. Texas:

"This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Pp. 17—18."

This would not apply to cannibalism, as that involves several things that aren't sexual conduct, per se: killing and eating people. While Ogie's pot above was tongue-in-cheek, it does highlight one issue, in that the concern for public health in regards to cannibalism is indeed of public concern. You can't kill and eat a cow in your own home due to similar health concerns. And then, of course, there's the difficulty of someone consenting to being eaten being mentally sane enough to make such a decision. It seems to me, and to plenty of psychiatric experts, that a sexual fetish for cannibalism and the willingness to be a victim of it are indicators of mental unfitness.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It seems to me, and to plenty of psychiatric experts, that a sexual fetish for cannibalism and the willingness to be a victim of it are indicators of mental unfitness.

The same thing would have been said of homosexuality 50 years ago.

If your only other concern is that of public health, then you would have no problem if the act were carried out in a supervised environment?

[Boris Godunov]

No, because I think the psychological arguments against is are sound. Being killed is irreversible, committing homosexual acts are not. Anyone who consents to being killed and eaten out of a sexual predeliction is taking a step into what should be considered insanity in that it is complete and utter disregard for one's well-being. Homosexual sex is not defined by such a thing as cannibalism is. Again, the state has a demonstrable interest in keeping otherwise healthy people from killing themselves.

EDIT: and as for the "50 years ago" argument, this is true, but contemporary definitions in law are often based on contemporary standards. SCOTUS says this frequently in rulings--that as societal notions and knowledge changes in certain regards, so will the interpretations of certain laws.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No, because I think the psychological arguments against is are sound. Being killed is irreversible, committing homosexual acts are not. Anyone who consents to being killed and eaten out of a sexual predeliction is taking a step into what should be considered insanity in that it is complete and utter disregard for one's well-being.

It is only your opinion that death is a bad thing. Obviously these people would disagree with you. The irreversability is moot - it is simply another facet of the decision.

Again, the state has a demonstrable interest in keeping otherwise healthy people from killing themselves.

Someone said earlier that suicide is no longer illegal in the US. Is this true? How do you think this meshes with your first paragraph?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
EDIT: and as for the "50 years ago" argument, this is true, but contemporary definitions in law are often based on contemporary standards. SCOTUS says this frequently in rulings--that as societal notions and knowledge changes in certain regards, so will the interpretations of certain laws.

So what good is the constitution if SCOTUS can regard it or disregard it based on 'contemporary standards'?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So what good is the constitution if SCOTUS can regard it or disregard it based on 'contemporary standards'?

What has it 'disregarded' in this case? A good argument can be made that the SCOTUS disregarded the Constitution up until last year when it recognized homosexual sex (under 'Equal Protection of the Laws').