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 06-27-2003, 12:43 PM   #31
HolyWarrior
User Suspended for 2 weeks by Ziroc [Dec30]
 

Join Date: July 7, 2002
Location: IL
Age: 51
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally posted by Rokenn:
On the radio they were reading portions of Scalia's dissent and one of the first lines in it is that this will allow bestiality.
Wow, I remember you lefties screeching at Sen. Rick Santorum when he said the same thing. Methinks an apology is in order.
HolyWarrior is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 12:52 PM   #32
Donut
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Airstrip One
Age: 33
Posts: 5,571
Just for information. In England anal sex in the privacy of your own home,between consenting males over 21 was legalised in 1966. Incredibly anal sex between a husband and wife remained illegal until 1994. The change was made in 1994 because of the promotion of safe sex.

Buggery Maximum Penalties

Between any two people both over 18 not in private (hotel rooms, a third person present etc.) 2 years

Between any two people, one over 18 and one 16-18 5 years (for the older one at least)

With an animal Life Imprisonment (buggery with an animal can be any sexual behaviour, not just, er... buggery)

With a dead animal No offence (A dead animal is considered food)
__________________
[img]\"http://www.wheatsheaf.freeserve.co.uk/roastspurs.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> <br />Proud member of the Axis of Upheaval<br />Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas<br />Josiah Bartlet - the best President the US never had.<br />The 1st D in the D & D Show
Donut is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 01:19 PM   #33
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Light Bulb

I wonder how these laws would treat the Apple Pie scene in American Pie. :1ponders:
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 01:34 PM   #34
IronDragon
Elminster
 

Join Date: January 16, 2003
Location: Michigan
Age: 51
Posts: 419
Quote:
Timber Loftis said:
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.
It’s important to the religious right for some reason. Their strange view of government is to regulate bedroom activities along the lines their particular cult views as ‘proper.’ IMO the only time what every you care to do with your penis (or any body part) become public business is when your with a non-consenting individual of a creature that cannot consent.
__________________
Ever notice that "What The Hell!" is always the right decision?- Marilyn Monroe
IronDragon is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 01:40 PM   #35
SpiritWarrior
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: May 31, 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,854
I think it's great to be honest. And about bloody time too. You know there's so many homophobes around who swear they detest gay people and would have nothing to do with them etc. and yet they watch movies created by gay people, read their books, listen to their music, turn to them as lawyers for legal representation, buy groceries from them at the store...my point is they're everywhere just like straight people.

You know, I saw Elton John the other night on an american talk-show and thought to myself "Damn, people love him and his music to bits and yet technically he could be arrested in the USA for simply being what he is". A stupid law really.

[ 06-27-2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: SpiritWarrior ]
__________________
Still I feel like a child when I look at the moon, maybe I grew up a little too soon...
SpiritWarrior is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 01:42 PM   #36
Rokenn
Galvatron
 

Join Date: January 22, 2002
Location: california wine country
Age: 54
Posts: 2,193
Quote:
Originally posted by HolyWarrior:
quote:
Originally posted by Rokenn:
On the radio they were reading portions of Scalia's dissent and one of the first lines in it is that this will allow bestiality.
Wow, I remember you lefties screeching at Sen. Rick Santorum when he said the same thing. Methinks an apology is in order. [/QUOTE]Why? I think they are both overstating the case. BTW they were both commenting on the same case. As the deleted portion of what I wrote implied I find it humorous that this is the first think that leaps into the minds of the conservatives on this issue .

Also, as TL pointed out, bestiality is not consensual sex. Since a animal can not give consent.
__________________
“This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.”<br />~ George W. Bush (2000)
Rokenn is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 02:22 PM   #37
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by IronDragon:
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.

Ok a couple of things here.

1st. Sandra Day O'conner is known to be a capricious, whimsical person who repeatedly has practiced "fuzzy" logic in her descisions. She has been anything but a keen logical and reasoned justice.
You cannot disappoint me where SDO is involved..she is a joke as far as I am concerned and it can be argued that she only got her position because of her sex.

2nd [img]smile.gif[/img] why do homosexuals keep dragging themselves into this discussion? Sodomy (the issue at hand) is NOT the only method of sexual action between gays and lesbians. Gays and Lesbians do not solely seek out sodomy as their act of choice and it is not only Gays and Lesbians who practice Sodomy. I would think Lesbians have almost no practical issue with sodomy laws...and Using the Clintonian model of what sex is, it can be argued sodomy isn't even a sex act.

I think Scalia has the right of it...this case was all about the Homosexual pressures and action groups and far less about constitutional law.


