The criminalization of homosexuality

The wildly homophobic right-wing would love nothing more than to criminalize homosexuality. In 2005, 45% of Mainers voted against giving people equal rights simply for being gay. This was after three attempts where a majority voted to deny people rights. It’s astounding that so many people can be, frankly, so stupid. A moment’s pause: nearly half of Maine would prefer to have the right to fire people from their jobs at Home Depot, the fire department, Wal-Mart, the grocery store, etc simply for being gay. It’s absurd. This will be a hard one to explain to the grandchildren.

As late as 2003, there was laws on the books banning sodomy. Some applied to all sodomy, some to sodomy between unmarried people, and others specifically to male sodomy. At any rate, the vast majority of these laws were designed to criminalize homosexuality. In 1998, Houston police actually arrested two men (which then led to the 2003 Supreme Court case) for having anal sex. Oh, the horrors of consensual, adult sex! Of course, some conservatives actually maintained that the government had a right to invade the privacy of one’s home in this way. Antonin Scalia, the worst legal mind in the nation, actually wrote his dissent on the basis that it would be inconvenient for other law. That’s right: sodomy should remain illegal because other case law has already been built upon that notion. It’s a terrible legal argument, but it’s a worse lie. He’s just another known homophobe.

Scalia’s dissent represents the epitome of what the right-wing social movement wants (and really, Scalia makes almost all his decisions based upon his social views, not anything remotely related to law). It wants to make homosexuality illegal. Since there are constitutional protections in the United States, however, they’ve had to move on to Uganda.

Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks.

Rick Warren has also been involved in telling Ugandans evil lies about homosexuals, comparing them to pedophiles and other things more fitting for systematically sexually repressed priests. But it gets worse. Much, much worse.

Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior.

This is about one step further than what they want. They do want homosexuals to be viewed as far, far – far – less than human. I doubt most homophobes want death, but they do want to see homosexuals stripped of all rights, of all personal liberty. There is obviously no concern for rights among these monsters. The Ugandans pushing for this bill are just the next logical step in the systematic abuse of rights as they pertain to homosexuals: They aren’t human and they do harmful things. Kill them to stop them.

The three Americans who spoke at the conference — Scott Lively, a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality, including “7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child”; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads “healing seminars”; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, whose mission is “mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality” — are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.

Lively, Brundidge, and Schmierer are scum. Pure scum. And, Christ, they are paranoid. Look at the Amazon description for Lively’s book.

A concise, practical guidebook for parents who wish to protect their children from pro-homoesxual indoctrination and the possibility of recruitment into the homosexual lifestyle.

He thinks there is some actual agenda to make more people gay. Despite what the fucked up right-wingers think, one does not just become gay, just as one does not just become straight. It doesn’t work like that. If religion didn’t offer such a childish view of sexuality, that would be a bit more clear to these people.

Human rights advocates in Uganda say the visit by the three Americans helped set in motion what could be a very dangerous cycle. Gay Ugandans already describe a world of beatings, blackmail, death threats like “Die Sodomite!” scrawled on their homes, constant harassment and even so-called correctional rape.

“Now we really have to go undercover,” said Stosh Mugisha, a gay rights activist who said she was pinned down in a guava orchard and raped by a farmhand who wanted to cure her of her attraction to girls. She said that she was impregnated and infected with H.I.V., but that her grandmother’s reaction was simply, “ ‘You are too stubborn.’ ”

When a nation starts treating part of its citizenry as somehow intrinsically less worthy, you get thousands of these Ugandan grandmothers.

34 Responses

  1. The problem with many of your posts Michael is that readers don’t have to go far to check the factual accuracy of them. Scalia didn’t argue in his dissent that ” it would be inconvenient for other law.”; one can read what he actually argued for oneself.

  2. From my link:

    Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a sharply worded dissent, which Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Scalia objected to the Court’s decision to revisit Bowers, pointing out that there were many subsequent decisions from lower courts based on Bowers that, with its overturning, might now be open to doubt:

    Other laws will be “open to doubt” by revisiting the issue. That is why (publicly) he dissented. Privately, it’s obvious he’s another prideful bigot.

  3. Other laws will be “open to doubt” by revisiting the issue. That is why (publicly) he dissented. Privately, it’s obvious he’s another prideful bigot.

