Jeep thing or sheep thing?

M

Marc

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #441

'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:50:13 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Also, since many of the
>>customers are travelers from out of town, the federal government could
>>possibly get involved on "interstate commerce" reasons (they use that to
>>justify the EPA, FCC, FAA, and many others from the alphabet soup).
>
>The EPA is justified by the fact that most major pollution - for
>example the pollution from the Midwest that causes all the acid
>rain in New England - is an interstate issue. The FAA is clearly
>interstate in scope, and the FCC is often interstate (and a
>non-Federal system of controlling airwaves is impractical).

It is about 500 miles from me to the next nearest state. The EPA is
involved in "local" issues regarding ponds smaller than a normal house lot.
They are widening a road and have to comply with EPA regulations for moving
a tiny body of water. My 802.11b wireless card is subject to FCC
regulations, and the range is listed as about one hundred feet. That is
about 1/25000 the range needed to reach the next nearest state. The FAA
regulates the Cessna that I rode in and the airport that I took off from
(that doesn't handle any interstate traffic, as far as I know) for a short
flight seeing trip.

And the question isn't whether national regulations are practical, but
whether they are Constitutional.

I firmly believe that they are unconstitutional, but that I would gladly
vote to amend the Constitution to make them legal. Believing them to be
unconstitutional is not the same as thinking that they are not a good idea.

>The only way your example would work is if there were interstate
>travel of the *product*, not the customers. The FTC regulations
>would be interesting.

Most stock is traded in a state other than where the company is legally
based and purchased by someone not in the same state as either the actual
stock trade or the company HQ.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #442

Buddy Ebsen wrote:
>
> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Buddy Ebsen wrote:
> > >
> > > ...If
> > > your claim about the majority expressing the same attitudes towards sex and couples of
> the
> > > same sex were true, then the rest of the world would be as phobic and bigoted as the
> U.S.
> > > Clearly that is not true. So a good portion of the world has evolved while the U.S.
> has
> > > remained static (or regressed)...
> >
> > Try getting caught having gay sex in Saudi Arabia and see what happens
> > to you. Yeah - I guess we should all aspire to the wonderful attitudes
> > of, what, France?
> >
>
> off with your head! I don't know; my suspicion is the French are more open than we are

Which was my point. Neither is a country that we should emulate - you
were making the point that we are worse than most other nations on the
earth, I a was countering that. I think most people got it.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #443

Daniel J Stern wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > Then why was nobody being prosecuted for ass****ing his wife?
> >
> > Whose wife?
>
> What's the matter, don't you read grammatically-correct English?
>
> DS

Yes - grammatically correct and ambiguous English - I was just making a
joke - forgot the smiley.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #444

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Daniel J Stern wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > > > Then why was nobody being prosecuted for ass****ing his wife?
> > >
> > > Whose wife?
> >
> > What's the matter, don't you read grammatically-correct English?
> >
> > DS
>
> Yes - grammatically correct and ambiguous English - I was just making a
> joke - forgot the smiley.
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

....and a**f***ing should probably be hyphenated ("a**-f***ing"). Ah -
such a flexible language! 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #445

Buddy Ebsen wrote:
>
> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Jeff Strickland wrote:
> > >
> > > ...but if there are laws in a community that say no stool pushing,
> > > then there should be no stool pushing. We all know that stool pushing is
> > > going on, even between men and women, but the law is no stool pushing, so if
> > > you are going to be pushing stools around the room, you might want to be
> > > sure you are going to be alone, or be prepared to face the consequence...
> >
> > This thing you call stool pushing - is that what, around here, we call
> > fudge-packing? 8^)
> >
> > Bill Putney
> > (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > address with "x")
>
> tasteless!

Not *nearly* as tasteless as the act itself, eh?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

N

'nuther Bob

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #446

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:19:11 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>It is about 500 miles from me to the next nearest state. The EPA is
>involved in "local" issues regarding ponds smaller than a normal house lot.
>They are widening a road and have to comply with EPA regulations for moving
>a tiny body of water.

Wetlands and aquifers have some protection as regional resources.
I suppose they could argue about each and every body of water in
terms of which aquifers it recharges and the effect on which region.
I've been involved in those aquifers arguments before - the science
is hard to pin down.

> My 802.11b wireless card is subject to FCC
>regulations, and the range is listed as about one hundred feet. That is
>about 1/25000 the range needed to reach the next nearest state.

Radio wave use is clearly a Federal issue. The fact that the power is
limited as you state is because the FCC limits your ability to
affect other States.

>The FAA
>regulates the Cessna that I rode in and the airport that I took off from
>(that doesn't handle any interstate traffic, as far as I know) for a short
>flight seeing trip.

