*Insert Obligatory FMJ quote*

[Shawn]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/1832694

WASHINGTON -- When police descended on John Lawrence's Houston-area home one night in 1998 and found him having sex with another man, they hauled the couple off to jail and charged them with violating Texas' little-known Homosexual Conduct Law.

Lawrence and his partner, Tyron Garner, pleaded no contest, paid $200 fines and then decided to fight back. This week, their case will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for what observers on both sides of the issue say is the most significant gay rights decision in two decades.

"Americans value privacy in their bedrooms," said Ruth Harlow, an attorney with New York's Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund who is representing Lawrence and Garner. "We should all be able to take for granted that the police cannot burst in and tell us how we can express love and affection for another consenting adult in private."

The state of Texas disagrees and will argue that there is no reason for the high court to recognize a constitutional right to engage in sex outside of "monogamous heterosexual marriage," said Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal.

[Loki Ahmrah]

FMJ Quote? (Has no idea what FMJ means)

Some laws really are ridiculous, this goes against the American constitution as I understand it - where is the right to freely express love for another consenting adult in a physical relationship? I agree, the law has no right to barge into someone's bedroom, invading their privacy and tell them that they can't have sex.

And secondly, am I reading this right:


The state of Texas disagrees and will argue that there is no reason for the high court to recognize a constitutional right to engage in sex outside of "monogamous heterosexual marriage,"

Does this mean that in Texas it is illegal to have sex outside of marriage? If so then the people in power over there need to be given the boot because they're quite clearly stuck in the dark ages.

[Sene Unty]

I agree completly with Loki....no one should be prosecuted for making love to any consenting adult they see fit to make love to. This is absolutly ridiculous and I only hope the Supreme Court will see it the same way.

[Shawn]

FMJ = Full Metal Jacket

http://funwavs.com/wavfile.php?quote=603&sound=82 - copious amounts of swearing.

It's bad enough that they actually enforced this law by arresting a couple; It's even worse that they're basically defending themselves by going "It's ok because they're gay".

[ReaperFett]

Does this mean that in Texas it is illegal to have sex outside of marriage? If so then the people in power over there need to be given the boot because they're quite clearly stuck in the dark ages.
It's a bit like how all UK Taxis have to carry a bale of hay IMO. It's a rule that never got dropped, just got ignored.

[Hart]

or how oral sex is illegal in the southern states in the US

[Shawn]

Except that this time, it was enforced. (Everything but Heterosexual, Misionary-style Intercourse is illegal in Florida, btw).

I love how one group of people are free to shove their puritanical "morals" down the throats of everyone else.

I think it's immoral to go to Church every Sunday; All that blatant public worhsip is strictly prohibited in my religious text. Let's rally together to make laws against it!

[ReaperFett]

Is it public if it is within a church?

[Shawn]

Yes. Now, quit arguing semantics. The point remains.

If doing things behind closed doors is vulgar and immoral, why, then, doing stuff in public must be 100 times worse. Let's outlaw all public displays of affection, including holding hands, kissing and hugging! There will henceforth be a fine of $100 for anyone caught doing these things.

...

My point is that the government should have no right to restrict personal freedoms which have absolutely no effect on anyone else. Just because a bunch of fundamentalists think something is immoral doesn't give them the right to tell other people what is right or wrong.

[ReaperFett]

I wasnt arguing semantics, I was asking a question.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Shawn
I think it's immoral to go to Church every Sunday; All that blatant public worhsip is strictly prohibited in my religious text. Let's rally together to make laws against it!

Unfortunately, there are people who think that way, and they're passing laws to put a vice grip on religion. Apparently the lefties keep forgetting that two wrongs don't make a right.

(insert comedy libertarian option)

[Kiltik]

Well, people can believe what they want to believe, but I seriously doubt we'll be seeing any laws preventing you from attending Church any time soon.

[Sanis Prent]

No, but there are laws that attempt to prevent building of churches currently on the books in many places. Combine that with the ACLU's affirmative-nazism, and its setting the trend for bad things to come.

[Hart]

and why not? There are always laws to protect the sanctity of any neighborhood, and if they can prevent the contruction of malls or parking lots, they most certainly should be able to petition against a nuisance such as a Church, with all of the traffic it will lead to. If it wasn't held to the same standards, we'd basically be living in a nonsecular state, which would basically kill America.

[Hadrian Invicta]

You missed one key point though Hart, there has never been a documented rise in crime or decline in property value due to the construction of a church, ie the main reasons Shopping Malls, Strip Clubs and Bars are prohibited in certain areas.

