Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion > General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-26-2003, 06:15 PM   #21
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Woo Hoo! I wonder how this will effect the long jail sentences doled out to homosexuals for laws like these in South Carolina? As I recall some judge gave two guys more than five years for having oral sex in their home. Will they go free?
[img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img] Yeah, send 'em to jail where there's no oral or anal sex between men.

And, yes, Scalia was the one who would not allow the press in the room when he was being given an award for free speech. [img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img]

I got water up my nose, guys.
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 08:13 PM   #22
skywalker
Banned User
 

Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: VT, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 3,097
Good news! Nuff said!

Mark
skywalker is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 12:45 AM   #23
Cerek the Barbaric
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
 

Join Date: October 29, 2001
Location: North Carolina
Age: 61
Posts: 3,257
Quote:
Originally posted by IronDragon:
quote:
While I agree that this is a major victory for gay rights, I think it's a bit erroneous to classify it as a victory for human rights.
So your saying gays and lesbians are not human. [/QUOTE]Nope...I didn't say that at all, IronDragon. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Justice Kennedy said the law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons". He did not say the law "demeans the lives of all persons". Hence, it is specifically a gay rights issue.

Thanks for the chuckle, though.
__________________
[img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth
Cerek the Barbaric is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 12:56 AM   #24
Chewbacca
Zartan
 

Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
quote:
Originally posted by IronDragon:
quote:
While I agree that this is a major victory for gay rights, I think it's a bit erroneous to classify it as a victory for human rights.
So your saying gays and lesbians are not human. [/QUOTE]Nope...I didn't say that at all, IronDragon. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Justice Kennedy said the law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons". He did not say the law "demeans the lives of all persons". Hence, it is specifically a gay rights issue.

Thanks for the chuckle, though.
[/QUOTE]Unless one implies that homosexuals are not part of humanity as a whole, then a law that demeans homosexuals, demeans all of humanity just as a microcosm relates to a bigger, more diverse macrocosm.

In other words since homosexuals are human and their rights of been improved, all of humanity's rights have been improved.

Besides, alot of the sodomy laws that may be effected by this ruling apply to heterosexuals as well. Anal sex, oral sex, and in some places, any sex thats not performed in the missionary position are all prohibited by theses laws, regardless of sexual orientation.

It is a victory for human rights, a victory for sexual rights, and a victory for the rights of privacy as well.
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores!
Got Liberty?
Chewbacca is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 12:58 AM   #25
Cerek the Barbaric
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
 

Join Date: October 29, 2001
Location: North Carolina
Age: 61
Posts: 3,257
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
quote:
Originally posted by IronDragon:
I find it interesting that whenever some decides to no longer support the discrimination and/or persecution of a minority that they somehow cave into some special interest groups.
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution.
By the same token, IronDragon, I find it interesting that minority groups call it "affirmitive action" if a college board uses race as part of their decision process, but label it as "profiling" if the police do it. Seems like conservatives are not the only ones advocating "selective application" of certain criteria. [/QUOTE]A. Like "affirmative action," "racial profiling" is something that serves a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST. And, it is legal. Your gripe falls on deaf ears. Now, if Congress outlaws it, then that is LEGISLATIVE, but the courts have upheld racial profiling.
[/QUOTE]I was merely providing an example to illustrate that both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of applying "selective application" when it suits their needs, Timber. I wasn't debating the "legality" of either practice. But I appreciate you sharing the information about the courts upholding the practice of racial profiling. I didn't know that.

[ 06-27-2003, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]
__________________
[img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth
Cerek the Barbaric is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 01:44 AM   #26
Cerek the Barbaric
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
 

Join Date: October 29, 2001
Location: North Carolina
Age: 61
Posts: 3,257
Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
quote:
Originally posted by IronDragon:
quote:
While I agree that this is a major victory for gay rights, I think it's a bit erroneous to classify it as a victory for human rights.
So your saying gays and lesbians are not human. [/QUOTE]Nope...I didn't say that at all, IronDragon. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Justice Kennedy said the law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons". He did not say the law "demeans the lives of all persons". Hence, it is specifically a gay rights issue.

Thanks for the chuckle, though.
[/qb][/QUOTE]Unless one implies that homosexuals are not part of humanity as a whole, then a law that demeans homosexuals, demeans all of humanity just as a microcosm relates to a bigger, more diverse macrocosm.

In other words since homosexuals are human and their rights of been improved, all of humanity's rights have been improved.[/QUOTE]That's a good counterargument, Chewbacca, but I disagree. Just because the rights of a particular segment of the population to participate in specific acts has been improved does not mean the rights of the general population overall have been improved. Some members of the overall population do not engage in these activities. Others live in states where this type of law applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. The rights of those individuals has not been improved at all.

And - in the case of affirmitive action - the rights of one segment of the population are increased at the expense of rights to another segment. The two offset each other. While it is certainly an important victory for minorities seeking admission into universities, it is accomplished at the expense of others who may also have desired admittance into that same university.


Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Besides, alot of the sodomy laws that may be effected by this ruling apply to heterosexuals as well. Anal sex, oral sex, and in some places, any sex thats not performed in the missionary position are all prohibited by theses laws, regardless of sexual orientation.

It is a victory for human rights, a victory for sexual rights, and a victory for the rights of privacy as well.
I may be wrong, but I don't believe it will have an affect on the states that apply the law regardless of sexual orientation. It seems as if they would be protected under the 14th Amendment. Timber will have to let us know if that is true or not.

