Supreme Court makes gay sex ok

[Skinzaholic]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html



I know this is a topic many would like to ignore... but I am interested in what my Redskin friends think.

Please don't give me the weak politically correct answer that the media has brainwashed us with... you know, "The government shouldnt regulate what people do in private"... that answer isn't an opinion that anyone can really hold onto if confronted with someone who likes little kids (in private).

Let's pretend we live in a country once founded on free speech... let's pretend the political correct police took the day off... give your REAL thoughts.

And let's keep it nice... we are all friends. I guarantee that my opinion on this differs from 65% of you... and I can hold my own easily in a debate... but I am instead interested in what the real America thinks about our country's "morals".

[CarMike]

I think its sick and inhumane. If God had wanted same sex relationships, then why can't men have babies. Its suppose to be Man and Woman. Not Woman & Woman or Man & Man.

They may live happy now, but when their time comes, they'll have a higher power to answer too.

[Seebs]

First of all, remember i am one of those strange guys coming from an old country and who scored only 3 at the conservative-progressive test.
How can somebody rule about somebody's business when it is between consentent adults and who are not interfering with others? I could talk about the religious issue but for me there is no God. But I won't forbid people to believe as its their personnel matter except if they start to kill MD practicing abortion, gays or whoever you want because they think it is what God told them to do.

I surely prefer a child living with 2 beloving gay parents, than a child in a torn apart family with good ol'daddy beating good ol'mummy and ol'good sonny!

And for those who are afraid of visiting our good town of Paris, the mayor have publicly said he was gay long before the election.

[CarMike]

Let me add that I'm not here to preach to anyone. But, I just don't think Gay and Lesbian marriages should exist.

[PennSkinsFan]

Doesn't matter to me. I dont want to dictate how others live. Gay marriage, etc...it really has no effect on me. If they want to have marriages, etc....thats fine. They don't bothe rme, I don't bother tehm, were all human, I live the way I want, they have the right to live they way they want.

[TexSkin]

I am religous but I have tolerance with what other people want to do. As long as their rights do not infringe on my own I say let them be.

[Spence]

It's a great decision. <i>Bowers v. Hardwick</i> was one of the most poorly conceived and written decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Seventeen years was too damn long to wait for that monstrosity to be destroyed, but I'm glad it has finally happened at last. I can't tell you how pitiful it is to listen to people who are always railing against "big government" turn around and tell me that the state should have the right to regulate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. That's not just big government, it's Big Brother. No thanks. If I wanted to live in a country like that, I'd move to Iran.

It wasn't too long ago that religion was used to justify slavery. Then it was used to justify segregation. And it was used to justify laws preventing people of different races from marrying. (<i>Loving v. Virginia</i>, the decision that struck down Virginia's law banning blacks and white from marrying was decided by the Supreme Court in 1967.)

I have many gay friends and they don't face this sort of harassment in DC and Maryland, but I'm glad these laws will now be struck down everywhere in the nation. My gay friends don't give a damn whether you approve of their relationships and they don't give a damn about your relationships either. They want the same rights as anyone else--to love whom they want to love and spend their lives with the people they choose. I think it incredibly cruel to deny that to anyone.

[jsarno]

First off, I'm not a hater to gays at all. That's their life, and if they choose to consciously live in sin, that's their choice. We all sin, but a sin is a sin is a sin. You love the sinner, not the sin.
That being said...don't cop out and say our government shouldn't do blah, blah, blah etc. We are a country that tells the stupid what to do. If you can't afford to eat...we'll give you food stamps. If you don't want a job, we'll pay you to sit at home and plop out babies. (welfare) We are a country that TELLS us to use our seatbelts, and helmets. We are a country that allows a way out when we over extend our credit from poor decisions (bankruptcy) We are a country that still allows the tobacco industry to give us cancer with their poison sticks. And we are stupid enough to still smoke in record numbers. We are too stupid to realize that all this fatty food is making us fat and lazy. We are a country that places blame on everything but self responsibility.
How about the electoral college? Does anyone know why that was REALLY put in place? So that the wrong person doesn't get voted in. They are the final say in who gets elected, not the general public. Why was that put in effect? because the general public is too stupid to do it themselves.
Have any of you ever checked some of the laws on the books? There are laws about people not supposed to have sex with ducks, and some much more crazy than that. People have sex with animals all the time, should we legalize that? Fact is, most states still have laws banning male to female anal sex because of the damaging affects to the human body. Why is that law there? BECAUSE WE ARE TOO STUPID TO FIGURE IT OUT FOR OURSELVES. Gay relationships fall into that catagory. It's against mother nature for a man to be with a man, and it's against God. Something our country was founded on. We are heading down the same path all the great countries headed down...ignoring God, then feel His wrath. Gay relationships follow under the ideal "if it feels good do it". That's not a wise ideal. There are MANY things that feel good but are bad or wrong. Should we allow sex with animals???? It could fall under implied consent if the animal doesn't move and allows it to take place. Fact is, we should not glorify homosexual activity, and by allowing the gays to march seperately in parades, and have their own quircky laws, and having their own special days at disney or wherever, we are glorifying something that is CLEARLY wrong.
So no, I do not agree with the supreme courts ruling.
We should treats gays like we treat anyone else, without prejudice and with the same human affection we treat all with. They are not bad people, or evil, or deseased leopors...they are human like heterosexuals are. They are trying to justify their urges and that's wrong. Most men have urges to have affiars, a lot do so. Should we wipe off the laws of adultery???? Should we make it legal to have numerous wives??? After all, we have those "urges". Where will the madness end? When the laws reflect dumbass decisions with no Godly influence, not well though out decisions for the country, then the country will fall. Enough pieces will be taken out of our moral fabric to doom us. It's just a matter of time.

[jsarno]

It's a great decision. <i>Bowers v. Hardwick</i> was one of the most poorly conceived and written decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Seventeen years was too damn long to wait for that monstrosity to be destroyed, but I'm glad it has finally happened at last. I can't tell you how pitiful it is to listen to people who are always railing against "big government" turn around and tell me that the state should have the right to regulate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. That's not just big government, it's Big Brother. No thanks. If I wanted to live in a country like that, I'd move to Iran.

but the government does tell you what you can and can't do in the "privacy" of your own home. It's legal for them to tap your lines without your consent...you can't smoke weed there, you can't yell loudy or the police will come...there are tons of others too. The government was meant to "GOVERN" us, because we can't govern ourselves. That is clear from this rediculous ruling

It wasn't too long ago that religion was used to justify slavery. Then it was used to justify segregation. And it was used to justify laws preventing people of different races from marrying. (<i>Loving v. Virginia</i>, the decision that struck down Virginia's law banning blacks and white from marrying was decided by the Supreme Court in 1967.)
Those people that justified it were the ones that turned the words around. Just like the gays do to justify their lifestyle choice. I believe it's in 2 Chorinthians (sp?) that says ...."nor HOMOSEXUAL offenders will enter the kingdom of heaven." That's pretty crystal clear. There are a lot of non believers and self righteous poeple that hide behind the bible and don't know what it is really saying. Slavery in no way is condoned...we shall all be seen of equally etc.