I disagree with homosexuality, I think its wrong. Does that mean I want to pass a law saying that it's a crime to be homosexual, absolutely not! People have always been free to make their own choices, we are not fated to any certain path. If we were then what would be the point of us arguing this? A choice such as Homosexuality does nothing to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others and therefore should not be a crime. But that's just my two cents, that and another 48 will get you a cup of coffee at Mickey D's

[Leeloo Mina]

You sure it's not a dollar to get coffee? They're expencive :mneh

Anyway.. I don't think there should be any laws on sex for consenting people.. I mean, the goverment or anyone should have no right to tell me that I can't sleep with another female or preform acts they think are immoral if that's what I want to do.

What I'm wondering is how do they find out when people are breaking these laws? What, do they spy on them?

[Wei Wu Wei]

Blah. Ok. Homosexuality, that is, feeling attracted to people of the same sex as you, is not a sin. It is when you give into those feelings, that it is a sin.

Secondly. Laws against building churches. WTF? Church is not a building. It's a body of people that all get together to worship. The place that they meet is referred to as church. I say let the anti church building law stand. If you can't build a church, then buy an old movie theater, or something and turn that into a church. Or even have service outside on nice days. That law that won't let people build churches has no teeth. People are still going to gather to worship anyway. We all have the right to assembly here in the states.

[Leeloo Mina]

Even if acting on your homoseual feelings is a "sin", it doesn't give the goverment a right to tell people they can't do it. we're supposed to have freedom of religion here in the US, right?

[Wei Wu Wei]

Well, I did say that acting on homosexual tendencies is a sin. I also don't agree with how the government handled it. Especially if making love is the only thing a homosexual person knows. To tell them that the only way they know how to express affection and to have affection expressed to them is illegal is wrong. I mean, it's a little more than earth shattering.

And another thing that bothers me concerning love and such as that:

love != sexual attraction

You can love someone and not be sexually attracted to them. A man might love his best friend a million times more than his own wife, but it does not mean that he is sexually attracted to his best friend, nor does it make him homosexual.

[Hart]

You missed one key point though Hart, there has never been a documented rise in crime or decline in property value due to the construction of a church, ie the main reasons Shopping Malls, Strip Clubs and Bars are prohibited in certain areas.


I'm saying that a church would bring a lot of traffic on Sundays. And they'd probably need a large parking lot, or else people would just congest the sidewalks with their cars. There are MANY reasons to not want a Church around you. And either would devalue any property. Also, the establishment of a church in an area wouldn't bring revenue to the town, and thus, the town would lose out. Economically, I mean.

[Jinn Fizz]

Hm...well, heck, I guess I wanna live in Houston, because apparently there's no serious crime going on at all, if this is the best the local cops can do.

:rolleyes

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong. What 2 consenting adults do behind closed doors in privacy is NONE OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS, so long as no one is being abused or damaged because of it. I hope these gentlemen win their case.

[imported_Blade Ice]

I just want to say a couple of things, there is no law that states you have freedom to have sex with anyone you like. There are laws that state you do have the freedom of privacy but those laws have holes in them that lawmakers and law forcers can jump around.

Number one it is illegal for a man/woman with Aid's to continue to have sex after having been tested positive. Basically the man/woman can be prosecuted for attempting to spread an epidemic and other crimes.

Now knowing that, go back to the 80's when aids was supposedly a gay mans disease, because at the time it was running through there community. Fast forward to now where aids is wide spread.

Now Texas is wrong for what there doing some could argue but they could just well claim that they are try to stop the spread of HIV and aids weather these two men had it or not. Basically Texas could win this case.

My point is they could claim it was a law of safety and not a law of hate. There really is no way to fight the fact that it very well could have been an issue of safety. You just got to learn there real is no law to protect you in your own room.

[Gurney Devries]

Now Texas is wrong for what there doing some could argue but they could just well claim that they are try to stop the spread of HIV and aids weather these two men had it or notThere isn't a rolleyes icon in the world large enough to express my response to this.

[Hart]

well, in a lot of states, it's considered statutory rape for someone 18 or over and someone 16 or under to have inappropriate relations. Even if it's in private, a 40 year old and a 12 year old shouldn't be able to have sex (even if it's consentual) behind closed doors.

[Leeloo Mina]

I thought it was someone over 18 and someone under 18 not 16?

And I think that after someone is an adult they should be able to do whatever kind of crazy monkey sex they want.. no matter if it's with someone who's the same gender or whatever as long as they're both at least 16.. or 18, whatever.

[Shawn]

There is a 2 year "buffer"; A 19 year old can legally have sex with a 17 year old. It varies from state to state, but here (http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm) is a good guide on state specific laws. [/tangent]

What two consenting adults (key words there) do behind closed doors is their own business.

[Leeloo Mina]

hm. that webpage is pretty intresting. Thanks for posting the link.