[karajorma]

On listening to the news tonight I heard that the law had been enforced recently. So now I'm even more glad it's gone.

Originally posted by 01010
They also tend not to feel threatened by gay guys either because they know for certain that they're not just after sex.

And then they go after them and try to turn them so they can have sex with them. And then get annoyed when they fail

[01010]

Originally posted by karajorma
And then they go after them and try to turn them so they can have sex with them. And then get annoyed when they fail

Exactly. I'd do the same with lesbians but I don't know any.

[DragonClaw]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


Well, the government of Texas did a good job of effectively enforcing that law here, otherwise, there wouldn't be a Supreme Court case about it. Duh...

Yeah, well, all you know about is the number of people who got caught. But the number that got away with it is undoubtedly far higher. Think about it. How would you get caught? If the guy you were having sex with told on you? Then he'd get caught too. A sane person wouldn't do that. Only way is if a wife found out, some heterosexual-only fanatic saw you doing it, all rare cases. For a government to catch anywhere near 1% of the cases is almost impossible.

[01010]

Originally posted by DragonClaw


Yeah, well, all you know about is the number of people who got caught. But the number that got away with it is undoubtedly far higher. Think about it. How would you get caught? If the guy you were having sex with told on you? Then he'd get caught too. A sane person wouldn't do that. Only way is if a wife found out, some heterosexual-only fanatic saw you doing it, all rare cases. For a government to catch anywhere near 1% of the cases is almost impossible.

You mean, they don't just have sex in the gutter like I was taught?

[Unknown Target]

Good for them. I do support gay rights. After all, isn't not allowing them to do things discrimination? Which is against our constitution?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Damnit! I had the perfect Post count for this thread too

I don't know what bothers me more, the fact that you realized this, or the fact that I got it.

Originally posted by karajorma
Just as long as they don't go too crazy with the celebrations.

[q]From the article:
...Los Angeles Gay And Lesbian And Bisexual And Transvestite And Transgender Alliance (LAGALABATATA)...[/q]

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by DragonClaw
Yeah, well, all you know about is the number of people who got caught. But the number that got away with it is undoubtedly far higher. Think about it. How would you get caught? If the guy you were having sex with told on you? Then he'd get caught too. A sane person wouldn't do that. Only way is if a wife found out, some heterosexual-only fanatic saw you doing it, all rare cases. For a government to catch anywhere near 1% of the cases is almost impossible.

D-Claw, this anti-sodomy law was on the Texas books for over ten years, but was only rarely enforced. The reason this case came to court was because these two gay guys who were living together had a neighbor who made a fraudulent 911 call claiming that one of the gay guys was "screaming like crazy." So the police were responding to what they thought was a domestic disturbance. When the police burst through the door, they found the two guys enagaing in consensual sex. The police then decided to arrest these two men for violating the anti-sodomy law when they were there to stop a domestic disturbance.

And let's not forget there is a right of privacy in one's home, which is a fundamental constitutional right. Since this law violated the right to privacy, the court held it as unconstitutional.

The point isn't how rarely this law is enforced. Whether it's enforced a little bit or a lot is irrelevant because if it's unconstitutional, it's not supposed to be enforced at all.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Damnit! I had the perfect Post count for this thread too

Originally posted by Sandwich
I don't know what bothers me more, the fact that you realized this, or the fact that I got it.

I'd ask Sandwich what KT meant, but I think the answer might either disgust me or embarass me, maybe both, so I'll refrain.

[Knight Templar]

subtract 3 from what it currently is.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Su-tehp
SCOTUS struck down a Texas state law

DAMMIT!

[DragonClaw]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


D-Claw, this anti-sodomy law was on the Texas books for over ten years, but was only rarely enforced. The reason this case came to court was because these two gay guys who were living together had a neighbor who made a fraudulent 911 call claiming that one of the gay guys was "screaming like crazy." So the police were responding to what they thought was a domestic disturbance. When the police burst through the door, they found the two guys enagaing in consensual sex. The police then decided to arrest these two men for violating the anti-sodomy law when they were there to stop a domestic disturbance.

And let's not forget there is a right of privacy in one's home, which is a fundamental constitutional right. Since this law violated the right to privacy, the court held it as unconstitutional.