I have many gay friends and they don't face this sort of harassment in DC and Maryland, but I'm glad these laws will now be struck down everywhere in the nation. My gay friends don't give a damn whether you approve of their relationships and they don't give a damn about your relationships either. They want the same rights as anyone else--to love whom they want to love and spend their lives with the people they choose. I think it incredibly cruel to deny that to anyone.

BUT THEY DO GIVE A DAMN...other wise they wouldn't be asking for special treatment like they do. (parades, laws etc) They don't want equality, they want extra privilages.
I will wholeheartedly agree that there is still a stigma about gays, and they are still persecuted for their lifestyle, but that doesn't mean we should make crazy laws or undo wise laws to suit there desires. I wish we did live in a world where race and sexual preference etc didn't matter to others, and we can "love thy nieghbor as thyself", but unfortunately, not many go by those words.
I had a friend that happened to be homosexual who died about 4 months ago from AIDS. I admired his courage, and his beliefs. He didn't dilute himself into thinking being gay was just fine with God or the world. In fact, he knew he was sinning, he just couldn't stop himself because the feelings were too powerful. Just like a teenager that can't stop his hormones from having sex before marriage etc. He was a good man that sinned less than I did, but never once did he try to justify his urges. I wish all the gays were like him, and not diven by selfishness. (not that all gays are driven by selfishness)

[Spence]

You're wrong on numerous points, JSARNO, some ethical and some factual. But I'll just confine myself to writing that you do not believe in freedom. You don't believe in individual rights. You don't believe in democracy. That's fine. I'm just glad I live in a country where most people don't agree with you.

[jsarno]

You're wrong on numerous points, JSARNO, some ethical and some factual. But I'll just confine myself to writing that you do not believe in freedom. You don't believe in individual rights. You don't believe in democracy. That's fine. I'm just glad I live in a country where most people don't agree with you.

You are assuming..and we all know what happens when you "assume".

I do believe in freedom and democracy...just wish we actually had it like it was meant. And the gays already had their "freedom" before the law was passed. No one has ever been stopped from having homosexual sex in their own home. So why make the law?
ps- I was not wrong about anything I said eithical or factual...you can only debate the opinions.

[jsarno]

ps- the age of heterosexual consent in New Mexico is 17...the age of male / male sex, and female / female sex is 13. Does anyone see anything wrong with that picture and think that gays aren't getting extra special rights?

[Skinzaholic]

Although it is much easier to point fingers and yell insults, the best sign of maturity is to be able to debate a point of contention by facts, not opinions.

In light of what others have written here, I want to make some points VERY clear.

1. The debate on Homsexuality/Sodomy is not new.

2. Our Nation was founded on various moral laws that everyone was "assumed" to believe in. This has only recently changed in the last 30 years, thus dictating a need for these debates.



It is amazing how the proponents of a secular government constantly point to our Founding Fathers as a starting point in their arguments. After all - wouldn't it be senseless to start somewhere else when looking at the views for our country? And yet the Founding Government of our country had views that were set in stone and constant when dealing with these situations.

Most will argue that the Founding Government is outdated, and they were wrong in what they believed...

And yet our entire legal system is based on past cases and how they were ruled when making new rulings. All of our freedoms and beliefs are based on moral values handed down from our Founding Fathers.

It is only in the last 30 - 40 years or so that this has changed...

Enlightenment?

Wisdom?

Knowledge?

Science?




Maybe we should stop making laws based on what we are feeling at the moment (or which lobby group is the loudest) and start to make laws based on the timeless moral values which not only formed our Nations fiber during it's split from England... but also knit us together through our first century.


http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=8

Read this article and see just what our first government felt about this subject in regards to the military. Notice the penalties the States were giving for sodomy (Thomas Jefferson sugested casteration!).

Some of them even refused to mention the act due to it's inhumanity.



Were they blinded by tradition?

Is it fair to assume we are right? Or could we be the ones missing the boat now?



(Im very interested in more comments guys... but as always... be nice).

[BigCountry]

I just don't see how anyone feels they have the right to tell anyone what to do. You think it's disgusting? Nobody is bonding you to a couch and forcing you to watch gay porn. It's against your religion? What if a gay couple that wants to have sex is atheist? You can't tell people what to believe. That's why this is America and not Israel.

It's their life, they can do whatever they want to. I'd suggest for everyone to live their own life and stop feeling like you have the right to tell everyone what to do with theirs. What if there is a single mom who hasn't heard from the father in years, are you gonna say she's mooching wefare or that she's lazy?

[CarMike]

I dont think anyone here is trying to tell people how to live their life. We are just stating our opinions on the matter. I could care less what a gay couple do behind their closed doors. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. Just like you said. This is America. Where its free for EVERYONE to have their own opinion on the matter. Not just the pro gay/lesbians activists.

[Skinzaholic]

CarMike... now you are hitting my main area of contention... Political Correctness has stolen free speech from all of us. No one says what they really think anymore... for fear of being labeled, they say what they think the masses want them to think.

According to the media... an overwhelming majority of Americans supprt this law and feel the homosexual lifestyle is morally alright... and yet even in our little Redskin world the lines are drawn 6-5.

On the Focas on the Family website... the poll was taken by cureently over 30,000 participants... and the odds are over 90% against the law.

Is that America?


It is starting to look like the average American's opinion isnt even wanted anymore. Instead we all sit back and watch as the media dictates our future.

[CarMike]

CarMike... now you are hitting my main area of contention... Political Correctness has stolen free speech from all of us. No one says what they really think anymore... for fear of being labeled, they say what they think the masses want them to think.

According to the media... an overwhelming majority of Americans supprt this law and feel the homosexual lifestyle is morally alright... and yet even in our little Redskin world the lines are drawn 6-5.

On the Focas on the Family website... the poll was taken by cureently over 30,000 participants... and the odds are over 90% against the law.

Is that America?


It is starting to look like the average American's opinion isnt even wanted anymore. Instead we all sit back and watch as the media dictates our future.

You're right. It seems the only people that have free speech anymore are the people that goes along with PC. If you say anything other than what is expected, you're labled a racist, homophobe, or in my case since I live in the South, a back wooded redneck.

[Skinzaholic]

CarMike... now you are hitting my main area of contention... Political Correctness has stolen free speech from all of us. No one says what they really think anymore... for fear of being labeled, they say what they think the masses want them to think.

