Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stare decisis is fine, most of the time, but taken to absurd rigidity, would result in "Well, we got it wrong before, therefore we have to be wrong again."
In some ways, we are just talking past each other, it seems. In this case, you seem to be presuming that YOUR opinion of what is "right" and "wrong" in a precedent case is self-evident. To have an opinion on a ruling is fine...but to assume it should be the said self-evident standard is -- with all due respect -- quite simplistic and naive. The fact is, there are -- and always have been -- different ideological visions of the Constitution and "strict" and "liberal" interpretations as to its function and the role of the SCOTUS. These visions vary so widely that often, indeed, they really do talk past each other. Hense, the "conservative" position that a law may be stupid, but still be constitutional and the function of the legislature to pass/repeal. On the other extreme are the activist "liberals" who see the role of the SCOTUS as to, essentially, "legislate from the bench."
By way of example, as I mentioned, some of the dissenters (Thomas in particular) called the law dumb (and I agree) and that he would have voted to repeal it. BUT...it was not unconstitutional and fully with the powers of the legislative branch of each state to determine on their own.
The bottom line is (at least IMHO) is that the danger in overturning precedent based on personal ideology (which is really what the majority did in that ruling) is that it can always come back later to bite one on the a$$ (no pun intended!).
Quote:
Assumes facts not only not in evidence, but also ignores the obvious that were such a fate inevitable, as you implied, it would have already come to pass.
Again, talking past each other. You asked how it could be justified as a compelling state interest. I provided an example. There are others. Whether I personally believe the examples to be valid is immaterial. Fact is, they can be explained on those grounds. You seem to be, for your own purposes, creating -- either intentionally or out of not grasping it --my argument for me. Sorry, it won't work.
As it is though, it has come to pass: Anal sex between males is the single biggest cause for the spread of AIDS. And homosexual men are the "most promiscuous" of any demographic segment of the population. I don't know how that fact -- like it or not -- can be argued. Again, I think the old statute was a waste of time and needed repealing...and I don't care what consenting adults of either sex do in private.
But that doesn't change the fact that it would really not be hard (no pun intended this time! LOL), to "prove" a statute of that type to be one with a legitimate compelling state interest in the name of public safety.
As it is though, it has come to pass: Anal sex between males is the single biggest cause for the spread of AIDS. And homosexual men are the "most promiscuous" of any demographic segment of the population. I don't know how that fact -- like it or not -- can be argued. Again, I think the old statute was a waste of time and needed repealing...and I don't care what consenting adults of either sex do in private.
You are aware, worldwide, 75% of AIDS are spread among heterosexuals right? Black women I believe account for half.
As for your "gay men are most promiscuous", apparently facts are not your forte. Straight men are more promiscuous than gay men. Stop listening to Fox News.
Gay men:
"In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners."
Another study showed that gay men had an average of 6.5 sexual partners in the past 5 years. The study also showed that "homosexual and bisexual men are much more likely than heterosexual men to be celibate".
A random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners.
Why would you assume making it illegal will reduce the STD rates? When things are illegal, people generally want to do them more or find unsafe ways to go about it(war on drugs, abortion, etc.). It won't stop the spread of STDs, it will probably increase them. People aren't going to stop having sex just because it's illegal, especially considering there is absolutely no way to enforce it.
Geez. Do you read anything? Or just think, for some odd reason, that you are going to get away unchallenged with putting words in my mouth?
Where did I say it would lower STD rates? For that matter, where did I say I thought the law was necessary? On the contrary, I said I thought it was a dumb law. But that was not the question asked that I answered. It was asked what compelling interest the state could present justifying its existence, and I provided one. See above post.
And please, I don't need a didatic lecture about what people will do. I have lived long enough in the this world and been around the block enough times that I realize morality cannot be legislated if it doesn't have social pressure/ostracism factor to back it up.
On a related tangent, I also think the "War on Drugs" is an excercise in futility. It wastes money and does next to nothing to stop the flow of drugs. And I say this as one of those "paleo-conservative" types of the old Jeffersonian "states rights" variety!