The point isn't how rarely this law is enforced. Whether it's enforced a little bit or a lot is irrelevant because if it's unconstitutional, it's not supposed to be enforced at all.

Yes, but what you said was this law was enforced effectively in Texas. And what you just said proves the opposite.

It's all a conspiracy.
 
People quoting me in their sigs   Su-tehp, quoting yourself in your own sig is... how should I put this? Pathetic? And anyway I clarified that gay people meant guys to me.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by DragonClaw
Yes, but what you said was this law was enforced effectively in Texas. And what you just said proves the opposite.

What I said was that it was enforced rarely and it was enforced effectively in this one case because this case went all the way up to the Supreme Court. If this law hadn't been effectively enforced in this case, it would never had gotten that far. If it hadn't been effectively enforced, those two gay men would never have been arrested. So my statement is perfectly consistent.

And anyway, you said that the only way this law could be enforced was "if a wife found out, some heterosexual-only fanatic saw you doing it, all rare cases. For a government to catch anywhere near 1% of the cases is almost impossible." All I did was point that this case got started because of a disapproving neighbor who made a fraudulent 911 call, rather than the "wife finding out" like you stated.

Originally posted by DragonClaw
It's all a conspiracy.

Scalia said something like that in his dissent today. He said that "today the Court has chosen sides in America's culture war."

Personally, I think Scalia has his head up his ass, but I've believed that for a long time and so have lots of other people in the legal profession. Meh.
 

Originally posted by DragonClaw
People quoting me in their sigs   Su-tehp, quoting yourself in your own sig is... how should I put this? Pathetic?

It's my siggy, I can do what I want with it.

Originally posted by DragonClaw
And anyway I clarified that gay people meant guys to me.

Since you used the word "people" as a gender-neutral word that seems to apply to both gay men and gay women in the context of your statement, it's only natural that some of us would have gotten confused, DC, but no worries. We understand what you meant now.

But it still makes a cool quote.

[DragonClaw]

Yeah well my opinion about effectiveness is different than yours, its no prob

Wonder if I should quote myself...

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by DragonClaw
Wonder if I should quote myself...

Hey, DragonClaw, since KT and I both quoted you, feel free to quote either of us. Turnabout is fair play, after all.

...But my suggestion is to quote KT, just to be safe...

Other comments of today's ruling? or ?

[DragonClaw]

How's this?

[Rictor]

Since I really dont wanna read like 50 pages of legal mumbo-jumbo, can you please summarize how the "nay" judges made their case? I mean, what possible reason could there be for not allowing gay maarriages, other than to adhere to old laws which are clearly outdated and discriminatory

Also, this topic seems to be generating sig quotes at an amazing rate, maybe its time I got one...nah

BTW, does the 6969 postcount have something to do with the "tip" of the numbers in a certain...ooh:wtf:

edit: crap better change those smilies, otherwise certain implications will arise...crap, dont say arise....certain implications will come about...crap, dont say come...certain implications...will be...made...there, nice and safe:nervous:

[Stryke 9]

Something about "furthering the gay agenda" to make everyone else gay. Basically, conspiracy theory based on personal bigotries- sorta like ZOG with more pink.

[Bobboau]

yay for gays!

[Goober5000]

Is this a discussion thread or a sig thread?

I'm going to try to say this tactfully... although I believe a majority of the court made the wrong decision on this issue, I also believe that the ruling is "appropriate".  The ruling merely "put on paper" what has become an established part of our society.  It hasn't changed anything, really.  Everyone knows where everyone else stands.

Incidentally, the courts often define indecency according to the community's acceptance or nonacceptance of it - both culturally and legally.  The Supreme Court would not have ruled as it did if homosexuality were still taboo in the United States.  The ruling merely reflects the moral standards of the nation.

[Stryke 9]

Uh... whaaat? Eleven states specifically criminalize sodomy, and maybe two allow for legal gay marraige sort of right now. I wouldn't say this is exactly unnecessary, dude. Hell, when a major justice can say, with a straight face, that this is all part of a gay conspiracy to take over the world and make everyone a fag, and not get laughed out of office, it's far from following the public standard to legalize this ****.

[Nico]

Originally posted by DragonClaw
How's this?

excellent