According to the media... an overwhelming majority of Americans supprt this law and feel the homosexual lifestyle is morally alright... and yet even in our little Redskin world the lines are drawn 6-5.

On the Focas on the Family website... the poll was taken by cureently over 30,000 participants... and the odds are over 90% against the law.

Is that America?


It is starting to look like the average American's opinion isnt even wanted anymore. Instead we all sit back and watch as the media dictates our future.

You're right. It seems the only people that have free speech anymore are the people that goes along with PC. If you say anything other than what is expected, you're labled a racist, homophobe, or in my case since I live in the South, a back wooded redneck.


Maybe that is my problem then... I grew up in Arkansas.

[CarMike]

I don't see the problem Skinz..... :wink: :D

[Skins57]

I believe that no one can tell another person who they can or can not be with and I believe it is that simple. It is not for me but neither is Ford but the goverment should not tell me I can not buy a Ford, if I want to.

[BigCountry]

Carmike I know you're not racist but as far as being "labled" a homophobe, well you're against gay and lesbian marriages so.......

[CarMike]

Carmike I know you're not racist but as far as being "labled" a homophobe, well you're against gay and lesbian marriages so.......

BC, I just want you to know that that last post wasn't directed at you in any ways. I was just speaking in general.

But, I disagree just because I don't believe in homosexuals being able to be married makes me a homophobe. Doesn't "phobe" mean that you're scared? I'm not scared of gays. I'm sure I have had some gay friends in the past. And I woulnd't treat someone gay any different from someone else. I just don't agree with their life style.

BTW, I know you weren't calling me a racist. Like I said earlier, I was just speaking in general. :D

[BigCountry]

I know it wasn't directed at me. I'm a straight person who's for gay rights.... Now what were you thinking? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[CarMike]

I know it wasn't directed at me. I'm a straight person who's for gay rights.... Now what were you thinking? :lol: :lol: :lol:

LOL NOTHING!

[jsarno]

I just don't see how anyone feels they have the right to tell anyone what to do. You think it's disgusting? Nobody is bonding you to a couch and forcing you to watch gay porn. It's against your religion? What if a gay couple that wants to have sex is atheist? You can't tell people what to believe. That's why this is America and not Israel.

#1- we are told what to do all the time, they are called laws.
#2- If you THINK you have ultimate freedom, think again...we are the most free country there is, but we are not free to do whatever we wish.
#3- NO ONE here has said STOP HAVING GAY SEX!!!! Fact is, I have never heard of ONE SINGLE case of a cop crashing into a house to stop two gay people from having sex. So why was it a big deal to pass the law?? PUBLICITY. This was not about gay rights...this was about getting special treatment...I don't hear those same people trying to get the laws off the books that say males can't have anal sex with females. I don't hear the heterosexuals crying about it either...because they are going to do it in the privacy of thier own home regardless...just like the gays did.
ps- if they were to try to stop gay sex (before this ruling) in their own home, they would have to get a court order and go through the legal process before they could bust in and stop the act.
This whole ruling was a formality for something that was never enforced, so you need to ask yourself why bother in the first place?

[rskinsfan10]

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but I have to correct something in the previous post.

Actually jsarno, all of this seems to stem from the police in Texas busting into a house and arresting a gay couple who were indeed having sex in the privacy of their own home.

[jsarno]

I believe that no one can tell another person who they can or can not be with and I believe it is that simple. It is not for me but neither is Ford but the goverment should not tell me I can not buy a Ford, if I want to.

Then I suppose you're against the age of consent laws?

Laws are about protection...if Ford made vehicles that damaged you each time you drove them, they would put Ford out of business. (not to mention all the law suits) You can't compare the two.

I think a comparison to drugs can be made here. Male / Male sex is damaging to the male recieving the sex, there is no question, and no dispute. So why aren't drugs legal? If I CHOOSE to take them, it's my choice!!!! If I want to damage my own body, why should any one tell me not to? So drug laws infringe on our "rights" and "freedoms" too don't they?
Laws are made to protect those that don't know any better. Those people that take drugs are not thinking correctly and or do not understand the risks, or don't care. That's why the laws are in place. Same goes for a gay couple.
Now lesbians...that's a different story...hell, we GLORIFY lesbianism in America...is it even possible to watch a porno without seeing some woman on woman action????? If I cop did happen to walk in on female / female sex, he'd want to join in, not stop it.
So again the question comes down to why bother at all. (I've already answered this but others have not) If they were doing it anyway, why make a point to makes the law disappear?
Still no on has answered why the heterosexual age of consent is 17, but the male / male, and female / female sex age of consent is at a meezly 13. How does that make sense?

[jsarno]

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but I have to correct something in the previous post.

Actually jsarno, all of this seems to stem from the police in Texas busting into a house and arresting a gay couple who were indeed having sex in the privacy of their own home.

GET OUT!!!
Do you have a link for that. (I'm laughing my a$$ off over here thinking about to stop such a thing...hahaha...hey you...stop humping that!!!) :lol:

I'd like to read about that...it's the first time I heard it, and my initial reaction is that they were busting in to stop something else, not the gay sex...but hey, you never know. Those Texans can live in their own country some times.
Please provide a link to this somewhere, I'd love to read it. :lol:

[rskinsfan10]

I cannot provide a link, but after the ruling broke I saw on several newscast a file video of a black guy and a white guy that they were saying were lovers, and that the neighbor called and complained about their relationship, hence the police forcefully entering their home and catching them in the act. It happened in Texas, and that is why the Texas law that was in the books was the target of this ruling.

[CarMike]

I cannot provide a link, but after the ruling broke I saw on several newscast a file video of a black guy and a white guy that they were saying were lovers, and that the neighbor called and complained about their relationship, hence the police forcefully entering their home and catching them in the act. It happened in Texas, and that is why the Texas law that was in the books was the target of this ruling.

Very interesting Kenny. I've never heard of that either. While I'm not for gay loving, or what ever you want to call it, that isn't right. I don't agree with their life style but what they do behind their door is up to them......

[TexSkin]

He is right...what happended is this all started because a disgruntled neighbor decided to mess with the gays that lived next door to him. He called the police and told them that he thought someone was breaking into the apartment next door. The police wentto the adress and heard noises coming from inside. They thought it was a theif so they busted down the door. What they found instead was 2 guys having sex. They arrested them on a very old law in Texas called the Sodomy Law. It was appealed all the way to the supreme court and walaa thats what we have today. Waht funny is the neighbor did this probably because he hated gays. Well he got them arrested alright then because of him the whole law got thrown out. Kinda ironic isn't it. :D

[CarMike]

Very interesting. Thanks to rskinsfan10 and TexSkin for bringing to light. I had no idea this ever happened. Like I said earlier. I don't believe in that life style. But, at the same time, I believe that if you're home in the privacy of your own home, this kind of police behavior is uncalled for.

[BigCountry]

I never said I had total freedom and I never implied so I have no idea where you plucked that from. All I said was that no PERSON has the RIGHT to tell someone else what to do according to his or her PERSONALL belief. Laws don't do that.

[Spence]

Originally posted by CarMike
[quote="Skinzaholic"][b]On the Focas on the Family website... the poll was taken by cureently over 30,000 participants... and the odds are over 90% against the law.

Is that America?

"Focus on the Family" is a show run by Reverend James Dobson, the so-called "800 pound gorilla" of the Christian Right. He loathes homosexuals. Quoting that source about this issue is like quoting the Gay and Lesbian Alliance about this issue.

From what I can tell, Americans tend to be conflicted on this issue. While younger Americans are much more tolerant of homosexuals than their parents, the country as a whole tends to disapprove of homosexuality. On the other hand, the public also tends to disapprove of government telling people what to do in their own bedrooms.

[Spence]

The Supreme Court case overruled was called Bowers v. Hardwick. In that case, the police officer who arrested two Georgia men for having homosexual intercourse claimed to be investigating an unrelated matter, but it later emerged, after the case was decided, that he knew one of the two men was gay and staked out his house hoping to arrest him for sodomy.

This isn't exactly uncommon. Harassment of homosexuals is nothing new. For example, a former D.C. Chief of Police used to park outside gay bars, photograph men who went in and out, and then blackmail the ones who were desperate to remain in the closet.

[CarMike]

Originally posted by Spence
the country as a whole tends to disapprove of homosexuality. On the other hand, the public also tends to disapprove of government telling people what to do in their own bedrooms.

Excellent point Spence. Thats pretty much how I feel.

[Spence]

I just thought I'd point out that political correctness goes both ways. Those of us who'd vote for a dead camel before we'd vote for George W Bush have spent the last 18 months being told we're traitors and flag-burners if we don't agree with everything he says and does. And some of us are pretty damn tired of it.

By the way, here is a definition of homophobia:

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
Date: 1969
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
- ho·mo·pho·bic /-'fO-bik/ adjective

[Spence]

Originally posted by CarMike
Excellent point Spence. Thats pretty much how I feel.

And this is what I have no problem with. We all disapprove of things other people do. It's part of being human. The question is how far we will go to ensure other people behave as we would like them to.

For example, I disapprove of people who like the Dallas Cowboys, but I'm not prepared to support government intrusions into their homes in order to force them to...Wait. Scratch that. Bad example. :D

[PennSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Spence
And this is what I have no problem with. We all disapprove of things other people do. It's part of being human. The question is how far we will go to ensure other people behave as we would like them to.

For example, I disapprove of people who like the Dallas Cowboys, but I'm not prepared to support government intrusions into their homes in order to force them to...Wait. Scratch that. Bad example. :D

Gald you stopped yourself. You were treading in very dangerous waters pal!:smash:

[dj_stouty]

I have no problems with Gay people. In fact, I have two good friends that are Gay. (and maybe a third...but the jury is still out on him, if you know what I mean:D) Its not my cup of tea...but it is for them. Their sexual preference isn't hurting anyone, so why make it illegal.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dj_stouty
I have no problems with Gay people. In fact, I have two good friends that are Gay. (and maybe a third...but the jury is still out on him, if you know what I mean:D) Its not my cup of tea...but it is for them. Their sexual preference isn't hurting anyone, so why make it illegal.


Because then where would it stop??? If they are willing to make a law saying it's ok to perform unnatural / unchristianly acts, why not make get rid of other laws. Like adultery laws, or the laws that state you can only be married to one woman. Why not two women, or 10 women? It's my life right?
Fact is, those laws were on the books for a reason, if they are going to change this one, I want them to go back and change every law that is what we are calling "outdated". No preferential treatment because of P.C.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by PennSkinsFan
Gald you stopped yourself. You were treading in very dangerous waters pal!:smash:

:D :D :D

[Spence]

Originally posted by jsarno
Because then where would it stop??? If they are willing to make a law saying it's ok to perform unnatural / unchristianly acts, why not make get rid of other laws. Like adultery laws, or the laws that state you can only be married to one woman. Why not two women, or 10 women? It's my life right?
Fact is, those laws were on the books for a reason, if they are going to change this one, I want them to go back and change every law that is what we are calling "outdated". No preferential treatment because of P.C.

No federal law has been passed to make sodomy legal. What the Supreme Court did was decide that states may not regulate the private sexual behavior of consenting adults. That applies to heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals. The ruling is not gay-specific. Laws prohibiting heterosexual sodomy have also been struck down by last week's ruling.

Adultery laws have already been written off the books in many states. The Supreme Court has not issued a ruling striking them all down because no appropriate case has come before them. The Supreme Court cannot issue statements making certain laws unconstitutional, it must wait for an actual "case or controversy." In other words, a case about the constitutionality of adultery laws must come before the Supreme Court before the Court can rule on them. No adultery case has come to the Court because those laws are never enforced any more. The reason they are never enforced any more is that the would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional and because the first judge to get the case would probably throw it out and lecture the district attorney about wasting time and money in the judicial system.

As for writing other outdated laws off the books, that's just fine with me. Legislatures generally don't bother to do it because it seems like a waste of their time to do away with laws that are never being used any way.

I'd also point out that of the six justices who struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional last week, four were appointed by Republican presidents: Stevens (Ford), O'Connor (Reagan), Kennedy (Reagan), Souter (Bush), Ginsburg (Clinton), and Breyer (Clinton). In other words, this decision could never have been made without the votes of justices appointed to the bench by Republican presidents.

This has nothing to do with being politically correct. It has to do with what powers the government may have. The decision was written by Justice Kennedy. I've never heard anyone describe him as "politically correct" before.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Spence
"Focus on the Family" is a show run by Reverend James Dobson, the so-called "800 pound gorilla" of the Christian Right. He loathes homosexuals. Quoting that source about this issue is like quoting the Gay and Lesbian Alliance about this issue.

From what I can tell, Americans tend to be conflicted on this issue. While younger Americans are much more tolerant of homosexuals than their parents, the country as a whole tends to disapprove of homosexuality. On the other hand, the public also tends to disapprove of government telling people what to do in their own bedrooms.


My reason for stating this quote wasnt to promote Focus on the Family. It was to show the very point I have been stressing from the beginning... that the media is dictating our thoughts and labeling those who disagree as "Politically Incorrect". That is wrong. According to MSNBC (liberal)... 65% of the nation feels Homosexual Relationships and their preferred forms of intimay are ok. I think this was a biased report.

It is easy to attack or discredit an organization which differs from what we may personally think... and yet isnt that "politically incorrect" as well. It is amazing the TOLERANCE only goes one way with most liberals.