    Actually, Michael, that’s called stare decisis which places weight on previous rulings in interpreting the law; though coservatives aren’t big fans of it, liberals typically are because it preserves rulings like Roe v. Wade which really has no basis in the Constitution itself. This is why the Senate Judicial Commitee often insists nominees be strong supporters of stare decisis. I find it ironic that that you are now criticizing Scalia for supporting stare decisis; apparently you have chosen to take the conservative view in this case that stare decisis shouldn’t be a controlling consideration.

    Of course, you didn’t know you were doing that, now did you?

  4. So Maine has 100% voter participation in elections, and extends voting rights to new-borns. How else are you going to get 45% of Mainers as a whole voting for anything?

  5. That refers largely to lower courts and courts with similar or parallel standing. Marshall long ago established that the Supreme Court’s place was to interpret laws along constitutionality, superseding all other courts. Even more, history has shown that the court can not and should not be beholden to its previous rulings. This is actually true of every (horizontal or upper) U.S. court, but especially relevant for the Supreme Court. Furthermore, if this has anything to do with a liberal/conservative divide, the decision to revisit in the first place falls on the liberal side. If it were up to Scalia, past rulings would almost never be revisited. He favors interpreting the constitution as if it is a static document not explicitly designed to change alongside a changing nation. He’s wrong. But that’s sort of the thing about conservatives, I guess.

  6. So Maine has 100% voter participation in elections, and extends voting rights to new-borns. How else are you going to get 45% of Mainers as a whole voting for anything?

    Really? I have to qualify my statements on voting results by saying that I’m talking about those who voted?

  7. That refers largely to lower courts and courts with similar or parallel standing.

    Actually, as used by Scalia in his dissent, it refers to previous SC decisions.

    Marshall long ago established that the Supreme Court’s place was to interpret laws along constitutionality, superseding all other courts.

    Um, so?

    Even more, history has shown that the court can not and should not be beholden to its previous rulings.

    Actually, history really doesn’t show that (there remain sharply divided opinions on the subject) but, actually, as an originalist, I agree with that. So does Scalia incidentally.

    This is actually true of every (horizontal or upper) U.S. court, but especially relevant for the Supreme Court. Furthermore, if this has anything to do with a liberal/conservative divide, the decision to revisit in the first place falls on the liberal side. If it were up to Scalia, past rulings would almost never be revisited. He favors interpreting the constitution as if it is a static document not explicitly designed to change alongside a changing nation. He’s wrong. But that’s sort of the thing about conservatives, I guess.

    The decision to revisit depends on the ruling; liberals are loath to revisit Roe, but Scalia would be glad to – and there are other rulings Scalia would be glad to revisit, like Lawrence. Of course in that case liberals would cite stare decisis. That is how it works Michael. I would say on the whole, Scalia is much less supportive of stare decisis than Sotomayor.

  8. Actually, as used by Scalia in his dissent, it refers to previous SC decisions.

    Yes, and that was stupid and not generally how it’s used. It usually refers to interpreting a specific situation through the lens of previous cases, not preventing one revisiting a case. In Scalia’s view, would have been wrong to revisit civil rights issues. He’s taken the term too far – and all because he actually believes there’s a homosexual agenda.

    And that’s what this is all about. People believe there is an agenda and that it is a terrible and dangerous one. That is what has helped to foster the potential gay genocide in Uganda.

  9. Yes, and that was stupid and not generally how it’s used. It usually refers to interpreting a specific situation through the lens of previous cases, not preventing one revisiting a case. In Scalia’s view, would have been wrong to revisit civil rights issues. He’s taken the term too far – and all because he actually believes there’s a homosexual agenda.

    What it means is that one tends to respect previous rulings because to constantly shift the legal landscape with novel rulings is unsettling to the body politic. And your problem with this has nothing to do with the validity of his legal logic, and with the fact that you are a supporter of the homosexual agenda.

    And that’s what this is all about. People believe there is an agenda and that it is a terrible and dangerous one. That is what has helped to foster the potential gay genocide in Uganda.

    Oh please; connecting Scalia with the non-existent ‘gay genocide’ in Uganda is beyond preposterous.

