A victory for human rights.

[khazadman]

I think what is needed is for the state legislatures to come up with laws defining what sexual behavior is acceptable (sex between consenting,non related adults) and what should never be tolerated (bestiality, public sex, child molestation, and incest).I think that is what Senator Santorum meant.

[Night Stalker]

Alas, after 400 years and the Puritans still have the power to repress our society. That we have people wanting gobernments telling us how to behave in consentual ways is truely sad.

Another bit of liberty given away freely.

[Piestrider]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

No, I just think that the government shouldn't go around voiding laws by the States unless there is some Constitutional issue involved, which I really do not see, here.

[Attalus]

Hey, that was me, though Piestrider says that he agrees with it.

[khazadman]

The true tragedy here involves the case of the asshole in Kansas who had his sentence vacated. He was 17 when he had sex with a 14 year old retarded kid. So I guess that makes him a victim? Let's just hope he got what was coming to him while locked up.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by khazadman: The true tragedy here involves the case of the asshole in Kansas who had his sentence vacated. He was 17 when he had sex with a 14 year old retarded kid. So I guess that makes him a victim? Let's just hope he got what was coming to him while locked up.

Well... if they arrested him for doing sodomy, then yes, he should be freed, but then re-arrested for rape.

Originally posted by MagiK: 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. [/QB]

do you think that there could possibly be many bad things about homosexual pressure and action groups?
After all, To discrimate against any group, for something they have no control over (skin color, Sexuality etc) is not very nice.

Have you ever read the human rights watch report on how the US military is one of the last in NATO to still allow discrimination against homosexual people and indeed dismiss them for being what they are?

From the report:
(http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa0...A0103FINAL.htm)

"Don't ask, don't tell" is the only law in the United States today that authorizes the firing of a person from his or her job solely for acknowledging a homosexual or bisexual sexual orientation."

“Supporters of "don't ask, don't tell"-and of the blanket prohibition on military service by gays and lesbians that preceded it-claim "unit cohesion" and military morale will suffer if known homosexuals are allowed to serve side-by-side and share close quarters with heterosexuals. Decades ago, the U.S. armed forces offered the same "unit cohesion" argument to oppose racially integrating military units. In 1948, President Truman rejected the argument and ordered the racial integration of the armed forces. But while U.S. military policy has rejected racial prejudice and discrimination, it continues to endorse discrimination based on anti-gay prejudice.”

Do you think that this terrible situation needs change?
Since after all, should not the US military, since it is supposedly about protecting and defending the nation itself, reflect the make up of that nation?
How else are unfair laws like this supposed to be changed without pressure and lobby groups?

Do you think all lobby groups and pressure groups are bad?

what do you think of pro-isreali, anti-global warming, pro-industry lobby groups and pressure groups?

Originally posted by Piestrider: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

No, I just think that the government shouldn't go around voiding laws by the States unless there is some Constitutional issue involved, which I really do not see, here. [/QUOTE]So are You are saying is that, you are happy with the state criminalizing people for (in essence what they are) consensually doing something that people have done since the dawn of time, and will undoubtedly continue to do till the end of our existence, and that the goverment shouldn't interfere if the state wants to discrimnate against people?

What justification do you have for that view on a moral and ethical basis?

Since I would argue, That from a moral or ethical POV, Unfair laws and abuses of privacy and all that, should be resolutely opposed and rolled back at all levels and in all ways necessary to build that elusive "better world".

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: And - in the case of affirmative action - the rights of one segment of the population are increased at the expense of rights to another segment.font>

No they are not.

LBJ (IIRC) said:

"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are
free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders
you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by
chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race,
saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still
justly believe you have been completely fair"

Affirmative action actually gives a minority, opportunities that it has been lacking before.
Opposition to affirmative action is, at its heart based about fears, that the dominance of white people in American society will be threatened.

For example, There are more black people in poverty in America today, than white people. Unless you want to suggest that black people are somehow lazier or something because of their race, this alone proves that there is missed opportunity and discrimination, since, the levels should be equal. If they were equal, there would be no basis for affirmative action on that issue.

However since the rate of poverty for ethnic minorities is something like 22% vs. about 9% of white people.
Affirmative action is not about supporting the rights of one section over another.
Affirmative action is about making playing field level.

[khazadman]

Affirmative action is just the liberals way of telling blacks and hispanics that they are lesser beings. That they need help if they want to compete with whites.
And did you ever notice that the areas that have the worst rates of poverty in the US are run by Dems?