So we're to have each state with it's own flight regulations ? I
hope they do a good job drawing those state borders on the ground
so that the pilot will know when he crosses a line. It ought to
make air control very interesting.

>And the question isn't whether national regulations are practical, but
>whether they are Constitutional.

Correct. Each of the above situations is clearly supported by the
Constitution.

>Most stock is traded in a state other than where the company is legally
>based and purchased by someone not in the same state as either the actual
>stock trade or the company HQ.

Are you suggesting that there is no federal jurisdiction here ?

Bob

 

N

'nuther Bob

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #447

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:11:07 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm sure you mean the ninth amendment. I can accept that a privacy right
>can't be denied because it isn't enumerated. But a derived right must be
>strongly rooted in other express rights. There has to be a limit to derived
>rights. Where is that limit? Some rights just can't be found in the
>constitution. Those rights are reserved to the states and the people (tenth
>amendment).

Exactly. The rules are very general. They need to be interpreted,
particularly as the country evolves and the laws cover finer and
finer details. That's the job of the court and ultimately the
Supreme Court.

Bob

 

M

Matthew Russotto

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #448

In article <[email protected]>,
Daniel J Stern <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>> Skin color is given us, as is gender. Sexual orientation is something we
>> acquire. It is a choice we make somewhere along the line.
>
>Oh? Did you *choose* to be attracted to women? If so, when? Did your
>sixth-grade teacher pass out preference cards, and you had to check one
>box and hand it in for registration in your permanent record? OR did you
>just find yourself naturally attracted to girls?

Preference cards. And if you didn't use a #2 pencil, you wouldn't
believe the bad stuff which would happen. Well, unless you've gone to
one of those raunchy porn-spam sites.
--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #449

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I do not begin to suggest that we should hunt them down, but I do
>> >suggest
>> >> > that when they are caught then we should be able to punish if we
>want.
>> >>
>> >> Same difference. Punish them for *what*, exactly? Why, in your view,
>> >> should whatever they're caught at be punishable? Because you're
>repulsed
>> >> by it? If that's it, then I hope you're paying very close attention to
>> >> every little piece of your own behavior, because if I catch you doing
>> >> something I find repulsive, then I might demand the right to punish you
>if
>> >> I want. Are you sure that's the kind of society you want?
>> >>
>> >States ought to be able to define acceptable behavior within their
>borders.
>> >Texas had a more stringent definition that most other states, and this
>was
>> >challenged - Texas lost. The decision is that states can not define
>> >acceptable behavior, or abnormal behavior.
>> >
>> >I don't want anybody prosecuted because I alone find the behavior
>repulsive,
>> >I want people prosecuted because the community finds the behavior
>repulsive,
>> >or the state finds it repulsive.
>>
>> So if a state finds Jews and their behavior repulsive?
>>
>
>I can't believe you are equating sexual preference and religious preference!
>That is astoundingly absurd.

Not really. One can change their religious preference; most studies, and most
psychologists, believe one cannot change their sexual preference.

>
>Personal preference is not a matter for public discussion. If one has a
>preference to engage in drug use, they don't go around saying they were born
>that way and hence deserve protection of certain rights, like the right to
>shoot up. Gays have the same basic rights as everybody else, but if they
>engage in what is on the book as illegal behavior, and they get caught then
>they should be prosecuted.

You could apply that same standard to religious behavior.


>We should not discriminate in jobs, public
>services, <whatever>, but when the cops go to the house for an entirely
>unrelated matter and discover illegal activity,

The point was, under the constitution, that cannot be illegal.


> then I have no poroblem with
>the resulting prosecution. To avoid the prosecution, then maybe you (not
>_you_ personally) should find a community that is more favorable to your
>lifestyle. If that community is another state, then oh well, pack the truck
>and get going.

Jews should move if they are discriminated against?

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #450

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Sexual preference is not a public matter. A community, county, state,
>ought
>> >to be able to define acceptable behavior, then prosecute if the behavior
>is
>> >outside the guidelines.
>>
>> Like Jewish behavior?
>>
>>
>This is the second time you have said that. It makes no sense ...

Neither does your bigotry, but you keep posting it anyway.

>
>
>
>> > Remember, these men were caught in the act of
>> >engaging in "unacceptable behavior" as defined by the State of Texas.
>>
>> States once defined integration as unacceptable behavior. Your idea would
>> allow them to do that again.
>>
>>
>No, that is not true.

Yes it is. Read your own damn posts!

>
>This recent ruling will pave the way for drug use in the home to be a
>protected right. It will pave the way for a wide range of illegal activity
>to be a protected right.

Sounds rather libertarian.

>
>This ruling says that states can not define acceptable behavior within their
>borders.

If such definition violates the constitution.


>Defining acceptable has nothing to do with violating human rights.
>I engage in lots of illegal activity that I pray I never get caught for, but
>I can't use my sexual preference of women as grounds for protected status.

How is giving people equal rights all of sudden "protected status"?

>Gays can use their sexual preference as grounds for protected status.
>

Bet you thinks black can use their skin color for that too.

>
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #451

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >This is not a federal government issue, it is a states' rights issue. If
>we
>> >have to ensure privacy rights between consenting stool pushers, don't we
>> >need to protect the privacy rights of adults with minors, or johns and
>> >hookers? If there is a "right" to pushing stools, then there is an equal
>> >right to violate children or to entertain hookers.
>>
>> Legally, children can not consent. As the laws go, your adult-child
>> circumstance is as "consenting" as if you killed someone that didn't want
>> to be killed. But from your word choice, it looked more like you wanted
>to
>> inflame, rather than actually believing the inapplicable analogies you
>were
>> presenting.
>>
>
>I am not inflaming anything, intentionally. I am, however, predicting that
>some scumbag lawyer will use this ruling to push the envelope and we will
>end up with a new standard that uses consent to a new extreme to mean any
>two people. Some guy is going to get popped (no pun intended) for having sex
>with an underage girl. It will be shown that she came back time and again,
>indeed maybe she started the relationship with an "adult" that is only a
>couple of years older than she is, and he will say that she consented or
>even forced him. Then, they will show that what happens behind closed doors
>among consenting people is a protected right.
>
>I think the court could have tossed out the Texas law without forwarding the
>protected right status to the gay community.

They didn't. They said gays have _equal_ rights. You seem either too dumb or
too bigoted to understand that.

> I think that the courts could
>have upheld the premise of Texas while saying that Texas needed to fix the
>law to tighten it up, or something. Perhaps the men involved did have rights
>violated, but the fix is to correct the law, not to extend a constitutional
>right to push stools.
>
>
>
>> And the hooker thing is commerce. They are selling goods or services
>> without permission. That can be regulated. Also, since many of the
>> customers are travelers from out of town, the federal government could
>> possibly get involved on "interstate commerce" reasons (they use that to
>> justify the EPA, FCC, FAA, and many others from the alphabet soup).
>>
>Without permission? You must mean without a permit.
>
>I don't know, but I thought prostitute laws were not primarily prosecuted
>under the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) rules.
>
>
>
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #452

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> SNIPPY
>> >
>> > So what if men are arroused by sexual behavior of any type? Sex is sex,
>and
>> > it arouses even if we think it is wrong. Should we legalize kiddy porn
>if
>> > there is a study that shows men that profess to deplore child porn are
>shown
>> > to be aroused by it?
>> >
>> There, that looks much better. (Nothing worse than a long thread with
>> lots of replies, none of them wrapped properly.) I don't think that
>> kiddie porn is ever going to be accepted, at least in the United States.
>> There are too many arguments against it that are stronger than the
>> privacy argument, such as age of consent. I wonder though, how the
>> supreme court decision affects incest between consenting adults with no
>> plans of reproduction. Granted this is disgusting, but if they do it in
>> private and they are consenting adults the same ruling seems to apply,
>> even if they live together in public as the two gentlemen (?) in the
>> Texas case were doing.
>>
>
>I was using an extreme on purpose. We normally consider kiddie porn to be
>very young children, but it is technically any porn that involves a minor.
>So, we could have a relationship between an adault and a 14- or 15-yr old
>child. We sometimes hear of women and boys, but I think that it is seldom
>the case of a boy complaining of having sex, the vast majority of violations
>is men and girls. The women on boys cases tend to be discovered by
>"accident", where men on girl cases tend to be reported.
>
>The question remains, if we are going to use a study that shows people
>getting aroused by viewing sex acts, then those sex acts should be
>legalized, then if we view sex acts of minors should those acts also be
>legalized?
>
>PS
>I was gonna snip, but it was the first occurance of the post so I let it
>stay.
>
>
>
>> In Colorado we allow first cousins to marry. Even if you buy the
>> increased risk of birth defects argument, the chance of a birth defect
>> in offspring of a father and a daughter is only twice that of offspring
>> of first cousins. Certainly, this is no cause for the state to
>> interfere in citizens' private business...
>>
>> Earle
>
>Then Colorado has a different standard than Texas, the gays should move to
>Colorado where the environment is more friendly to their activity. I do not
>deny gays the right to engage in their behavior, but I can accept that some
>people might be into this denial. Texas is into the denial, so the gays
>should not live there.