You are aware, worldwide, 75% of AIDS are spread among heterosexuals right? Black women I believe account for half.
[snip]
Since American states don't enact worldwide laws, worldwide stats are irrelevant. In the U.S.A., homosexual sexual contact remains the overwhelming source of HIV infection among males.
You are aware, worldwide, 75% of AIDS are spread among heterosexuals right? Black women I believe account for half.
As for your "gay men are most promiscuous", apparently facts are not your forte. Straight men are more promiscuous than gay men. Stop listening to Fox News.
And apparently maturity and ability to engage in rationale discussion/debate is not yours. LMAO. Can I ask how old you are?
Sorry, but I am not going to wade thru your lengthy sites. I can just as easily furnish my own saying the opposite. Here are a couple for example:
Point is, studies of this nature, whatever position they take (lots of puns are are easy on this subject, huh? LOL), are going to be biased one way or another.
For every study you provide, I can provide a counter-one. And vice-versa. At some point in time, perhaps just common sense and life experience might give a better answer. For instance...
When I mentioned earlier about young homosexual males being the most promiscuous group of all? I didn't only base it on numerous surveys...but on just a common-sense observation of young male nature.
Hell, I was that age myself at one time and, even though I was/am straight, I am not so old as to not know how the desire to have sex as often and uncommited as possible is a major factor in the whole outlook! And with as many willing female partners as can be found. I know I sure gave it my best shot back in my day (geez...these possible puns again! ).
*AHEM* So it really just stands to reason that you take young males attracted to other males who share that male hormonal disposition, then BANG! (ah hell, another one! I swear...).
And further, yes, AIDS is mostly spread by that type sex. Especially in the early days. This is not a matter of bigotry nor hatred nor "homophobia"...but a fact. No cherry-picked study is going to change what most people really know, anyway.
To come back to square one? Again (and again), I don't care what consenting adults do. I thought the old law a little silly and no problem with repealing it. Further, I have a few friends who are openly gay and no problem. One was a regular hunting and fishing friend. We would give each other hell about it, but it was all in good fun. I can even support "Civil Unions" among gay couples.
BUT...I stop very short of pretending -- in the name of political correctness and/or fear of being labeled a (*gasp*) "Homophobe" -- to believe something that I don't, and that reality tells me is simply not true. Or, to believe that wisdom says one thing and nature another.
Point is, studies of this nature, whatever position they take (lots of puns are are easy on this subject, huh? LOL), are going to be biased one way or another.
For every study you provide, I can provide a counter-one. And vice-versa. At some point in time, perhaps just common sense and life experience might give a better answer. For instance...
When I mentioned earlier about young homosexual males being the most promiscuous group of all? I didn't only base it on numerous surveys...but on just a common-sense observation of young male nature.
Hell, I was that age myself at one time and, even though I was/am straight, I am not so old as to not know how the desire to have sex as often and uncommited as possible is a major factor in the whole outlook! And with as many willing female partners as can be found. I know I sure gave it my best shot back in my day (geez...these possible puns again! ).
*AHEM* So it really just stands to reason that you take young males attracted to other males who share that male hormonal disposition, then BANG! (ah hell, another one! I swear...).
And further, yes, AIDS is mostly spread by that type sex. Especially in the early days. This is not a matter of bigotry nor hatred nor "homophobia"...but a fact. No cherry-picked study is going to change what most people really know, anyway.
To come back to square one? Again (and again), I don't care what consenting adults do. I thought the old law a little silly and no problem with repealing it. Further, I have a few friends who are openly gay and no problem. One was a regular hunting and fishing friend. We would give each other hell about it, but it was all in good fun. I can even support "Civil Unions" among gay couples.
BUT...I stop very short of pretending -- in the name of political correctness and/or fear of being labeled a (*gasp*) "Homophobe" -- to believe something that I don't, and that reality tells me is simply not true. Or, to believe that wisdom says one thing and nature another.
I'm ignoring your entire post because you linked the Family Research Council and a Catholic website as your medical source...