  10. It’s hateful bigots like you that make this sort of thing possible (and even go there to promote it).

  11. Michael, people will twit you about your mistakes.

  12. There was no mistake here. Scalia does have the worst legal mind. The SC has never held that it ought to be beholden to previous rulings, and the advancement of civil and privacy rights is a liberal agenda. Conservatives are loony enough to believe there actually is a homosexual agenda (who runs it?) and that sexuality is a choice – and a bad one, at that. This sort of childish thinking (which fits perfectly with religion’s childish view on sexuality) is what helps to foster bigotry and even potential genocide. In several states, it is okay to fire a janitor because when he goes home, he has a boyfriend. In every other state, a large proportion of people would like it to be that way.

  13. It’s hateful bigots like you that make this sort of thing possible (and even go there to promote it).

    Translation: I have run out of arguements for my uninformed position, so it’s time for me to say the word ‘bigot’.

  14. The argument is that your sort of bigotry promotes hatred and leads to gays being treated as second-class citizens. I’m really not sorry if you’d prefer to whine about my correct labeling.

  15. The argument is that your sort of bigotry promotes hatred and leads to gays being treated as second-class citizens. I’m really not sorry if you’d prefer to whine about my correct labeling.

    That isn’t an ‘argument’ Michael, that is an accusation informed by your own pro-homosexual agenda; There is quite a difference. When you have an actual argument to make, let us know.

  16. I have no agenda aimed at promoting one group over another insofar as rights are concerned. Your freedom and mine cannot be separated. ~Mandela.

    And, of course, I’ve laid out arguments again and again for equal rights for gays, even expounding on what defines a bigot.

  17. I have no agenda aimed at promoting one group over another insofar as rights are concerned. Your freedom and mine cannot be separated. ~Mandela. .

    Unless of course one is a Christian, in which case they should just shut up and go away.

    .

    And, of course, I’ve laid out arguments again and again for equal rights for gays, even expounding on what defines a bigot.

    I know, I have seen them numerous times – they amount to “If you don’t agree with the homosexual agenda, you are a bigot”.

  18. Unless of course one is a Christian, in which case they should just shut up and go away.

    The first part of that makes sense, but the rest seems to just be you losing it. At any rate, all of my arguments for equal rights for gays can be applied to all groups. I only argue for rights, not the rights of a particular group. They’d just be privileges then.

    I know, I have seen them numerous times – they amount to “If you don’t agree with the homosexual agenda, you are a bigot”.

    Perhaps to a simpleton dolt, sure.

  19. The first part of that makes sense, but the rest seems to just be you losing it. At any rate, all of my arguments for equal rights for gays can be applied to all groups. I only argue for rights, not the rights of a particular group. They’d just be privileges then.

    No you don’t you – argue for your agenda, and anyone who disagrees you condemn as a bigot. You’re a McCarthyite.

    Perhaps to a simpleton dolt, sure.

    Don’t you find it the least bit ironic when your responses prove my exact point?

  20. No you don’t you – argue for your agenda, and anyone who disagrees you condemn as a bigot. You’re a McCarthyite.

    I can find you several people who disagree with me about the appropriateness of attaching morality to sexuality. These particular people tend to believe homosexuality is immoral. They, however, have voted in favor of same-sex marriage when given the chance. They are not bigots. Your point is wrecked.

    Don’t you find it the least bit ironic when your responses prove my exact point?

    Denying a group rights without showing how said group infringes upon the rights of others is bigotry. Making awful arguments that keep repeating “You didn’t make an argument! Waah!” is simple and doltish. You seem to disagree with my premises yet you are unable to tease them apart from my conclusions. I’m not sure if it’s because you get upset easily by being defeated again and again in literally every one of your arguments or if it’s that whole simpleton-dolt issue you have going for you, especially recently. Could be a combination.

  21. I can find you several people who disagree with me about the appropriateness of attaching morality to sexuality. These particular people tend to believe homosexuality is immoral. They, however, have voted in favor of same-sex marriage when given the chance. They are not bigots. Your point is wrecked.

    So as long as they don’t act on their beliefs, your cool wit’ it. Not sure that changes anything; I feel the same way about homosexuals.

    Denying a group rights without showing how said group infringes upon the rights of others is bigotry. Making awful arguments that keep repeating “You didn’t make an argument! Waah!” is simple and doltish. You seem to disagree with my premises yet you are unable to tease them apart from my conclusions. I’m not sure if it’s because you get upset easily by being defeated again and again in literally every one of your arguments or if it’s that whole simpleton-dolt issue you have going for you, especially recently. Could be a combination.