Whether someone feels Homosexual Relationships are wrong or not will never be decided in the courts... but... it is wrong for the courts to force a society to accept certain practices against their will if the offended parties have certain religous beliefs. Isnt that what we all claim Thomas Jefferson meant by 'Seperation of Church and State"?

As this total discussion has proved... our nation (and this forum board) are divided when it comes to Homosexual Relationships. Therefore, is it fair for the courts to impose these beliefs on us?

3 of the 9 justices disagreed with this ruling for that reason. They were not saying they were against Homosexuals (as the liberal media wants us to believe), but that it was wrong to change a belief that has been a part of American culture and law for over 200 years.

Sodomy is a damaging practice which brings destruction to the human body. That reason alone makes it wrong (otherwise we should make all drugs legal... as well as many other practices most cults do in "private").

Perhaps if there were a way to honestly poll the nation we would find the truth... that MOST Americans do acknowledge that certain acts are wrong for a civil society. Then we could all stop being force fed by the media and truley develop a free nation.



Thanks for all of the input guys.:)

[BigCountry]

What does adultry have to do with gay relationships? I'm sure there are many gay couples that are loyal, and straight couples that are cheating and visa versa. Sexual preferance is non of anyone's bussines. Besides, what are gay people gonna do if those relationships are banned? live alone or not have sex? If nobody can tell you not to marry or have sex, then nobody can tell that to people with a differant sexual preferance.

[TexSkin]

Ok guys lets keep this one civil and don't get to personal on other peoples beliefs. Or I will lock this thread. Muahaha I always wanted to say that!!! :twak: :smash:

[PennSkinsFan]

Originally posted by TexSkin
Ok guys lets keep this one civil and don't get to personal on other peoples beliefs. Or I will lock this thread. Muahaha I always wanted to say that!!! :twak: :smash:

Is this getting too personal http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/sauer/angry-smiley-002.gif










Just kidding pal http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/lachen/laughing-smiley-007.gif

[BigCountry]

Maybe there's a good reason for that Penn ;) Just to make it clear, I respect all of your sexual prefferances but my heart belongs to a girl. Just to let you know.... :D :D :D

[TexSkin]

OOOHH you will pay for that!!! :moon1: :banhim:

[jsarno]

Originally posted by TexSkin
Ok guys lets keep this one civil and don't get to personal on other peoples beliefs. Or I will lock this thread. Muahaha I always wanted to say that!!!


Yes sir...sorry sir!:honor:


:lolbig:


:moon1: :moon2: :moon1: :moon2:

[dukeuch]

As this total discussion has proved... our nation (and this forum board) are divided when it comes to Homosexual Relationships. Therefore, is it fair for the courts to impose these beliefs on us?

3 of the 9 justices disagreed with this ruling for that reason. They were not saying they were against Homosexuals (as the liberal media wants us to believe), but that it was wrong to change a belief that has been a part of American culture and law for over 200 years.

Sodomy is a damaging practice which brings destruction to the human body. That reason alone makes it wrong (otherwise we should make all drugs legal... as well as many other practices most cults do in "private").

Whoa: How is the court imposing any kind of beliefs on anyone with this decision? What seems to be lost on most of the respondants here is that the Bowens v. Hardwick case did not uphold the states sodomy laws specific to homosexuals, but ALL sodomy.

By the way, I am sure you know that sodomy includes oral sex. As a matter of fact, the charge against Bowers which resulted in the Bowers v. Hardwick decision was for oral sex. Do you think oral sex is so destructive to the human body that there should be a law against it?

How about it boys and girls, want oral sex to be illegal?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by dukeuch
As this total discussion has proved... our nation (and this forum board) are divided when it comes to Homosexual Relationships. Therefore, is it fair for the courts to impose these beliefs on us?

3 of the 9 justices disagreed with this ruling for that reason. They were not saying they were against Homosexuals (as the liberal media wants us to believe), but that it was wrong to change a belief that has been a part of American culture and law for over 200 years.

Sodomy is a damaging practice which brings destruction to the human body. That reason alone makes it wrong (otherwise we should make all drugs legal... as well as many other practices most cults do in "private").

Whoa: How is the court imposing any kind of beliefs on anyone with this decision? What seems to be lost on most of the respondants here is that the Bowens v. Hardwick case did not uphold the states sodomy laws specific to homosexuals, but ALL sodomy.

By the way, I am sure you know that sodomy includes oral sex. As a matter of fact, the charge against Bowers which resulted in the Bowers v. Hardwick decision was for oral sex. Do you think oral sex is so destructive to the human body that there should be a law against it?

How about it boys and girls, want oral sex to be illegal?

Screwed this one up. It is intended to be a response to earlier post, my reply starting with "Whoa..."

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Do you think oral sex is so destructive to the human body that there should be a law against it?

How about it boys and girls, want oral sex to be illegal?

you're missing the point. To me if a gay guy wants to pop a gay guy, to each his own...said this several times.
No one is really looking at the repercussions this could have. From law making to spreading AIDS to "helping" your child "experiment" with gay sex.

Only gay people do not see gay sex as wrong. They obviously want to partake in an act that is against all nature. If we were ALL gay, the world would not exist, but I'm sure you're aware of that. So why should we not keep someone from doing a dumb thing? Isn't that what laws are for?

ps- some laws were put on the books for stuffed shirts with law making ability. To compare a guy giving a guy head, and a girl giving a guy head...well let's just say there is no comparison.

I have trouble seeing why all of this is even an issue...what is wrong is wrong. Don't gray it up with PC.

[BigCountry]

It's not wrong because it's differant from what you do. Nobody chooses to be gay, it's nature. To me narrow mindedness is a worse then being gay. I'd be upset with any child of mine for saying things like these before I I'm upset with him or her for being gay, which I'll never do.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by BigCountry
It's not wrong because it's differant from what you do. Nobody chooses to be gay, it's nature. To me narrow mindedness is a worse then being gay. I'd be upset with any child of mine for saying things like these before I I'm upset with him or her for being gay, which I'll never do.

Ok bud...whatever. It being wrong really isn't up for debate. Mother nature is the authority on that.
If you really think nobody chooses to be Gay you have some learning to do.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be MORE narrow minded to just agree with urges than to understand how life is created and how things are supposed to be done???? SOunds like being gay is more narrow minded.

[BigCountry]

According to who? What if someone told you to ignore your urges of wanting a woman. Would it be narrow minded of you to go with those urges...?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by BigCountry
According to who? What if someone told you to ignore your urges of wanting a woman. Would it be narrow minded of you to go with those urges...?

