"Daniel J Stern" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> > States ought to be able to define acceptable behavior within their
borders.
>
> What do you suppose ought to be the standard of motivation for such
> definitions? Obviously if a behavior could reasonably be expected to hurt
> others or cause some sort of damage, that's a good reason to consider
> banning or regulating it. You, however, seem to think that if you think
> something is icky, there ought to be a law against it, even though by
> simply not engaging in it you avoid the matter altogether. Why?
>
> > I don't want anybody prosecuted because I alone find the behavior
repulsive,
> > I want people prosecuted because the community finds the behavior
repulsive,
>
> You want people prosecuted because you're part of the majority and don't
> give a **** for the needs of those who aren't.
>
That is not what I said.
It is not my view that we are satisfying here. My view is not worth the
keystrokes it takes to type it, but if there is a community standard, then
that standard should stand, be corrected, or be repealed. If the court says
it should be corrected, then the community must fix it. What happened in
this case was that sex acts were given Constitutional protections. Not
sexual orientation, but sexual acts. We will now find ourselves debating a
host of other acts that will demand Constitutional protection,when all they
deserve is to have the underlying law corrected or repealed. We could have
fixed or repealed Texas law without extending Constitutional protections for
sex acts.
> > Human rights and sexual preference are hardly the same thing.
>
> The same argument was used, unsuccessfully, against blacks, jews, women
> and those who would (gasp!) marry someone of a different color when the de
> jure definition of "human" meant "white heterosexual Christian male"
>
Sexual preference is equal to skin color or religion or gender? I do not
agree. This case is not about sexual preference anyway, it is about sex
acts.
> > #1, I don't engage in sex behavior that would lead me to being jailed.
>
> You don't find it the slightest bit odd that something you and another
> consenting adult would choose to do in private, affecting absolutely
> nobody else, might result in your imprisonment?
>
I do lots of things in private that might get me thrown in jail, I have no
protection solely because of my sexual orientation.
> > > > If there is a right to [homosexual sex] then
> > > > there is an equal right to violate children or to entertain hookers.
> > >
> > > How, in your mind, does one follow from the other?
>
> > I do not say that the jump is valid,
>
> That's exactly what you did. You're changing your mind? Good, there's hope
> for you yet.
>
I did not say it was valid, I only say the jump will occur.
> > I only predict that somebody will make the jump and they will use this
> > decision as the precedent.
>
> Fortunately, that's why we have the courts -- to decide matters of law.
>
Do you think this law just hit the books last week, last year, last decade?
The law has been on Texas books for a long time. Texas did not seek out
these guys because they were violating the law, they (Texas) happened upon
them in an unrelated matter. Had these guys not come before the law for some
other reason, they would still be home pushing stools today. They took and
now should face the consequence.
> <snip your tired old slippery slope argument>
>
> Yeah, and what if frogs had claws and lived in toilets?
>
> > > You're welcome to that view, but be advised that you've so far failed
to
> > > put forth even one cogent argument to support your opinion.
Furthermore,
> > > you've failed to elucidate how the decision affects you in the
slightest
> > > (I'm assuming you're a heterosexual).
>
> > The court has struck down the right of a state to legislate its own
> > moral behavior.
>
> You're welcome to that view, but be advised that you've so far failed to
> put forth even one cogent argument to support your opinion. Furthermore,
> you've failed to elucidate how the decision affects you in the slightest.
>
Do you want me to get the ruling and post it here? The ruling could have
ordered Texas to fix its law(s), but it gave Constitutional protected status
to the sex acts.