If AL is allowed to prohibit Jewish religious practices, Jews can move to NY?

>
>BTW,
>The state has a compelling interest in preventing the adverse health effects
>of interfamily marriage or incestuous relationships. There is a valid public
>health interest in laws that prevent this sort of thing. Colorado might not
>observe its interest, and that is up to Colorado. Texas might take a strong
>stand on this issue and shouldn't be forced to accept Colorado's standard.
>
>>
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #453

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"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.

It was just 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.

No, liberty and privacy were re-emphasized as 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.

You choose your religion, so why not?

>
>
>
>> > #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.

No, to equal protection.

>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #454

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Daniel J Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> > To be perfeclty clear, I don't care that sexual deviates are deviated, I
>> > just don't want to know that they are. Take your sexual preference off
>the
>> > table, it is not a matter for public discussion.
>>
>> When it is used as the basis for denial of equal civil rights, that is
>> exactly what it is.
>>
>I think I wan tto have sex with my dog, can I get protected status from the
>courts. My dog might feel differently, but I am pretty sure I can talk him
>into my plan.
>
>
>
>
>> > That is my point, shouldn't states be able to have laws of what is
>> > acceptable behavior within their borders?
>>
>> 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.

Where?

>
>Sexual preference is not directly discussed in the Constitution,

"Equal protection" is. And try reading Article IX of the bill of rights.


>and it is
>an adopted behavior of those that participate.

Wrong. But religion is certainly an "adopted behavior."


>I don't care that they
>participate, but if there are laws in a community that say no stool pushing,
>then there should be no stool pushing. We all know that stool pushing is
>going on, even between men and women, but the law is no stool pushing, so if
>you are going to be pushing stools around the room, you might want to be
>sure you are going to be alone, or be prepared to face the consequence.
>
>
>
>
>> > The court said that Texas can not have a different law than everybody
>else.
>>
>> 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.

That all people do.


>The court went beyond telling Texas to fix its law, it
>granted a protected right status to the offenders. I think this is a little
>bit different.
>
>
>
Because you're a bigot.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #455

In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Daniel J Stern wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Of course not, but it's exactly what you meant.
>>
>>
>>>sex acts were given Constitutional protections. Not sexual orientation,
>>>but sexual acts.
>>
>>
>> Because the laws against specific sex acts were being used exclusively to
>> harrass people of a particular orientation.
>>
>>
>>>We could have fixed or repealed Texas law without extending
>>>Constitutional protections for sex acts.
>>
>>
>> Fifty states, one constitution. The Supreme Court hasn't got time to
>> decide individually if blacks can ride in the front of the bus in Alabama,
>> if they can use the same water fountain as whites in Georgia, if they can
>> be denied the right to vote in Wisconsin, if they can be prohibited to
>> marry in Hawaii, etc.
>>
>>
>>>Sexual preference is equal to skin color or religion or gender?
>>
>>
>> Sexual orientation is.
>>
>>
>>>I do not agree.
>>
>>
>> *shrug* You're welcome to your opinion, but it is not supported by
>> science.
>
>I've never seen any conclusive science one way or the other on this
>issue. Can you provide a reference or two?
>
>Matt
>
Go to the American Psychological Association web site.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #456

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"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.

Bzzzt. Not so. Check what the American Psychological Association says (it's
on their web site).


> It is a choice we make somewhere along the line.

Like religion?


>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.

So why is choice of sexual partner a moral standard in the first place? How
do you define morality?

>
>
>
>> > 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,

Then you're dumb as well as a bigot.


>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.

Like which religion we practice?


> You can throw out
>psychobabble that says we are born that way, but I don't buy it.

As I said, you're dumb. I bet you don't buy that blacks are no less
intelligent than whites, or evolution, or maybe even atoms.


>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.

As I keep saying, you're an idiot.

>
>Texas law is not against the group, it is against the act(s).

No, it applied only to homosexuals. (Why not sodomy among heterosexuals?)


> 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).
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #457

In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Daniel J Stern wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I've never seen any conclusive science one way or the other on this
>>>issue. Can you provide a reference or two?
>>
>>
>> No issue of psychology is ever "conclusively" known, because that's not
>> how humans work. However, most of the science carried out by actual
>> scientists, including the American Psychological Association and the
>> American Medical Association -- and most of the policy based on this
>> science -- supports the notion that homosexuality is, in at least some
>> cases, innate by one mechanism or another, and not simply a matter of
>> chosen sexual behavior. More info is available at these organizations'
>> websites and in their publications, and there's a great deal more besides.
>>
>>
>> It's mostly the religious-agenda types who publish "research" supporting
>> the notion that homosexuals are simply heterosexuals making the wrong
>> behavioral choices.
>
>OK, I don't consider behavioral psychology to be a real science.

