"Daniel J Stern" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> > I think I wan tto have sex with my dog, can I get protected status from
the
> > courts.
>
> Your comparison of homosexuals with dogs suggests you view homosexuals as
> less than human.
>
> > > So, should states be allowed to decide that women can't vote, that
blacks
> > > have to ride in the back of the bus and not sit at "whites only"
> > > restaurant tables, that a hispanic woman can't marry a white man...?
> >
> > No, states can nake no such laws because there is clear Constitutional
> > protection.
>
> Exactly. Precisely. But states once, not that long ago, *could* and *did*
> have exactly such laws. And then came Supreme Court decisions saying that
> such laws are against the US Constitution, and those states were no longer
> allowed to have such laws.
>
> That is exactly, precisely what is happening now.
>
> > Sexual preference is not directly discussed in the Constitution,
>
> Neither is skin color, but you're in favor of it being against Federal law
> for a state to have laws saying blacks can't vote or hispanics can't marry
> whites. Why the difference?
>
Skin color is given us, as is gender. Sexual orientation is something we
acquire. It is a choice we make somewhere along the line. Most of us choose
the opposite sex, but some of us do not. I don't really care which sex you
choose, if there are standards of morality in a community or state that make
your choice difficult, then you change your choice or your community.
> > it is an adopted behavior of those that participate.
>
> ...arising out of their innate sexual orientation. As is the kind of sex
> *you* have an adopted behavior of you and the other participant(s),
> arising out of *your* innate sexual orientation.
>
>
> > > No, the court said that Texas' law was unconstitutional.
>
> > Actually, what they said was that these men have a constitutionally
> > protected right to engage in behavior that the community (State of
Texas)
> > wishes to not allow. The court went beyond telling Texas to fix its law,
it
> > granted a protected right status to the offenders.
>
> Constitutionally protected status merely means that the state(s) may not
> write unconstitutional laws against whatever specific group of citizens.
> It's a mechanism in place so that the Supreme Court can deal with issues
> once rather than 50 times. It's part of the deal that goes along with
> being a United State of America.
>
I buy into the idea that sexual orientation is a matter of choice, a learned
behavior, <whatever>. Skin color is something we have, and except for
Michael Jackson, we have our skin color our entire lives. We do not choose
our skin color, but we choose the way we behave. You can throw out
psychobabble that says we are born that way, but I don't buy it. Frankly, I
think so much psychobabble is geared to support some warped behavior or
another so that the subject of the study can justify being that way instead
of encouraging him to get his act together.
Texas law is not against the group, it is against the act(s). It turns out
that predominantly members of a certain group engage in the act(s), but the
law specifically forbids the act(s) not the persons engaged in the act(s).
It forbids all persons from engaging in the act(s), and all persons in Texas
expose themselves to prosecution for engaging in the act(s) should they
choose to engage in the act(s).