[ 06-27-2003, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]
 
Old 06-27-2003, 02:24 PM   #38
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
I wonder how these laws would treat the Apple Pie scene in American Pie. :1ponders:

That would be classified as "Criminal Abuse of a food stuff"
 
Old 06-27-2003, 02:35 PM   #39
Rokenn
Galvatron
 

Join Date: January 22, 2002
Location: california wine country
Age: 54
Posts: 2,193
Quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
2nd [img]smile.gif[/img] why do homosexuals keep dragging themselves into this discussion? Sodomy (the issue at hand) is NOT the only method of sexual action between gays and lesbians. Gays and Lesbians do not solely seek out sodomy as their act of choice and it is not only Gays and Lesbians who practice Sodomy. I would think Lesbians have almost no practical issue with sodomy laws...and Using the Clintonian model of what sex is, it can be argued sodomy isn't even a sex act.
You are wrong here Magik. Historicly sodomy laws were targeted vs any form of erotic contact that did not contribute to procreation, including masterbation. Over time these laws have been scaled back and repleaded, with this being the final step in that progress.
__________________
“This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.”<br />~ George W. Bush (2000)
Rokenn is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 02:38 PM   #40
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Personally, I think this move to push for more will be stymied. Despite O'Connors push for an equal protection holding, the Court decided this case based on privacy. We will quickly find that arguing it sets a precedent for gay marriage contradicts what the Court said. I think there is a clear reason the Court limited its holding to privacy, as I stated earlier.

You'll note that Kilgore in Virginia shares Arvon's and others' concern regarding the 10th Amendment and states' rights. States have complete police power EXCEPT where Congress or the Constitution provide otherwise. If there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, sodomy laws certainly offend that right. State's Rights are important, but cannot violate the Constitution. The 5th and 14th Amendments make it very clear that neither the Federal Gummint nor States can violate the Constitution in passing laws. In short, the very nature of the Constitution is a limitation on State's rights, and the 10th Amendment only reserves "all other" powers to the States.

You'll note Idaho's attorney general's office still intends to enforce its "crimes against nature" law which will prevent acts between gays or with animals. I've already pointed out the distinction with beastiality. As for the rest of it, I'm offering 3 to 1 odds that IF Idaho does enforce its law, it will be the "next item up for bids" on the State and Supreme Court hit list.

Today's NY Times:
_____________________________________

Gays Celebrate, and Plan Campaign for Broader Rights
By DEAN E. MURPHY


SAN FRANCISCO, June 26 — Gay men and lesbians poured into the streets today to celebrate a Supreme Court decision striking down or strictly limiting the country's last remaining sodomy laws in 13 states.

From Florida to Alaska, thousands of revelers vowed to push for more legal rights, including same-sex marriages.

Gay activists, many in tears, called the ruling the most significant legal victory in the gay rights movement, likening the decision to the seminal civil rights case, Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kan. They predicted it would embolden the movement and, as in the segregation era, encourage more people to step forward and demand an end to prejudice.

"I feel like I have been walking six inches off the ground," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of many gay and lesbian groups based here in San Francisco, where revelers gathered in the Castro District. "The arsenal used against us, with sodomy laws being the foremost weapon, has been neutralized."

But the authorities in some states with sodomy laws warned against interpreting today's ruling too broadly. The Virginia attorney general, Jerry W. Kilgore, said the court had not created "any new rights for any particular group of people or the general population."

Mr. Kilgore, in a statement, also said the ruling did not prevent states "from recognizing that marriage is fundamentally between a man and a woman."

Even so, several legal scholars and gay and lesbian activists said the decision would probably have far-reaching implications for the popular discussion about gay rights.

Activists and scholars said that by essentially acknowledging gay relationships as legitimate, the Supreme Court justices gave the gay rights movement a new credibility in debates about marriage, partner benefits, adoption and parental rights.

"The court has put gay people in the mainstream of society for the first time," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. "The court understands gay sexuality is not just about sex, it is about intimacy and relationships. Now there is a real respect for our relationships, as us almost as families, that is not seedy or marginal but very much a part of society."

Some critics of the ruling said they feared it for the same reasons.

Henry McMaster, the South Carolina attorney general, described the possible ramifications as "complex and troubling." While acknowledging that the ruling rendered his state's sodomy law ineffective, Mr. McMaster, a Republican, insisted that the state had a fundamental right to bar behavior considered "inappropriate and detrimental."

In Virginia, Mr. Kilgore, a Republican, accused the court of undermining "Virginia's right to pass legislation that reflects the views and values of our citizens."

In Texas, whose sodomy law was the basis of the case — Lawrence and Garner v. Texas — decided today, celebrations took place in the streets of Austin, Dallas and Houston.

"The decision is a clear indication that our Texas politicians in 2003 are out of sync with the rest of America," said Randall K. Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas. "Yesterday the relationship that I had with my boyfriend was illegal. Today it is legal, and this is one step in full equality for all Texans and for all Americans."