Do you realize you just lost all credibility? Quoting FRC about gays is like quoting the KKK on blacks, or a Nazi resource on Jews.
They are a registered hate group. Would you please actually educate yourself and stop relying on anything that supports your prejudices.
England, USSR used to have laws against sodomy (lesbians were spared), it meant some prison term where (rumors go) one gets introduced to the joy of anal sex. I think it's a good thing to have a law against sodomy. The law was never meant to police bedrooms, it was exclusively designed to force gay community to keep their little anal adventures to themselves. I don't care whether or nor being gay is a choice or not. Make that choice and keep it to YOURSELF. Whether or not you are a proud gay or nature just played a cruel joke on you, it doesn't matter, when society (i.e. the institution that is set up to ensure reproduction of people, culture, etc) allows unrestrained unnatural associations, everything just degenerates into oblivion FAST. BTW, older generations gays kinda understood that and they were not too selfish to trash their societies in order to "prove" that they are perfectly normal.
England, USSR used to have laws against sodomy (lesbians were spared), it meant some prison term where (rumors go) one gets introduced to the joy of anal sex. I think it's a good thing to have a law against sodomy. The law was never meant to police bedrooms, it was exclusively designed to force gay community to keep their little anal adventures to themselves. I don't care whether or nor being gay is a choice or not. Make that choice and keep it to YOURSELF. Whether or not you are a proud gay or nature just played a cruel joke on you, it doesn't matter, when society (i.e. the institution that is set up to ensure reproduction of people, culture, etc) allows unrestrained unnatural associations, everything just degenerates into oblivion FAST. BTW, older generations gays kinda understood that and they were not too selfish to trash their societies in order to "prove" that they are perfectly normal.
Their little anal adventure? Far more heterosexuals engage in anal sex than gays. Apparently heterosexuals are disgusting abominations too.
I'm ignoring your entire post because you linked the Family Research Council and a Catholic website as your medical source...
Do you realize you just lost all credibility? Quoting FRC about gays is like quoting the KKK on blacks, or a Nazi resource on Jews.
They are a registered hate group. Would you please actually educate yourself and stop relying on anything that supports your prejudices.
Sorry Fiyero, this one fails and I am a veteran (as are many others) at this silly game and charade.
For one thing, you are pretending to ignore it only because you can't counter it. I put this on par with little kids putting their fingers in their ears and throwing a temper tantrum.
The contrived script goes like this: You (or whoever) labels the source a "hate-group" (more on that in a minute), therefore, such provides an easy excuse not to address the points. After all, why address points made by a "hate group"? Great tactic...for those who are fooled by it. Now aint' that right, Fiyero?
Now then, "registered hate group"? I know EXACTLY how you came by this information. It is by way of Southern Poverty Law Center headed by Morris Dees. Now, is that not correct?
This group (SPLC) has a history -- headed by an opportunist (according to his former business partner) and sex pervert (according to his ex-wife) -- of labeling other groups "hate groups" because it means income in his pocket.
So forgive me if I take this "information" of yours with nothing more than an amused snort of contempt...
Finally, I really don't give a fiddlers damn if you ignore my posts or not. For one thing, you are not the important one. I am just trying to give another side on this thread to those who have perhaps not made up their minds yet one way or another...
England, USSR used to have laws against sodomy (lesbians were spared), it meant some prison term where (rumors go) one gets introduced to the joy of anal sex. I think it's a good thing to have a law against sodomy. The law was never meant to police bedrooms, it was exclusively designed to force gay community to keep their little anal adventures to themselves. I don't care whether or nor being gay is a choice or not. Make that choice and keep it to YOURSELF. Whether or not you are a proud gay or nature just played a cruel joke on you, it doesn't matter, when society (i.e. the institution that is set up to ensure reproduction of people, culture, etc) allows unrestrained unnatural associations, everything just degenerates into oblivion FAST. BTW, older generations gays kinda understood that and they were not too selfish to trash their societies in order to "prove" that they are perfectly normal.
WTF? It scares me that people are like this in 2012.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