HAHAHA...I DO! I have a wife, she's the only one I use my urges on. But "urges" still exist when you see a beautiful woman. Yet you still missed the point. Mother nature made a man "exit only". Not exit occasionally.
Am I going to have to break open an anatomy class here??? This stuff you learn when you're 2.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
you're missing the point. To me if a gay guy wants to pop a gay guy, to each his own...said this several times.
No one is really looking at the repercussions this could have. From law making to spreading AIDS to "helping" your child "experiment" with gay sex.

Only gay people do not see gay sex as wrong. They obviously want to partake in an act that is against all nature. If we were ALL gay, the world would not exist, but I'm sure you're aware of that. So why should we not keep someone from doing a dumb thing? Isn't that what laws are for?

ps- some laws were put on the books for stuffed shirts with law making ability. To compare a guy giving a guy head, and a girl giving a guy head...well let's just say there is no comparison.

I have trouble seeing why all of this is even an issue...what is wrong is wrong. Don't gray it up with PC.

How am I missing the point? In an earlier post, you said "Sodomy is a damaging practice which brings destruction to the human body. That reason alone makes it wrong ". Well, oral sex is sodomy. I think neither of us believe oral sex is particulary damaging to the human body (although beer goggles can render it extremely destructive to the ego upon daybreak) rendering your "...for that reason alone..." arguement mute. You against hetero anal sex, hetero oral sex?

The biggest problem with much of this thread is characterizing the decision as "the supreme court makes gay sex ok" is a tremendous and incorrect simplification. That would be like saying that opposing gun control laws (which I support) equates to making it ok for criminals to have guns. The decision supports the repeal of sodomy laws, homo or hetero. Your point that the similarity between guy/guy head and girl/guy head is out of context as it relates to this law.

I respect your opinion (a terribly politically correct thing to do) and you are welcome to your view, but if based on your religious beliefs, say so. You appear to want it both ways, saying it is government's laws mirroring nature's laws. Another simplification. In nature, it is the rare exception that animals of a particular species have just one mate. Nature usually calls for a species to thrive by the biggest, strongest males mating as often as possible with as many females as possible. So by your way of thinking, if government laws should coincide with nature's laws, marriage, or the concept of having just one mate, should be illegal. I am sure your Christian beliefs do not support nature's laws in such a case. Man is a thinking creature, hence the concept of marriage (which I support) was created. Sometimes his creations or beliefs circumvent to a certain degree, nature (not to be confused with the laws of nature, like gravity).

Personally, I do not understand homosexual sex, and the thought of it makes me queasy. How a guy can find another guys hairy ass attractive is beyond me. Hell, I think we are lucky that women find us attractive. But other people think differently, perhaps against "the laws of nature" for whatever reason. If they are not hurting anyone else, what's the problem?

And please, do not chracterize this as a blow to protecting children, or spreading aids. There are laws which protect minors from any kind of sexual predation, and I am sure you are aware that the vast majority of sexual abuse is of a heterosexual nature, that the spread of aids is due to unprotected sex, both homsexual and heterosexual (see Africa, where as I understand it, the rampant spread of Aids is primarily due to unprotected, heterosexual sex).

Lastly (finally) if you truely believe to each his own, I must assume that you mean this in the context of consenting adults. If so, then why in the world would it be necessary to have a law preventing those from practicing "his own"?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
How am I missing the point? In an earlier post, you said "Sodomy is a damaging practice which brings destruction to the human body. That reason alone makes it wrong ". Well, oral sex is sodomy. I think neither of us believe oral sex is particulary damaging to the human body (although beer goggles can render it extremely destructive to the ego upon daybreak) rendering your "...for that reason alone..." arguement mute. You against hetero anal sex, hetero oral sex?

If you follow my responses, then you'll realize that you're asking questions I pretty much already answered in some form. For instance, ORAL sex can not damage anyone (please do not try to make extreme cases to say it is damaging), so oral sex should not be illegal. Oral sex between a man and man I have not touched upon, but actual anal sex. It should have been pretty clear I was referring to anal sex. Do I think anal sex between male / female should be illegal....YES, because it is damaging. If people chose to do so in the privacy of their own home, then so be it. Just like gays...I could care less if they do, but making a law like this legal does nothing but send the wrong idea.

The biggest problem with much of this thread is characterizing the decision as "the supreme court makes gay sex ok" is a tremendous and incorrect simplification. That would be like saying that opposing gun control laws (which I support) equates to making it ok for criminals to have guns. The decision supports the repeal of sodomy laws, homo or hetero. Your point that the similarity between guy/guy head and girl/guy head is out of context as it relates to this law.

You are incorrect, the hetero population is not jumping for joy that now they can have oral sex. The GAY community is however. That's what the subject is about. This is about gay sex and you waste responses by making it about something else. This will be the last time I respond to such a crazy notion. I am speaking of gay sex, and we all know this.

I respect your opinion (a terribly politically correct thing to do) and you are welcome to your view, but if based on your religious beliefs, say so.

I have said so for one...but I understand people don't have my same beliefs so I refer to nature.
Believe it or not, I respect your opinion too. I have no problem with people expressing thier opinions, it's our right. It's when the opinions are mixed or interpreted as fact that we have a problem. For instance, saying I don't like gay sex, that's an opinion. But saying it is wrong by nature's standards and our bodies were not made for that, that is FACT.

You appear to want it both ways, saying it is government's laws mirroring nature's laws. Another simplification. In nature, it is the rare exception that animals of a particular species have just one mate. Nature usually calls for a species to thrive by the biggest, strongest males mating as often as possible with as many females as possible. So by your way of thinking, if government laws should coincide with nature's laws, marriage, or the concept of having just one mate, should be illegal. I am sure your Christian beliefs do not support nature's laws in such a case. Man is a thinking creature, hence the concept of marriage (which I support) was created. Sometimes his creations or beliefs circumvent to a certain degree, nature (not to be confused with the laws of nature, like gravity).
It's more than a simplification it's assuming. Fact is, no animal has laws against them. They do not have the brain power we do. Also, mammals (humans, dolphins, whales etc) DO INDEED hold one mate for the most part.
When I was saying "nature" I was referring to how we were built by nature...what the human body was built for. I apologize that wasn't as clear. However if you do go back, I did say if we can make GAY sex legal, why not get rid of marriage laws etc. We can live in chaos, it's all coming eventually. (that's sarcasm) If you think I'm way off base, take a time machine back even 30 years ago and ask what people would think about gay sex being legal. Somewhere we'll come up with the notion that marriage is not "free" enough, and we will be able to marry more than one, or abolish marriage all together. If we can make gay sex legal, that can most certainly happen. Hope it doesn't.

Personally, I do not understand homosexual sex, and the thought of it makes me queasy. How a guy can find another guys hairy ass attractive is beyond me. Hell, I think we are lucky that women find us attractive. But other people think differently, perhaps against "the laws of nature" for whatever reason. If they are not hurting anyone else, what's the problem?

They are hurting one another, there doesn't need to be "others". Our laws protect us from ourselves in many cases, and this is not protecting the people that don't know any better or care. There has to be lines in laws and reflect other laws...in this case a line was crossed.

And please, do not chracterize this as a blow to protecting children, or spreading aids.

Just imagine how sexual education classes are going to change!!

If so, then why in the world would it be necessary to have a law preventing those from practicing "his own"?

again...protection. I don't know what world you live in, but I live in a world that prevents me (or anyone) from doing whatever the hell I want regardless if it's right or not. I like those laws because they protect every one.
But again...if a man wants to sin behind closed doors regardless if it is adultery or gay sex,that's his choice. We have to keep the laws in perspective, and this is doing nothing but opening the wrong door. Anywho...hopefully I am dead before I see the chaos that is coming. I cringe when I think of how pissed off God is getting. I hope I'm on His good side.

[dukeuch]

JS:

Love debating with you, so I don't want you to feel as if I'm attacking, just have the Jones for a good argument.

That said:

Remember, the ruling does not say it is ok to have anal sex, or homosexual sex, it says it is not ok for a state to have a law preventing such activity. This is not just semantics, there is an important difference; the former condones the activity and the latter says, in effect, "to each his own", which you profess to think is ok.

Can't figure out how to establish the quotes on specific parts of your post (would like to have you explain how) so let me just respond to a couple of things you say:

It is simply innacurate to say most mammals have one partner. I know some do, but am not sure that even your examples of whales and porpoises meet the test. I'll give them to you for the sake of argument, but could name ten for each of your one example whole mate freely and often. Think of just about every National Geographic special you have seen about social mammals fighting for the right to be the alpha male for the right to breed with the females in the herd, pride, whatever.

Concerning God being pissed, you talking about Vishnu, Buddha, Allah, Thor, Jerry Garcia, who?

Don't snap your cap, just trying to keep things lively.

[Spence]

JSARNO, you don't know what is against Nature. This constant refrain that gay sex violates nature is absurd. How do you know this? By reading the Bible? I hope you've got something better than that because I can refer you to any number of clergymen and women who disagree vehemently. People who claim to speak for Nature are like people who claim to speak for God. I never trust them unless they show me their letter of reference from the Man upstairs.

The Supreme Court did not rule that gay sex is "okay." The Supreme Court is never called upon to make judgments of that sort about any matter. What the Supreme Court ruled was that laws prohibiting sex between consenting adults are unconstitutional. That's it. Nothing more.

By the way, oral sex can damage people. Any sex that involves the transfer of bodily fluids can transfer, for example, a sexually transmitted disease. People can and do transmit AIDS and other diseases through oral sex. In Africa, AIDS is almost entirely a heterosexual disease now, transmitted through vaginal, anal, and oral sexual contact.

The point of these anti-gay sodomy laws isn't really to prevent gay sodomy. The laws don't prevent any gay sodomy at all. Gay sodomy goes on all the time in every city and town in this country. The law is unenforceable. Those laws exist only to harass homosexuals and make them feel marginalized from society. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws that harass and marginalize consenting adults for their sexual proclivities are unconstitutional. Good for them.

[Spence]

I thought people might be interested in this story (http://salon.com/tech/wire/2003/07/02/walmart/index.html) about how Wal-Mart has now developed a non-discrimination policy towards homosexuals. Here is an important fact from the story:

"The change means nine of the 10 largest Fortune 500 companies now have rules prohibiting discrimination against gay employees, according to the Human Rights Campaign. The one exception is the Exxon Mobil Corp."

This is one reason your side is losing this fight, JSARNO. And it is one big reason you're going to continue to lose it until the fight is over in a rout. Corporate America is against you. The Republican party loves to go on about defending "traditional values" [by which they mean whatever the religious right wants at the moment], but the GOP's allies in big business are going the other way completely. Why? It's good for business. These companies don't want to be boycotted and they want to attract the best employees possible.

The religious right-wingers like to rail against Disney, but that's only because Disney is a prominent media company. Almost all big businesses in America have policies protecting gays now. And just about every law firm of any size [and most small ones, too] have policies protecting gays from discrimination. I used to work for a very conservative law firm and it had very generous policies towards gays, including benefits for their partners. Why? Because the firm had several gay employees, including one partner. Those employees were productive and valuable and the firm wanted to retain them and attract more like them--gay or not.

You see, when more and more people meet uncloseted gays at work and get to know them as people, it becomes much more difficult to hold on to the bigotry they've been taught at home or in church. Corporate America is a key ally of homosexual rights in this country and that's critical because the Democratic party favors gay rights in general and the Republican party favors whatever big business tells them to favor. However much the GOP rails against gays and gay rights in public, in private they are being funded by companies that have advanced some of the most gay-friendly policies in the world.

The outcome of this battle has already been determined, JSARNO. Your side is going to lose. The only question is how long it will take.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
JS:
Love debating with you, so I don't want you to feel as if I'm attacking, just have the Jones for a good argument.

I don't take anything personally...I argue for a living, so I may come across stronger than I mean to.

That said:
Remember, the ruling does not say it is ok to have anal sex, or homosexual sex, it says it is not ok for a state to have a law preventing such activity. This is not just semantics, there is an important difference; the former condones the activity and the latter says, in effect, "to each his own", which you profess to think is ok.

I'm afraid I don't agree. That ruling means the states have to abolish the gay sex laws, which in turn makes it OK. Condones it even.
I'm saying to each his own whether they break the law or not as long as it doesn't affect others. But believe it or not, and this is a reach of sorts...if a man tears a man's anus (there are many viens etc in there) and the man has to go to the hospital, then his insurance pays to get him "fixed" (the less of a stretch would be the medication needed to fix samanilla (or something like that) poisoning you get from anal sex. Granted you don't get it EVERY time, but this happens often.). So now my insurance premiums go up because of gay sex. I brought this up for a reason, because this is the same excuse used to say that everybody needs to wear seatbelts. Why should the government tell us to wear a seat belt??? It's our choice to wear one or not right? So why is it illegal NOT to wear one? PROTECTION...the government protcts us from ourselves. I don't agree with seatbelt laws personally, but the laws we have are not consistant. If we'regoing to leave our own protection up to us, then that need to be across the board...not make special laws because of PC.

Can't figure out how to establish the quotes on specific parts of your post (would like to have you explain how) so let me just respond to a couple of things you say:

This is going to be difficult to explain, but I'll domy best. When you want to quote a particular section you have to use the quotation bracket [ then write what you want, for instance if you want to "quote" it, then you write quote, or if you want to bold it, then you just write a "b", or if you want to italisize it then you use an "i". Then use the other side of the bracket like this ] . Now that on the front side of the quote...on the back side of the quote, you do the exact same thing exept you use this / in front of the quote like this, /quote. Or the bold or whatever you used. Try that..hopefully I explained it ok.