    Actually I have been fairly clear about the fact that I don’t accept your premise that changing the institution of marriage to suit a political agenda is a legitimate expression of any right.

    Ad homs just show how weak your argument is to begin with.

  22. So as long as they don’t act on their beliefs, your cool wit’ it. Not sure that changes anything; I feel the same way about homosexuals.

    In this sense that I’m okay with racists not acting on their beliefs, yes, precisely. One can hate black people all he wants. A vote against civil rights for blacks, however, is bigotry. (Such as when 41% of Alabama voters wished to uphold anti-miscegenation aspects of their constitution.)

    In short, those who do not seek to restrict or infringe upon the rights of others are not bigots.

    Actually I have been fairly clear about the fact that I don’t accept your premise that changing the institution of marriage to suit a political agenda is a legitimate expression of any right.

    You’ve never offered evidence that this is a political agenda of mine, nor what I stand to gain. Nor is there any evidence same-sex marriage could further any other issue I have. It’s obvious you have not been clear on that. What you’ve actually argued is that marriage is not a right but rather a social institution which is weakened by same-sex couples. Ignoring the fact that that is pure speculation without evidence (as always), it’s simply the bulk of what you’ve said. You’ve never argued that my premise has anything to do with a political agenda; this is the first I’ve heard of it.

  23. In this sense that I’m okay with racists not acting on their beliefs, yes, precisely. One can hate black people all he wants. A vote against civil rights for blacks, however, is bigotry. (Such as when 41% of Alabama voters wished to uphold anti-miscegenation aspects of their constitution.)

    In short, those who do not seek to restrict or infringe upon the rights of others are not bigots.

    And homosexuals are free to marry; they just aren’t free to modfy the institution of marriage to suit their interests.

    You’ve never offered evidence that this is a political agenda of mine, nor what I stand to gain. Nor is there any evidence same-sex marriage could further any other issue I have. It’s obvious you have not been clear on that. What you’ve actually argued is that marriage is not a right but rather a social institution which is weakened by same-sex couples. Ignoring the fact that that is pure speculation without evidence (as always), it’s simply the bulk of what you’ve said. You’ve never argued that my premise has anything to do with a political agenda; this is the first I’ve heard of it.

    Actually I am arguing that marriage is a social institution which has always had a primary purpose. It doesn’t matter if gays don’t harm a single heterosexual marriage; there is no overiding interest for the state to change the fundamental purpose and nature of marriage. And there is certainly no ‘right’ that homosexuals can claim in this regard.

    And all of this has nothing to do with the point I made, and you have cleverly avoided, which was that Scalia’s use of stare decisis has nothing to do with laws in Africa.,

  24. And homosexuals are free to marry; they just aren’t free to modfy the institution of marriage to suit their interests.

    Such statements will be looked upon in 30 years as we look upon statements like that about racial minorities now.

    And, of course, the interests of homosexuals are actually the same as your interests. Obviously, in the sense that people, no matter sexual orientation, desire to be happy, often in family life, they have the same interests. But more importantly, I presume you’re interested in the right to marry. Currently, it is a privilege for you. That makes it as precarious as anything.

    Actually I am arguing that marriage is a social institution which has always had a primary purpose. It doesn’t matter if gays don’t harm a single heterosexual marriage; there is no overiding interest for the state to change the fundamental purpose and nature of marriage. And there is certainly no ‘right’ that homosexuals can claim in this regard.

    It’s a legal matter which conveys rights. It’s always been about rights. When people say civil unions are an alternative, that is a confession that this is all about rights. The New Jersey SC essentially said as much (not to mention the other courts, legislatures, and voters who have enacted civil unions). And when it becomes apparent – once again – that separate but equal can never be equal, same-sex marriage will be legalized. That may happen sooner than later. (Notice Scalia’s terrible, non-legal stance.)

    Of course, it was really about whether or not there were compelling reasons to extend legal rights to same-sex couples, then the fact that this would be an increase in economic stability, if only slight, should be enough to sway you. The rights involved would save individuals on various insurances, including health care, while also creating stronger buyers for homes and other large purchases. That whole line of argument is crap and has nothing to do with liberty, but if it’s what you want, it’s the “overriding interest” you should need. But we both know this isn’t about that, now is it?

