A victory for human rights.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: 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. [/QUOTE]Most sodomy laws define "sodomy" as any contact between genetalia and the mouth or anus. It is not strictly limited to suppository situations.

Originally posted by Rokenn: 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.

I actually knew this, but am unconcerned with history..Im focused more on the issue at hand now...in 2003 [img]smile.gif[/img]
Though Our resident Lawyer did explain quite well how Lesbians could be involved in the Sodomy issue since the mouth is included [img]smile.gif[/img]


[ 06-27-2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by Rokenn: 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. [/QUOTE]
Health concerns aside...why are there even laws regarding Beastiality?
What is between a Ranger and his Hamster is between them....Butt Kicking for Goodness! Rangers and hamsters rejoice!!!!! ooops sorry [img]smile.gif[/img]


[ 06-27-2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by MagiK:Health concerns aside...why are there even laws regarding Beastiality? What is between a Ranger and his Hamster is between them....Butt Kicking for Goodness! Rangers and hamsters rejoice!!!!! ooops sorry [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well historically they feared animal/human hybridization. In modern times I think it is more an animal cruelty issue.

[Timber Loftis]

On a related note, I once found a webside of Emergency Room X-rays taken of people who had lodged certain items inside their... um... body cavity. Screwdrivers, etc., and yes, a gerbil. [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img]

Whenever I run through the JI Dungeon, I always make sure to ask Minsc where he hid boo.

[harleyquinn]

Originally posted by MagiK: Health concerns aside...why are there even laws regarding Beastiality? What is between a Ranger and his Hamster is between them....Butt Kicking for Goodness! Rangers and hamsters rejoice!!!!! ooops sorry [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QB]

Sorry for the off topic post, just had to say, too funny, Magik!!!

[Chewbacca]

The fall-out begins:


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/po...partner=GOOGLE

WASHINGTON, June 27 — In one of the first consequences of its landmark ruling on gay rights on Thursday, the Supreme Court today set aside the lengthy prison sentence imposed on a gay Kansas teenager for having had sex with a younger boy. In a brief order with little elaboration, the court vacated the 17-year sentence imposed in 2000 on the defendant, Matthew Limon, and returned the case to the Kansas courts "for further consideration in light of Lawrence v. Texas." ...

[IronDragon]

Timber Loftis said: 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.

Were Idaho to enforce this law and charge two men with this ‘crime’ it would likely struck down by lower courts and would probably never even get near the Supreme Court. The justices already said in a 6-3 decision that what two consenting adults do in private is none of the states concern.

[IronDragon]

Magik said: Health concerns aside...why are there even laws regarding Beastiality? What is between a Ranger and his Hamster is between them....Butt Kicking for Goodness! Rangers and hamsters rejoice!!!!! ooops sorry

Animals like children cannot consent to engage in sexual acts with humans. The bestiality concerns of Scalia just go to show that he has caved to the special interest groups of the Religious Reich.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: 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.

That's fine if you disagree. I think you just have a narrower definition of humn rights than I. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The rights for consenting individuals to do what they want in the privacy of their home/bedroom could effect everybody and anybody. This ruling upholds the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every American in the privacy of their home.

I believe the strict sodomy laws I refered to previously will be thrown out based on this ruling, from what I understand of it. I could be wrong but it is a privacy issue, not an equal protection issue.

Also as the aforementioned rights are "self-evident", it makes perfect sense for them to be considered "Human Rights".

I may just be seeing a half-full glass and you a half-empty one. Whatever, it's all good! [img]smile.gif[/img]