The authorities in Harris County, Tex., where John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested in 1998 for having sex in Mr. Lawrence's apartment, said they had mixed feelings about the ruling.

"Obviously I am a little bit disappointed in the outcome because of the amount of work we put into it," said Bill Delmore, an assistant district attorney in Harris County, who was involved in the appeals of the case.

"But I have a lot more serious criminal offenses in files on my desk than this," Mr. Delmore said. "It is going to be something of a relief to leave the social implications and philosophy and all that behind, and just focus on putting the bad guys in prison."

Mr. Delmore, like the authorities in other states with sodomy laws, said today's ruling would have little impact on day-to-day law enforcement because the statutes had been rarely enforced.

In his 22 years with the Harris County district attorney's office, Mr. Delmore said, the only prosecution under the statute was that involving Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner.

More typically, he said, prosecutions of homosexual acts are brought under the state's public lewdness statute, which prohibits sexual acts — heterosexual as well as homosexual — in public places. Mr. Delmore said there was nothing in the today's decision that would prevent the au pursuit of those cases.

Similarly, in Idaho, an 1864 state law that forbids "crimes against nature" will still be applied to public sexual acts involving gays, said Michael Henderson, deputy attorney general. He added that the law would also still apply to acts with animals.

Advertisement





"The Supreme Court's decision applies to sodomy laws in certain cases," Mr. Henderson said. "We can't enforce our law of crimes against nature as it applies to private consenting adults now."

Speculation was already rife in several states about how today's decision might be leveraged by gay rights groups to attack other laws deemed antihomosexual.

In Texas, State Representative Warren Chisum said he expected a legal challenge to a law he wrote this year — called the Defense of Marriage Act — that bars Texas officials from recognizing same-sex unions performed in other states.

Mr. Chisum, a Pampa Republican, said today's ruling was nothing less than an assault on the ability of state legislators to uphold moral values. He said he had already assembled a group of lawyers to review how the marriage act might withstand a court challenge.

"It is kind of scary stuff," Mr. Chisum said. "I think the court really opened the Pandora's box here that legislatures are going to deal with for many years in the future if they are concerned about the moral values of this country."

Gay groups across the country said that Mr. Chisum's concern about new legal challenges was warranted. They said they intended to use today's victory to push for more legal rights and to ensure that the ruling on sodomy is not ignored.

"I am confident that never again will there be a serious claim made that a lesbian or gay person is a criminal based on the existence of a sodomy law and thereby fair game for being a victim of all sorts of other discriminatory state action," said Ms. Kendell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Robin Tyler, a comic and producer in Los Angeles who helped organize some of the celebrations today, said many people were mindful of how difficult it had been for some civil rights decisions to become a reality in everyday life.

"This is just the beginning of the race for full equality," Ms. Tyler said. "There is going to be an enormous backlash from the radical right. It is not like everybody is going to suddenly say that now that we aren't criminals anymore, therefore we are entitled to housing, not getting beaten up and marriage."

Jane L. Dolkart, an associate professor of law at Southern Methodist University who specializes in sexuality and gender issues, said that today's decision did open a legal window for gay rights advocates, but that the court was in essence following the nation, not leading it.

Antihomosexual laws were already being removed from the books in most states, Professor Dolkart said, most notably in Georgia, the origin of the last major sodomy case to be heard by the Supreme Court, Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. Today's ruling reverses that decision, which had upheld the Georgia statute.

"This ruling may have an effect that isn't strictly legal," Professor Dolkart said. "It may have an effect on the beliefs of people in this country."

Some gay groups, fearing the worst, had been preparing protests had the court ruled the other way. This morning they quickly printed up posters declaring "Terrific!" and "Victory!" and sent out e-mail messages with "talking points" for interviews with the news media.

As word of the ruling spread in San Francisco, a group gathered at the corner of Castro and Market Streets, where a rainbow flag — a symbol of the gay movement for the last 25 years — had regularly flown.

A small chorus of gay military veterans sang the national anthem as the rainbow flag was gently lowered, replaced with an American one.
__________________
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 03:40 PM
Britain calls for change to European Convention on Human Rights Dreamer128 General Discussion 0 09-08-2005 07:37 AM
Pissed off with Human Rights Groups Avatar General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 61 09-12-2004 05:16 AM
Iraqi police to train in country with poor human rights record and high police abuse Skunk General Discussion 19 08-28-2003 07:33 PM
RIGHTS!,...Human Rights...Inalienable Rights.... MagiK General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 11 01-31-2002 06:06 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2017 Ironworks Gaming TM & The Great Escape Studios - All Rights Reserved