    And all of this has nothing to do with the point I made, and you have cleverly avoided, which was that Scalia’s use of stare decisis has nothing to do with laws in Africa.,

    I’ve actually been wondering how to get this all back on track. I tried in comment 2165, but you insisted on continuing this derailment. You forget so easily who went off the main point.

    Scalia’s use has nothing to do with legal precedent. He’s invoking a term which largely applies to equal courts or from lower to upper courts. The term means relatively little as it pertains to the U.S. Supreme Court. It always has. But this is especially true in how Scalia was abusing it. Whereas the SC may decided to defer to previous rulings made by itself, it isn’t in the habit of deferring to rulings made by the lower courts when there is a constitutional issue at hand. That’s why it’s supreme. What’s more, the majority of the justices disagreed with Scalia, dumping your opinion in with the minority on this one. But, again, Scalia wasn’t crying for precedent. He actually thinks there’s a homosexual agenda. He makes political decisions, not legal ones. Always has.

    But, right to the point you just raised, you never once said Scalia’s decision has nothing to do with laws in Africa. In fact, you only connected the issue after I tried to get things back on topic. Even then, you only stated that I was connecting Scalia – not his decision – to Uganda. If you recall, you were specifically referring to my comments that he believes there is a homosexual agenda, not anything to do with his poor legal mind.

    So again, I said that inane beliefs like the one about there being a homosexual agenda is what helps to foster further hate toward homosexuals. The connection is clear. The term is a political attempt to demonize homosexuals. What’s more, many of the claims of what goes on in this deep, dark agenda have to do with children and perversion. That has no actual connection to homosexuality, but that’s what’s often implied in “homosexual agenda” – and it was actually said outright by those who went to Uganda to encourage this sort of legislation.

  25. Such statements will be looked upon in 30 years as we look upon statements like that about racial minorities now.

    That is certainly the hope of the homosexual lobby.

    And, of course, the interests of homosexuals are actually the same as your interests. Obviously, in the sense that people, no matter sexual orientation, desire to be happy, often in family life, they have the same interests. But more importantly, I presume you’re interested in the right to marry. Currently, it is a privilege for you. That makes it as precarious as anything.

    They aren’t the same as my interests; I have no interest in subverting fundamental human institutions for my own ‘happiness’. And considering marriage has been around for several thousand years, I don’t think it is a particularly precarious privilege.

    It’s a legal matter which conveys rights. It’s always been about rights. When people say civil unions are an alternative, that is a confession that this is all about rights. The New Jersey SC essentially said as much (not to mention the other courts, legislatures, and voters who have enacted civil unions). And when it becomes apparent – once again – that separate but equal can never be equal, same-sex marriage will be legalized. That may happen sooner than later. (Notice Scalia’s terrible, non-legal stance.)
    Of course, it was really about whether or not there were compelling reasons to extend legal rights to same-sex couples, then the fact that this would be an increase in economic stability, if only slight, should be enough to sway you. The rights involved would save individuals on various insurances, including health care, while also creating stronger buyers for homes and other large purchases. That whole line of argument is crap and has nothing to do with liberty, but if it’s what you want, it’s the “overriding interest” you should need. But we both know this isn’t about that, now is it?

    Saving individuals on insurance etc. isn’t an overriding interest of the state. The overriding interest of the state in heterosexual marriage is that it is good for children, communities, and is a building block of the state itself. If heterosexual marriage ceased to exist, the state would suffer. If homosexual relationships ceased to exist, it wouldn’t harm the state at all.

    I’ve actually been wondering how to get this all back on track. I tried in comment 2165, but you insisted on continuing this derailment. You forget so easily who went off the main point.

    Funny how you seem to ignore you own ad hom tirades as the primary derailing factor.

    Scalia’s use has nothing to do with legal precedent. He’s invoking a term which largely applies to equal courts or from lower to upper courts. The term means relatively little as it pertains to the U.S. Supreme Court. It always has. But this is especially true in how Scalia was abusing it. Whereas the SC may decided to defer to previous rulings made by itself, it isn’t in the habit of deferring to rulings made by the lower courts when there is a constitutional issue at hand. That’s why it’s supreme. What’s more, the majority of the justices disagreed with Scalia, dumping your opinion in with the minority on this one. But, again, Scalia wasn’t crying for precedent. He actually thinks there’s a homosexual agenda. He makes political decisions, not legal ones. Always has.