I bet you're a creationist.


> I
>thought you were talking about genetics. I've seen no evidence for a
>genetic basis for homosexuality.

APA, as you've been told.


> I believe the religious beliefs are at
>least as valid as the beliefs of the APA,

Are they as valid as the "beliefs" of geologists (young vs old earth) and
biologists (creationism vs evolution) too?


> since neither is based on hard
>science.

Ignorant fool.

>
>
>Matt
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #458

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Buddy Ebsen wrote:
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> > > Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> >
>> > I was using an extreme on purpose. We normally consider kiddie porn to be
>> > very young children, but it is technically any porn that involves a
minor.
>> > So, we could have a relationship between an adault and a 14- or 15-yr old
>> > child. We sometimes hear of women and boys, but I think that it is seldom
>> > the case of a boy complaining of having sex, the vast majority of
violations
>> > is men and girls. The women on boys cases tend to be discovered by
>> > "accident", where men on girl cases tend to be reported.
>> >
>>
>> It's part of the hypocrisy. If an adult man screws a teenage girl, then the
**** hits the
>> fan. If an adult woman screws a teenage boy, people wink and smile (unless
there are
>> prominent people involved). American's attitudes towards sex are influenced
by their
>> addiction to the christian religion. Until the latter is remedied, the
former will remain
>> confused at best. Most of the industrialized nations of the earth look and
us and laugh
>> (again) over our sexual phobias and biases.
>
>You do realize that there are those in our country (many in
>universities)

Lying scumbag.


> who strongly advocate that we should consider adults
>having sex with children as normal and acceptable behavior. I guess us
>Christians are sure hung up in our religion since we think that ought
>not to be allowed.
>
>Here's an example: The AIDs problem in Africa - the liberal's solution
>is live and let live - take money from the taxpayers and ship it over
>there to buy condoms, then tell the people to be sure to use their
>condoms and have fun.

Liar.


>The (for lack of a better word) conservative's
>solution is to tell the people "Hey - quit screwing everything that
>walks and have one spouse". Guess which solution works and fits with
>life.

No, it's too say, "They sinned; let them die."

>
>The liberal will say that the conservative solution is imposing on
>people's freedom and that it forces one's morals on others.
>
>But in the end, one solution (the "give everybody a condom and tell them
>to have a good time" one) results in one country having an AIDs rate of
>40%, while the other solution ("control yourself and have some
>self-respect") drops the AIDs rate in another country from 21% to 6%.
>
>Now - which solution is the more moral and compassionate?

Since you made both up, the correct answer is, "you're an idiot."


> The one that
>results in untold misery, poverty, and death (and guess what - not just
>the individuals who participated in the sex are affected - how about the
>children? - how about the rest of their society who have no hope of a
>healthy economy or decnt life because of their behaviour?), or the one
>that imposes standards and saves countless lives and gives some chance
>of prosperity and hope?
>
>We all will be paying for the consequences of decisions that are made.
>We will be "technically" and "legally" right, but countless people will
>suffer - but that's OK because we feel *good* about it. That's the
>difference between conservatism and liberalism.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #459

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Buddy Ebsen wrote:
>>
>> ...If
>> your claim about the majority expressing the same attitudes towards sex and
couples of the
>> same sex were true, then the rest of the world would be as phobic and
bigoted as the U.S.
>> Clearly that is not true. So a good portion of the world has evolved while
the U.S. has
>> remained static (or regressed)...
>
>Try getting caught having gay sex in Saudi Arabia and see what happens
>to you.

So that's the moral standard you're advocating for us?


> Yeah - I guess we should all aspire to the wonderful attitudes
>of, what, France?
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 11, 2003

• #460

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Earle Horton wrote:
>>
>> ...No government should have absolute power over its citizens, not even a
>> democratic government elected by the people...
>
>A truly democratic government, by definition, *does* in fact have
>absolute rule over its citizens - IOW - the majority rules in all
>cases. IOW, in a true democracy, if the majority votes to put a person
>to death just because they don't like the color of his shoes, then he
>gets put to death. We live in a constitutional republic - the
>Constitution trumps the majority will by specifying rights that can't be
>abridged. IOW, the Constitution is the only thing that stands between
>us and mob rule ( = anarchy = true democracy).
>
>(I know - picky, picky, picky)

And ignorant. We are a democracy as well as a republic. Look up "democracy"
in the dictionary -- you've cited just ONE definition.

>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----