It is simply innacurate to say most mammals have one partner. I know some do, but am not sure that even your examples of whales and porpoises meet the test. I'll give them to you for the sake of argument, but could name ten for each of your one example whole mate freely and often. Think of just about every National Geographic special you have seen about social mammals fighting for the right to be the alpha male for the right to breed with the females in the herd, pride, whatever.
This really is off the subject like I explained though. I was referring to the body as I already said.
However, I used Dolphins and Whales because they are closest to humans in terms of brain waves. (you can look it up, they do mate for life, I'm an avid discovery channel viewer.)
Humans are separated from the animal kingdom by many different features. If we are going to compare ourselves to animals (this as your doing, not mine as explained) then we can rape, and steal etc.
As I explained, Mother Nature intended a man to be with a woman, and built us that way. There is no getting around that. I seriously would not be harping about this if the anus was built for entry / sex.
I'll play the procreation card again as well. If the whole world was gay, there would no longer be humans roaming this planet.

Concerning God being pissed, you talking about Vishnu, Buddha, Allah, Thor, Jerry Garcia, who?

Jerry Garcia would probably be a tad more south :lol: (not that I know that for sure)
As a Christian, there is only one God...the almighty, the original. If I was talking about Buhda or allah I would have said so.

Don't snap your cap, just trying to keep things lively.
Never heard that expression before. But I was getting ready to "snap my cap" before you said don't! :lol:

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
I thought people might be interested in this story (http://salon.com/tech/wire/2003/07/02/walmart/index.html) about how Wal-Mart has now developed a non-discrimination policy towards homosexuals. Here is an important fact from the story:

"The change means nine of the 10 largest Fortune 500 companies now have rules prohibiting discrimination against gay employees, according to the Human Rights Campaign. The one exception is the Exxon Mobil Corp."

This is one reason your side is losing this fight, JSARNO. And it is one big reason you're going to continue to lose it until the fight is over in a rout. Corporate America is against you.

Actually, you are incorrect to a point. It's about being politically correct. The reason? Well, there are discrimination rules in place at ALL of those businesses. You can't even compliment a woman's clothing (sexual harrassment) if she doesn't welcome the comment. So the problem was rules not being enforced, and now the gays are being singled out and given extra preference. Doesn't sound like equality to me.

The outcome of this battle has already been determined, JSARNO. Your side is going to lose. The only question is how long it will take.

I already know that. PC is taking over the world and we no longer can use our heads to make laws / rules. We're getting to a point where we can't even call a man black. We're too busy trying to be politically correct, and not busy enough making laws that protect us.
Oh well...I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I can see the demise heading this way, and I have my faith to cling to. There is a lot worse coming some day, just read the book of Revelation. (on a side note, that's the name of my softball team who went 26-2 last year, and is 10-0 this year...I made up the name for the team, and now everyone loves it)

[TexSkin]

I can just feel the love in this thread! :banghead:

[jsarno]

Originally posted by TexSkin
I can just feel the love in this thread! :banghead:


Are you sure it's just in this thread, and you can't "feel the love" it elsewhere???? :lol1:

:kidding:

:Peace:

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
I don't take anything personally...I argue for a living, so I may come across stronger than I mean to.

[b]

I'm afraid I don't agree. That ruling means the states have to abolish the gay sex laws, which in turn makes it OK. Condones it even.
I'm saying to each his own whether they break the law or not as long as it doesn't affect others. But believe it or not, and this is a reach of sorts...if a man tears a man's anus (there are many viens etc in there) and the man has to go to the hospital, then his insurance pays to get him "fixed" (the less of a stretch would be the medication needed to fix samanilla (or something like that) poisoning you get from anal sex. Granted you don't get it EVERY time, but this happens often.). So now my insurance premiums go up because of gay sex. I brought this up for a reason, because this is the same excuse used to say that everybody needs to wear seatbelts. Why should the government tell us to wear a seat belt??? It's our choice to wear one or not right? So why is it illegal NOT to wear one? PROTECTION...the government protcts us from ourselves. I don't agree with seatbelt laws personally, but the laws we have are not consistant. If we'regoing to leave our own protection up to us, then that need to be across the board...not make special laws because of PC.

[b]

This is going to be difficult to explain, but I'll domy best. When you want to quote a particular section you have to use the quotation bracket [ then write what you want, for instance if you want to "quote" it, then you write quote, or if you want to bold it, then you just write a "b", or if you want to italisize it then you use an "i". Then use the other side of the bracket like this ] . Now that on the front side of the quote...on the back side of the quote, you do the exact same thing exept you use this / in front of the quote like this, /quote. Or the bold or whatever you used. Try that..hopefully I explained it ok.

[b]
This really is off the subject like I explained though. I was referring to the body as I already said.
However, I used Dolphins and Whales because they are closest to humans in terms of brain waves. (you can look it up, they do mate for life, I'm an avid discovery channel viewer.)
Humans are separated from the animal kingdom by many different features. If we are going to compare ourselves to animals (this as your doing, not mine as explained) then we can rape, and steal etc.
As I explained, Mother Nature intended a man to be with a woman, and built us that way. There is no getting around that. I seriously would not be harping about this if the anus was built for entry / sex.
I'll play the procreation card again as well. If the whole world was gay, there would no longer be humans roaming this planet.

[b]

Jerry Garcia would probably be a tad more south :lol: (not that I know that for sure)
As a Christian, there is only one God...the almighty, the original. If I was talking about Buhda or allah I would have said so.

[b]
Never heard that expression before. But I was getting ready to "snap my cap" before you said don't! :lol:

Hell, I still can't figure out this quote thing. Can't spend much more time on this, but I will say that there will be times when government does indeed need to protect us from ourselves. In my opinion, though, those times should be limited to cases of direct threat or by way of regulations which are of very minor inconvenience which have big benefits (face it, how inconveninet is it to wear a seatbelt?). Even some moral codes should be legislated when actions are likely to harm another party, especially a non-consenting party. This does not meet that test. There are already laws against a homosexual, or anyone, from engaging in non-consensual sexual activity, or sexual activity with a minor. Consensual homosexual sex just does not meet the test.

Finally, while not directly addressing any of your arguements, consider what the brilliant legal mind of Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissenting opinion, regarding why the law did not discriminate against homosexuals: "men and women, homosexual and heteosexual, are all subject to its proihibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex." (He really did say this). Huh? Would that be like saying nobody should be a lesbian, including men?

These are the words of a deperate judge trying to justify imposing personal, religious beliefs on the public, rather than applying and interpreting the Consitution. I am all for freedom of religion, but vehemently supportive of the seperation of church and state.