    Again, you are completely and absolutely ignorant about what the court is talking about when it refers to stare decisis; it is referring to its own previous rulings. It is damaging to the good jurisprudence for the court to regularly contradict itself without sufficient warrant.

    But, right to the point you just raised, you never once said Scalia’s decision has nothing to do with laws in Africa. In fact, you only connected the issue after I tried to get things back on topic. Even then, you only stated that I was connecting Scalia – not his decision – to Uganda. If you recall, you were specifically referring to my comments that he believes there is a homosexual agenda, not anything to do with his poor legal mind.

    You are the one who links Scalia and what is going on in Africa in your first post. If you don’t want them discussed together, then don’t discuss them together.

    So again, I said that inane beliefs like the one about there being a homosexual agenda is what helps to foster further hate toward homosexuals. The connection is clear. The term is a political attempt to demonize homosexuals. What’s more, many of the claims of what goes on in this deep, dark agenda have to do with children and perversion. That has no actual connection to homosexuality, but that’s what’s often implied in “homosexual agenda” – and it was actually said outright by those who went to Uganda to encourage this sort of legislation.

    No, the term is an accurate description of a well funded, politically connected movement with an agenda in our country; denying that lobbying efforts and advocacy organizations act on behalf homosexuals is a denial of reality. Don’t say you are for brutal honesty on one hand, and then deny reality on the other.

  26. They aren’t the same as my interests;

    Rights are rights. They are always in your interest, even when others exercise them.

    Saving individuals on insurance etc. isn’t an overriding interest of the state. The overriding interest of the state in heterosexual marriage is that it is good for children, communities, and is a building block of the state itself. If heterosexual marriage ceased to exist, the state would suffer. If homosexual relationships ceased to exist, it wouldn’t harm the state at all.

    Several problems here.

    1) Infertile couples/couples who don’t want children.
    2) Elderly couples with no other families.
    3) No evidence that homosexual relations are bad for children.
    4) Evidence that stable adult figures are good for children.
    5) All the orphans who could use parents.

    You can only take care of 1&2 by also arguing against those sorts of marriages.

    Funny how you seem to ignore you own ad hom tirades as the primary derailing factor.

    I think you’re afraid to actually address any real issue here. Ugandans want to murder homosexuals. In response to outrage at their bill (which had to be yanked out of conservatives), they are no proposing life sentences. That’s only a couple steps worse than the large number of Americans who wish to be able to fire homosexuals from their jobs.

    Again, you are completely and absolutely ignorant about what the court is talking about when it refers to stare decisis; it is referring to its own previous rulings. It is damaging to the good jurisprudence for the court to regularly contradict itself without sufficient warrant.

    That it was wrong has always been a reason to override itself. Of course, you’re welcome to believe it is okay for the state to tell you what you can and cannot do with your wife in your own bedroom. Scalia does.

    You are the one who links Scalia and what is going on in Africa in your first post. If you don’t want them discussed together, then don’t discuss them together.

    Nice bait-and-switch. 1) I was pointing out that you never raised the points you claim you did. I am right about that, have all the evidence here to see, and you haven’t bothered to refute that. This inability of yours to stay on point is getting, frankly and honestly, annoying. 2) I never said I don’t want the two linked. If I did, you’re welcome to quote me. What I did say, though, was that the belief that government should be allowed to interfere in private sexual affairs is a dangerous position that conflicts with not only the constitution, but also a proper respect for individual liberties. But again, you’re welcome to believe that it is okay for the government to legislate your bedroom activities.

    No, the term is an accurate description of a well funded, politically connected movement with an agenda in our country; denying that lobbying efforts and advocacy organizations act on behalf homosexuals is a denial of reality. Don’t say you are for brutal honesty on one hand, and then deny reality on the other.

    So “homosexual agenda” isn’t meant to carry a series of negative connotations pertaining to perversion and harmful acts that are implied inherent in homosexuality?

  27. Rights are rights. They are always in your interest, even when others exercise them.

    Actually, rights are pretty well defined in our country; and it may not be in my or your interest to support them, but we are obligated to because we don’t grant those rights.

    Several problems here.
    1) Infertile couples/couples who don’t want children.
    2) Elderly couples with no other families.
    3) No evidence that homosexual relations are bad for children.
    4) Evidence that stable adult figures are good for children.
    5) All the orphans who could use parents.
    You can only take care of 1&2 by also arguing against those sorts of marriages.

