|
wjca
Apr 20, 2006, 3:06 PM
Post #227 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: I have a dud kidney. ...I'll not be able to enjoy alcohol for much longer. It won't kill me, ...
Sorry to hear about that. But the no alcohol thing sucks and it might kill you. You're Scottish, right? Who ever heard of a sober soccer hooligan?
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Apr 20, 2006, 3:08 PM
Post #229 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: I said we should eliminate things which stop them from having options.
Such as drafting legislation that inherently discriminates against people for being gay and wanting to marry?
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Apr 20, 2006, 3:15 PM
Post #230 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
In reply to: In reply to: Shriek! Squeal! I didn't say anything about eliminating options people have. I said we should eliminate things which stop them from having options.
So what about the sodomy laws. Should they be removed?
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Apr 20, 2006, 3:23 PM
Post #233 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
In reply to: In reply to: So what about the sodomy laws. Should they be removed? What are they? There's no such thing where I live.
Historically you had them in Scotland until recently. But see how laws about sexuality can evolve and become more enlightened? Why not marriage too? Or maybe you think sodomy laws should be reinstated?
From Wikepedia:
In reply to: United Kingdom The UK has historically had similar laws, but the offence is known as buggery, not sodomy, and is usually interpreted as referring to anal intercourse between two males or a male and a female. Buggery was made a felony by the Buggery Act in 1533, during the reign of Henry VIII. In 1885, Parliament enacted the Labouchere Amendment [4], which prohibited gross indecency between males, a broad term that was understood to encompass most or all male homosexual acts. It was under this law that Oscar Wilde was convicted and imprisoned. Following the Wolfenden report, sexual acts between two adult males, with no other people present, were made legal in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982. In the 1980s and 1990s, attempts were made by gay rights organizations to equalize the age of consent for heterosexuals and homosexuals, as the age of consent for homosexuals was set at 21, while the age of consent for heterosexuals was 16. Efforts were also made to modify the "no other person present" clause so that it dealt only with minors. In 1994, Conservative MP Edwina Currie introduced an amendment to Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which would have lowered the age of consent to 16. The amendment failed, but a compromise amendment which lowered the age of consent to 18 was accepted. The age of consent remained 18 until the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 which further reduced it to 16, and the "no other person present" clause was modified to "no minor persons present". Today, the universal age of consent is 16 in England, Scotland, and Wales. The age of consent for both heterosexuals and homosexuals remains at 17 in Northern Ireland. |
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 20, 2006, 4:19 PM
Post #234 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Texas...not 1894 but 1990's. Right-wing assholes.
Texas
* Statute: 21.06, Homosexual Conduct. Unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas.
* Penalty: $500
* Classification: Misdemeanor
* Restrictions: Same-sex only, Case law in conflict
The state Republican Party platform explicitly opposes the decriminalization of sodomy, stating that "the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society" and "contributes to the breakdown of the family unit."
Also see the section on Lawrence and Garner v. Texas
Statute
Sec. 21.01. Definitions.
In this chapter:
(1) "Deviate sexual intercourse" means:
(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or
(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.
(2) "Sexual contact" means any touching of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
(3) "Sexual intercourse" means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 373, ch. 168, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 203, ch. 96, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1981; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 21.06. Homosexual Conduct.
(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Apr 20, 2006, 4:24 PM
Post #235 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Link, please.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 20, 2006, 4:28 PM
Post #236 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Tradman wrote:Tell you what: I have a dud kidney. It's a genetic condition which my kids might get. As I get older, it gets worse. I've already had to start watching my diet, and I'll not be able to enjoy alcohol for much longer. It won't kill me, but it's bloody painful, it stops me from doing some things and there's no solution. Should my kids and other people's kids have to go through the same as me so our world can be nice and diverse? Or should we try to find out what causes it and stop it from recurring?
So are you saying that being gay is a disease and we should find a cure for it??
Yes or no.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Apr 20, 2006, 4:34 PM
Post #237 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
No, it's not a disease.
If it's biologically determined, yes we should look at whether it would be beneficial to prevent it.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 20, 2006, 4:38 PM
Post #238 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Thorne...www.sodomylaws.org/usa/texas/texas.htm
Tradman wrote: No, it's not a disease.
If it's biologically determined, yes we should look at whether it would be beneficial to prevent it.
If two people love each other and find happeness...what is there to prevent?
This is getting weird...
|
|
|
|
|
macherry
Apr 20, 2006, 4:45 PM
Post #239 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
In reply to: No, it's not a disease. If it's biologically determined, yes we should look at whether it would be beneficial to prevent it.
WTF :roll:
what harm does homosexuality present to society or individual?
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Apr 20, 2006, 4:49 PM
Post #240 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
In reply to: No, it's not a disease. If it's biologically determined, yes we should look at whether it would be beneficial to prevent it.
But wouldn't that biological intrusion cross over into the same territory as abortion, which your camp has already declared an abomination?? Weeding out the less desirable is kind of a catch-22 if you're a reactionary Christian.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 20, 2006, 4:52 PM
Post #241 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: tradman wrote: If it's biologically determined, yes we should look at whether it would be beneficial to prevent it.
You (tradman) stated that you are a follower of GOD. If being gay is biological ...God did it. Why would you want to prevent what God made??
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Apr 20, 2006, 4:52 PM
Post #242 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
I wonder how Darwin would view homosexuality.
Bob,
Does that link say how many people were prosecuted under that law in recent history (like the last 30 years)?
And lets not overlook you're talking about a law that was enacted in the 1800s.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Apr 20, 2006, 5:02 PM
Post #243 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: No, it's not a disease. If it's biologically determined, yes we should look at whether it would be beneficial to prevent it. But wouldn't that biological intrusion cross over into the same territory as abortion,
Wow! Talk about your stretches. :lol:
This analogy might apply if someone was talking about the termination of living homosexuals.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 20, 2006, 5:03 PM
Post #244 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: I wonder how Darwin would view homosexuality.
Who cares???
In reply to: Bob, Does that link say how many people were prosecuted under that law in recent history (like the last 30 years)?
It didn't say.
In reply to: And lets not overlook you're talking about a law that was enacted in the 1800s.
And lets not overlook that it took 130 + years and the US Supreme Court to call the law unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Apr 20, 2006, 5:08 PM
Post #245 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: No, it's not a disease. If it's biologically determined, yes we should look at whether it would be beneficial to prevent it. But wouldn't that biological intrusion cross over into the same territory as abortion, Wow! Talk about your stretches. :lol: This analogy might apply if someone was talking about the termination of living homosexuals.
Not quite - if the scientific talk turned to methods of 'prevention.'
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Apr 20, 2006, 5:18 PM
Post #247 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: I wonder how Darwin would view homosexuality. Who cares???
In reply to: In reply to: Bob, Does that link say how many people were prosecuted under that law in recent history (like the last 30 years)? It didn't say. In reply to: And lets not overlook you're talking about a law that was enacted in the 1800s. And lets not overlook that it took 130 + years and the US Supreme Court to call the law unconstitutional.
I see. A 130 year old law, that almost never is enforced, finally gets overturned and your take is "Texas...not 1894 but 1990's. Right-wing assholes."
You're a model of objectivity.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Apr 20, 2006, 5:23 PM
Post #248 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
The reason I sort of hijacked this thread and pointed it toward the nature/biology/instinctual energy question is that I know, from long experience dealing with the issue, that (as I said) you will rarely if ever find any anti-gay platform that is not build on homosexuality being an aberration, a condition, or a pathology that they will contrast with a disease model of some kind. The disease and pathology model was prevalent and even part of the psychiatric literature till a few decades ago. And it wasn't because of gay lobbyists that they dumped this model, rather because when they actually studied the issue they found that the pathology model didn't fit and was just a default position for what they had previously misunderstood.
Tradman took issue with my using the word "natural" to describe homosexuality, and of course, and predictably, went on to contrast "natural" with a disease model, perhaps not knowing, or not caring, that professionals (not left-wing pinko morons, but folks who actually studied the issue) scrapped this model decades ago.
Nevertheless, at a deeper level than even the natural and instinctual angle is the issue of legitimacy and authenticity. This is close to home for me–just another straight person--since I was adopted and early on had to wrestle with the whole stigma of being an "illegitimate" human being. And that's probably the final straw that anti-gay folk will not give up regardless of what anyone else says: Homosexuality and homosexuals are illegitimate and inauthentic perversions of the one and only legitimate and authentic human archetype: the heterosexual.
The reasoning here rests on the premise that we need some inherent and divine or biological "reason," pretext or cause to be alive, and the degree to which we are legitimate and authentic human being rests on how faithfully we adhere to and live out that reason, pretext or cause. For the anti-gay folk–who normally are hooked up with various doctrinal religions groups--authenticity and legitimacy are most often linked to our desire to procreate, something that, ironically, Jesus never got around to doing.
As I mentioned yesterday, the importance of openly dragging this out for discussion is that it underlies virtually every anti-gay argument, and nothing can proceed till this is hashed out. Though the analogy is not perfect, you can see in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the intractable situation both find themselves in when neither will accept the other has the right to exist, something clearly expressed in the following graph:
"But because I care about people, I don't want them to have to live their lives in ways that are not ideal. I'd prefer that my friend David hadn't died of leukemia. I'd prefer that my friend Robert didn't have spina bifida.
"They are and were both great guys, and I love them to bits exactly as they are or were. But that doesn't mean I think leukemia or spina bifida are okay. I don't think those conditions should exist at all. They should be researched, tested and eliminated."
The is another rather ham-fisted effort to contrast homosexuality with the disease model, assuming that gay folk need some kind of medical correction to restore their authenticity. Of course this is simply a not-so-veiled effort to pronounce homosexuality as inauthentic, illegitimate and undesirable, a pathology that should be "researched, tested and eliminated."
Of course there have been decades of research and testing conducted on the topic, but none of that ever made its way into the quote, which as it stands is monstrous denouncement that implies an ethnic-cleansing kind of anodyne is the best and "final" solution. But since the experts insist that homosexuality is not strictly biological or genetic, how might homosexuals be "corrected" or "fixed," and who, and on what authority, will determine the curriculum?
At bottom you have a simple case of denial--that homosexuality is real and it's simply part of life, as normal, ideal, legitimate and authentic to some as heterosexuality is to others. To suggest that a homosexual is somehow missiong out on an "ideal" life by not throwing down with the opposite sex is almost laughably ignorant, and shows not even the most basic understanding of how the human animal actually operates.
At least the bull is out in the open now, and till he's dealt with, no real progress can happen.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 20, 2006, 5:29 PM
Post #249 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: I see. A 130 year old law, that almost never is enforced, finally gets overturned and your take is "Texas...not 1894 but 1990's. Right-wing assholes." You're a model of objectivity.
Nice try.
I am the model of objectivity...especally compared to what, Texas, You and Tradman think on the suject of gays and their lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Apr 20, 2006, 5:34 PM
Post #250 of 301
(3891 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: I see. A 130 year old law, that almost never is enforced, finally gets overturned and your take is "Texas...not 1894 but 1990's. Right-wing assholes." You're a model of objectivity. Nice try. I am the model of objectivity...especally compared to what, Texas, You and Tradman think on the suject of gays and their lifestyle.
The world through Bob's eyes. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
When's your bitch coming back?
|
|
|
|
|
|
