First Darwin and then Homos? Never!

[Whaleboy]

I respect their right to have that opinion.

Fair enough, but thats like opinions in society that are not implementable. The implementation of those views are down to government and if you are discussing what is applicable in a society, then you can bring in the notion that some ideas are "better" in that respect than others. It's contextual, so relativism holds nicely .

If you are willing to allow cannibalism, then I think your reasoning is consistant. I think most people would disagree with you though.

Not really, there are two levels. I am forced to allow consentual cannibalism as I seek conceptual consistency. Pragmatic consistency would take into account respective harm to one another, and to society, none of which we can safely say occurs with homosexual sex, relationships or marriage.

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

See above.

[Aeson]

I don't think suicide has ever been illegal (and if it was, it's nonsensical law). Attempted suicide is still illegal in some states IIRC (as a misdemeanor). A psychiatrist can place and keep a suicidal or suspected suicidal person in an institution to protect them from themselves though. It may require permission on the part of a relative or the person to be admitted, but it's pretty much the discretion of the psychiatrist for the release (if you're in a private hospital, the easiest way to get a release is to have your insurance run out).

Assisted suicide is illegal in every state except Oregon (or did they repeal that?), and even then only in cases of terminal illness.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Any legal minds out there actually know if suicide is illegal?

If so, is it simply to provide an out for life insurance or other process claims.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
What defines insanity? The German case is a little extreme, but I can imagine a religious sect popping up which would include self (or just consenting) mutilation or death. Now, while you or I wouldn't want to do this, is it right to take away someone else's 'right' to do it? I say yes, because it has a negative effect on the rest of society.

What does the fact that it's "religious" have anything to do with it? There are two possible justifications for restricting liberty, either a compelling public interest or that no person who makes that decision is competent to do so, and neither of them work for homosexuality.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
It is only your opinion that death is a bad thing.

Only mine? I doubt that--it's very much the overwhelming majority opinion. It's also a natural perogative, as every animal species is quite concerned with staying alive. Avoiding death is one of our fundamental instincts, and the notion that an untimely death at unnatural hands is bad is near-universal. So the societal precedent stands.

Obviously these people would disagree with you. The irreversability is moot - it is simply another facet of the decision.

Whether or not they agree isn't an issue--the very point is that these people aren't in their sound mind enough to make such a decision rationally. Making an irreversible step that kills you is NOT moot when we're talking about sexual kinks.

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?

One state, Oregon, has a doctor-assisted suicide statute, but otherwise assisting a suicide is a crime, and people who attempt it are (often) legally obliged to undergo measures to prevent further attempts, be it incarceration in a mental health facility, taking medication, etc. Oregon's law isn't applicable, AFAIK, because it is strictly for assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness and the like. It has nothing to do with sexual practices.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
So what good is the constitution if SCOTUS can regard it or disregard it based on 'contemporary standards'?

Besides Imran's point, the other here is that this only applies to when the constitution is, in fact, vague. When it is not so, disregarding it is not an option.

But remember the rights enumerated therein are not the only ones we possess. The constitution itslef explicitely states this--that just because it isn't given as a right in the constitution doesn't mean the rights can't be there, so long as they do not conflict with anything in the constitution.

That contemporary societal norms and standards can shape interpretation of the Constitution isn't by any means a bad thing, IMO--it is, in fact, precisely what makes it a great document. It's "living and breathing," as some say, and to a certain extent is flexible. A rigid, uncompromising document would probably be less long-lived and useful to a society, since society is itself living and breathing.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Google is making this thread much funnier than it started out.

[Kuciwalker]

[Ben Kenobi]

I've deleted a lot of crap from this thread (probably could have deleted most of it)

Let's stop with the insults and personal crap... I wouldn't recommend anybody start it all up again...

Sorry to have missed all the fun.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh




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.

"What is wrong with you religionistas?

I am sick of your community's incessant tirades against anyone who might not even remotely fit in with your nomadic primitive goatherders' morality.

Have you no opinions of your own, but you must find them in the 2000 year old rantings of smelly goatskin wearing misogynists?

For the sake of reason, get a grip."

Blah, blah, blah...



Amazing.

This from a person who described gay men (forgot to mention lesbians, but no surprise there) in a 'gay marriage' thread as arsef*ckers- hitherto not known to be an activity solely the perquisite of gay men, as several heterosexual males of my acquaintance can testify..

And regularly compares gay men (and lesbians, presumably) with rapists, drug addicts (oh, except apparently we're not really like drug addicts, but a more relevant comparison wasn't to hand) and child molesters (child molestation not being confined to gay men or lesbians, and being more prevalent amongst adult male heterosexuals).


What defines insanity?

I suspect any person who relies on the moral code of 2000 year old genocidal misogynistic monotheists for guidance, isn't perhaps best placed to ask that question.

[MrFun]

Exactly Molly -- rogan, when you can express your opinion more reasonably, and without ignorant statements that end up being repugnantly offensive, then perhaps we can engage in meaningful discussion.

[Ming]

What did I say about the personal crap... I see some people just DEMANDING to be restricted.

[Fake Boris]

@ dv8ed

[Ben Kenobi]

Ah,

So I haven't missed anything.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Only mine? I doubt that--it's very much the overwhelming majority opinion.

Sorry - I phrased that ambiguously. I meant it is only an opinion, not that it is a minority opinion. I think it is unreasonable to assume that people who disagree with our values are 'insane'.

It's also a natural perogative, as every animal species is quite concerned with staying alive. ... So the societal precedent stands.

The same thing could be said for homosexuality. I don't think it is wise to argue your stance on the basis of 'societal precedent'. I don't think this is a good argument for anything, whether it is homosexuality or suicide or whatever.

But remember the rights enumerated therein are not the only ones we possess. The constitution itslef explicitely states this--that just because it isn't given as a right in the constitution doesn't mean the rights can't be there, so long as they do not conflict with anything in the constitution.

It was you who brought up the constitution - not me. I do believe though that your 'living breathing document' is being twisted to fit your agenda.