Of course, even if the law is written to apply unilaterally, the reality is that they are only enforced when the homosexuals are guilty of the offense. So I agree that it is a major victory for gay rights.

I will also agree that it is a major victory for privacy rights as well. Federal and state gov't has NO RIGHT to regulate the sexual activities of consenting adults within the privacy of their own home. What two (or more [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] ) consenting adults want to do in private is their business, and should not fall under the purview of state legislature.
__________________
[img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth
Cerek the Barbaric is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 01:56 AM   #27
IronDragon
Elminster
 

Join Date: January 16, 2003
Location: Michigan
Age: 57
Posts: 419
Quote:
Magik said:
That could have been it...but I believe I am correct and you are wrong...she caved...thats my opinion and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary so...Ill stick with it
Well you are correct since Sandra Day O’Connor’s does need to listen to special interest groups to get re-elected to the court….no wait, she doesn’t’ need to do that. Um…she needs to stay popular in the pools…no, she doesn’t need that either. Explain to me again just why she would fall victim to those evil homosexual propagandists?

In Sandra day O’Connor’s biography by Thompson Gale it is noted that over the years justice O’Conner has shown a growing for minority rights. This includes racial, religious, disability and now sexual orientation minorities. O’Conner was the deciding vote in the above mentioned Michigan Affirmative Action case and wrote the majority opinion. O’Conner is getting criticism from the right because of her support of minority rights.

In her autobiography , "The Majesty of the Law." She reflects on her admiration and respect for former justice Powell. In 1986 justice Powel sided with O’Conner in upholding a Georgia anti-sodomy law, later Powell publicly stated that he regretted his decision to do so was wrong and fostered discrimination. O’Connor implied that she agreed with Powel in this matter.

All in all O’Conner has been becoming more liberal in views on civil rights. No grand conspiracy. Just the recofgnition that minorities do have protected rights in the United States

Sorry to disappoint.
__________________
Ever notice that "What The Hell!" is always the right decision?- Marilyn Monroe
IronDragon is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 01:59 AM   #28
IronDragon
Elminster
 

Join Date: January 16, 2003
Location: Michigan
Age: 57
Posts: 419
I just read this:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle….[the defendants] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
From the majority opinion written by justice Kennedy.

In the minority opinion Scalia, was worried about the implication that this ruling would have on laws against masturbation. [no I am not kidding]
__________________
Ever notice that "What The Hell!" is always the right decision?- Marilyn Monroe
IronDragon is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 09:45 AM   #29
Attalus
Symbol of Bane
 

Join Date: November 26, 2001
Location: Texas
Age: 75
Posts: 8,167
Quote:
Originally posted by Rokenn:
quote:
Originally posted by Attalus:
Where, oh where, is that "ultra-conservative Supreme Court" that the Dems like to talk about handing the election to GWB? Well, this just shows how important 2004 is going to be.
What is so liberal about the court ruling the government should not have the right to barge into the bedroom of consenting adults and tell them how they can love each other? Sounds pretty conservitive to me. [/QUOTE]No, that's libertarian. Conservatives want government limited to its proper roles, like defense. Libertarians want it to have as little role as possible in anything.
__________________
Even Heroes sometimes fail...
Attalus is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 11:32 AM   #30
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Quote:
Originally posted by Attalus:
quote:
Originally posted by Rokenn:
quote:
Originally posted by Attalus:
Where, oh where, is that "ultra-conservative Supreme Court" that the Dems like to talk about handing the election to GWB? Well, this just shows how important 2004 is going to be.
What is so liberal about the court ruling the government should not have the right to barge into the bedroom of consenting adults and tell them how they can love each other? Sounds pretty conservitive to me. [/QUOTE]No, that's libertarian. Conservatives want government limited to its proper roles, like defense. Libertarians want it to have as little role as possible in anything. [/QUOTE]Attalus, I think you shot yourself in the foot on this one -- vis a vis your earlier post I mean. Unless you can make some argument that telling me what I can do with my penis in my bedroom is a "proper role," like defense. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

The right to privacy is my most treasured right. Privacy is disappearing, folks. It is a right we are losing. And, the sad fact is we are generally voluntarily giving this right away every time we shrug our shoulders when big corps. amass personal information about us and sell it amongst themselves. This may be one of the last big victories for privacy that we see.

Once we've given all our personal info to our credit card companies, eBay, and message boards, once we've let reality TV come into our bedrooms for the nth time, once we've all got websites with our personal at-home cameras filming our lives, we will not have a leg to stand on when the government walks back into our bedrooms to do a "masturbation check." (Yes, masturbation is still illegal in some states -- I think Scalia should move there and leave us the HELL alone.)
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More Human Rights Abuses Morgeruat General Discussion 2 01-04-2006 02:40 PM
Britain calls for change to European Convention on Human Rights Dreamer128 General Discussion 0 09-08-2005 06:37 AM
Pissed off with Human Rights Groups Avatar General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 61 09-12-2004 04:16 AM
Iraqi police to train in country with poor human rights record and high police abuse Skunk General Discussion 19 08-28-2003 06:33 PM
RIGHTS!,...Human Rights...Inalienable Rights.... MagiK General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 11 01-31-2002 05:06 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved