Sen. Santorum shooting his mouth off.

Re: I am still not sure.

Originally posted by machaon
Why do people feel the need to have the government officialy say that it is OK to do what one wants concerning sexuality in ones home? I say do what you want in your own home, and do not worry about the goverment.
Click to expand...

Well, the problem is that two men were doing just that, when the police busted in, investigating a false report of an armed intruder, and they were arrested and fined $200. The fact is that many states have laws which make "Doing what you want in the privacy of your own home" illegal, and though they may not often be enforced for obvious reasons, even one case of enforcement is too much, and just having them on the books is an insult, and a blemish on a states legislative history.

As for the issue of marriage, there are many considerations to take into place, such that I’d probably have to start another thread regarding this. . . but I think I already have somewhere else. We can get into it here if you like.
 
A simple bet

Well, the problem is that two men were doing just that, when the police busted in, investigating a false report of an armed intruder, and they were arrested and fined $200.

I have not researched the particulars of this case. But I bet that these two men did NOT ask to speak to an attorney. I also bet that they pleaded guilty instead of DEMANDING a jury trial which is their right. If upon arrest these two men remained silent, I will eat my shoe.
 
Well, I don't see how any of that matters worth a damn, when the fact is that it's being contested on the very premise of such a thing even being a crime, as such none of what you just said really matters. As I understand they pleaded no contest, as frankly they truely were caught in the act, really no denying that they were in violation of the law.

If you want to read up a bit on the particulars of the case, I suggest you click here
 
A reply

I am not saying that the existance of such laws is not an unmitigated tragedy. These laws are nothing more than an insult to every American soldier who has ever died in combat. I am with you there. I am simply saying that had they exercised their rights, the ones paid for in blood, then they would have walked. In my mind, their real crime was not edjucating themselves about the law and their rights.
 
You're really speaking out of ignorance here, they pleaded no contest because this would be a lot like trying to fight a traffic ticket when they have pictures of you running that red light.

Besides, who ever said that they WANT this to be a quiet little issue settled quickly and without much consequence? It is a very real goal of many homosexuals to challenge laws such as these, this is going far better than if they'd simply managed to create reasonable doubt about weather or not the cops saw them screwing, and didn't have to pay a fine.

You're engaging in a very childish Ad hominum argument, you're attacking these people based on critera which has absolutely no relevance to the issue, attacks which are built on assumptions not fact. For all you know they could be very well versed in law, then again they could both be giant jerks who don't even know the first thing about the legal system, either way it does not matter to this issue, and I'd much prefeer if you refrain from making such arbitrary comments in the future.
 
Last edited:
You're really speaking out of ignorance here, they pleaded no contest because this would be a lot like trying to fight a traffic ticket when they have pictures of you running that red light.

You are right, I am not an expert in this matter. But you should familiarize yourself with the term JURY NULLIFICATION. Basically, if a case seems unjust, the jury has the power to say no. And if I ever was in the same posistion, I would make the governing body expend as many resources as possible to PROVE their case. To roll over and say I am guilty is the same thing as agreeing with the law. They could have broken a lot more ground had they possessed the courage to simply excercise their rights. Were they in the wrong? No. Were they stupid? Well, yes.
 
Please, try to keep in mind that Lawrence V. Texas is currently before the Supreme Court. Not the Texas supreme court, but the supreme court of the united states, highest court in the land. They are doing as much with this case as they possibly could, what is currently at stake are the anti-homosexual sodomy laws in every state in America, and the right of a state to make such laws. The fact that they had to pay the fine seems pretty insignificant, and I imagine that if the supreme court rules that such laws are unconstitutional, or just unjust, that they'll get that money back.
 
Originally posted by Mystech
Well, no banning homosexual marriages dose NOT effect heterosexuals, use your brain a little bit on this one. You're right, effectively a heterosexual can't marry a member of the same sex, but then think about what makes one a heterosexual, guess what, they aren't going to be marrying members of the same sex, it IS discriminatory because it is designed specifically to target homosexuals. If you honestly think that this is not the motive and practical application of such laws then you are delusional.
Click to expand...

Biased motivations for a law doesn't necessarily mean the law itself is biased.
 
Originally posted by Galt
Biased motivations for a law doesn't necessarily mean the law itself is biased.
Click to expand...

Im certain Galt is right on this one. Just because its only impact will be to legaly deny homosexuals the right to express their love for one another in accordance with christian fundamental morals, and will affect no one else at all, dosnt mean that the law is biased at all.

how that is im not sure, but Galt seems sure enough so im sure there is a good reason.

I suppose that "Well it means heterosexuals cant marrie too" argument is valid, because hey, that sort of thing has been a big problem for the government and socioty right? All those uppedy heterosexuals marrying members of the same gender? Clearly the law hurts them too right, so its not a biased law.

... or could it be that that previous argument is a particulary feeble argument designed to let certin less involved, and un-analytical persons to feel just comfy and fine and NOT feel like they are robbing people of a basic right.
 
Originally posted by SpyMoose
Im certain Galt is right on this one. Just because its only impact will be to legaly deny homosexuals the right to express their love for one another in accordance with christian fundamental morals, and will affect no one else at all, dosnt mean that the law is biased at all.
Click to expand...

Laws prohibiting same sex marriages don't deny anyone the ability to express love. It only means that you cannot have a legally recognized union (marriage) with a member of the same sex.

There is no doubt that such a law would disparately impact homosexuals, but the laws themselves are not discriminatory at face value. It's kind of like the literacy tests and "grandfather clauses" that were once used for voters in the American south. By the letter of the law they were colorblind, but they were specifically designed to affect one group in particular.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
I suppose that "Well it means heterosexuals cant marrie too" argument is valid, because hey, that sort of thing has been a big problem for the government and socioty right?
Click to expand...

Actually that argument is valid for the purpose of distinguishing between laws that specifically spell out discriminatory policies and ones that simply have a disparate impact on some group within society.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
... or could it be that that previous argument is a particulary feeble argument designed to let certin less involved, and un-analytical persons to feel just comfy and fine and NOT feel like they are robbing people of a basic right.
Click to expand...

I don't support laws against same sex marriages. I am just pointing out that technically they aren't discriminatory.
 
Originally posted by Galt
Laws prohibiting same sex marriages don't deny anyone the ability to express love. It only means that you cannot have a legally recognized union (marriage) with a member of the same sex.
Click to expand...

So, in the eyes of the government I can't have a marriage. I'd say that that's an infringement on my ability to express love, it removes very many practical applications of marriage in our society. Not to mention that this is a right which is afforded to everyone else, yet only a specific group is excluded from it. Tell me, exactly how is that not discriminatory?

Originally posted by Galt
There is no doubt that such a law would disparately impact homosexuals, but the laws themselves are not discriminatory at face value.
Click to expand...

Again, despite denying rights to a certain group, while they are granted to everyone else? You have a strange definitian of descriminatory.


Originally posted by Galt
It's kind of like the literacy tests and "grandfather clauses" that were once used for voters in the American south. By the letter of the law they were colorblind, but they were specifically designed to affect one group in particular.
Click to expand...

So, in your eyes, the Jim Crow laws were in fact, not discriminatory, even when applied according to the letter of their writing? You'd have us believe that a law drafted in the spirit of prejudice, and written to serve that goal does not fit the very meaning of discrimination?

Originally posted by Galt
I don't support laws against same sex marriages.
Click to expand...

Well, you certainly argue in their favor quite enough.
 
Originally posted by Mystech
So, in the eyes of the government I can't have a marriage. I'd say that that's an infringement on my ability to express love, it removes very many practical applications of marriage in our society. Not to mention that this is a right which is afforded to everyone else, yet only a specific group is excluded from it. Tell me, exactly how is that not discriminatory?
Click to expand...

We're going full circle back to the first posts of the thread.

Laws prohibiting incest also infringe on people's right to express love. Any ruling by the Judicial Branch of the government affirming the right of homosexual to express this love in a legally recognized manner (same-sex marriages) would by default legalize acts such as incest, which is exactly what Senator Santorum seemed to be saying.

Originally posted by Mystech
Again, despite denying rights to a certain group, while they are granted to everyone else? You have a strange definitian of descriminatory.
Click to expand...

No other group is afforded the right to same-sex marriages; at least not in America.

Originally posted by Mystech
So, in your eyes, the Jim Crow laws were in fact, not discriminatory, even when applied according to the letter of their writing?
Click to expand...

There were clear examples of laws intended to disenfranchise American blacks and still pass Constitutional muster. Grandfather clauses and literacy tests for voters that applied to all but disproportionately affected blacks are obvious examples. Another example would be the "separate but equal" motto used to justify the legality of segregation.

Originally posted by Mystech
You'd have us believe that a law drafted in the spirit of prejudice, and written to serve that goal does not fit the very meaning of discrimination?
Click to expand...

The motivation behind a law and the text of the law itself do not necessarily match. See the above examples.

Originally posted by Mystech
Well, you certainly argue in their favor quite enough.
Click to expand...

I've never argued in favor of prohibiting same-sex marriages. I have only argued that laws that prohibit everyone from having same-sex marriages technically aren't discriminatory.

I think same-sex marriages should be legalized, not because their prohibition is discriminatory but because I believe that no consenting adults should be prohibited from a legally recognized union.
 
Originally posted by Galt

No other group is afforded the right to same-sex marriages; at least not in America.
Click to expand...

But all other groups are afforded the right of marriage. Interracial marriages are legal, marriage to illegal aliens, and foreigners are allowed, and the only people effected by this law are homosexuals, as they are the only ones who would be marrying members of the same sex, again it's clearly and unashamedly discriminatory weather it specifies homosexuals or not. It prohibits a right which would only every be used by homosexuals, without exception.
 
Originally posted by Mystech
But all other groups are afforded the right of marriage.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals have the same legal right to marry as heterosexuals.

Originally posted by Mystech
Interracial marriages are legal, marriage to illegal aliens, and foreigners are allowed, and the only people effected by this law are homosexuals, as they are the only ones who would be marrying members of the same sex, again it's clearly and unashamedly discriminatory weather it specifies homosexuals or not.
Click to expand...

The motivations for the law were clearly discriminatory, but the law itself isn't.
 
Originally posted by Mystech
Despite homosexual marriages being illegal?
Click to expand...

Nowhere in America is it illegal for a homosexual to marry. However, it is illegal for two people of the same sex to marry one another.
 
Originally posted by Galt
Nowhere in America is it illegal for a homosexual to marry. However, it is illegal for two people of the same sex to marry one another.
Click to expand...

By the nature of the condition of homosexuality a homosexual will be marrying a member of the same sex, hence homosexuals are not allowed because homosexual marriages are prohibited. Quit arguing semantics and see the reality of the situation.
 
Galt seems to think that laws are draftend on a mountain in the clouds by holy men whos writings can do no harm.

Lets be clear here Galt, a law banning homosexual marages, stops homosexuals doing something that should be thier right. The law is drafted with bias, and will be enforced with bias, and even in its clearly worded objective state only has no bias if you choose to ignore the idea that a homosexual is going to want to marry a member of the same gender, which for some reason you think is a valid thing to do.

Permiting homosexual marrage also permits incest you say? Im sorry if i dont quite see where that absurd statement comes from. You are going to have to elaborate.

Saying that permiting homosexual marrage would also mean permiting incest is denying the same intentionaly vapid examination of the letter of the law that you have been trying to push.

Is homosexuality incest? no
would expressly permiting marages to members of the same gender also mean permiting incest? no

unless of course you think that heterosexual marrages being legal lets fathers marry daughters and brothers marry sisters? Well does it galt?


perhaps you would like to further claim that if homosexuals are allowed to marry then by this time next year we will all be eaten by bears. It makes about as much sence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top