    There is no evidence that ‘all stable adults are good for children’ they may be better than starvation or poverty, but the preference is invariably biological parents caring for their own. And while the state doesn’t have a particular interest in sanctioning non-productive couples, it also doesn’t have a compelling interest to penalize couples whose biology has failed them due to circumstances beyond their control. It would have an interest in preserving the institution of marriage against those activities which fundamentally alter its basic purpose.

    What is forgotten here is the state isn’t required to sanction marriage at all; marriage can exist apart from such sanctions. However, the state is compelled to sanction it because of its intrinsic value, a value that does not exist in homosexual marriages.

    I think you’re afraid to actually address any real issue here. Ugandans want to murder homosexuals. In response to outrage at their bill (which had to be yanked out of conservatives), they are no proposing life sentences. That’s only a couple steps worse than the large number of Americans who wish to be able to fire homosexuals from their jobs.

    I am not sure what you think I am afraid of; have no problem as a Christian opposing such legislation.

    That it was wrong has always been a reason to override itself. Of course, you’re welcome to believe it is okay for the state to tell you what you can and cannot do with your wife in your own bedroom. Scalia does.

    Scalia speaks to that as well:

    “Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery. But there is no right to “liberty” under the Due Process Clause…”

    Nice bait-and-switch. 1) I was pointing out that you never raised the points you claim you did. I am right about that, have all the evidence here to see, and you haven’t bothered to refute that. This inability of yours to stay on point is getting, frankly and honestly, annoying. 2) I never said I don’t want the two linked. If I did, you’re welcome to quote me. What I did say, though, was that the belief that government should be allowed to interfere in private sexual affairs is a dangerous position that conflicts with not only the constitution, but also a proper respect for individual liberties. But again, you’re welcome to believe that it is okay for the government to legislate your bedroom activities.

    My simple point was that it is silly to link what Scalia did to what happened in Africa, however tangentially you did it.

    As far ‘legislating our bedroom activities’ Scalia already explained that the government isn’t limited to regulating only those things we do outside of our homes; however I do think a compelling case could be made against such legislation on a different basis, namely that it might invite abridgements to the fourth amendment.

    So “homosexual agenda” isn’t meant to carry a series of negative connotations pertaining to perversion and harmful acts that are implied inherent in homosexuality?

    That wasn’t my intention, though it surprises me that it would automatically cause you to think of that.

  28. Actually, rights are pretty well defined in our country; and it may not be in my or your interest to support them, but we are obligated to because we don’t grant those rights.

    Every single founding father would disagree with you. If you don’t support, say, the KKK’s right to free speech, then you have no supported your own right. In effect, you want a privilege.

    I am not sure what you think I am afraid of; have no problem as a Christian opposing such legislation.

    As a far-right wing Christian, odds are you would prefer to have the right to fire gays. That puts you in a horrible (and honest) light. This criminalization is only being taken up a notch.

    Scalia speaks to that as well:

    “Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery. But there is no right to “liberty” under the Due Process Clause…”

    I guess he isn’t concerned about the rest of the constitution or virtually everything Jefferson ever said.

    Laws on prostitution serve a legitimate purpose because prostitution spreads disease. Laws against regulated prostitution, however, don’t make much sense.

    Laws against heroin use are justified through much the same reasoning as bans on drunk driving. The severity of heroin laws, however, tend to be on unjust and intended on disproportionately affecting minorities.

    The bakery example only shows Scalia’s genuine stupidity. That’s a choice. Besides that, there are laws requiring overtime pay and other compensation. He has just an awful, awful legal mind. Just awful.

    My simple point was that it is silly to link what Scalia did to what happened in Africa, however tangentially you did it.

    Isn’t pride a sin, Jack? Shouldn’t you be just a little concerned with ceding that you never, in fact, raised this point?

    And why is it silly to connect the belief (supported by Scalia) that it is okay for the government to tell you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own bedroom with the belief that it is okay for another government to tell you the exact same thing but with harsher penalties? It’s a matter of degree, not principle.

    As far ‘legislating our bedroom activities’ Scalia already explained that the government isn’t limited to regulating only those things we do outside of our homes;

    He explained nothing and I destroyed his argument in about 4 minutes. The 14th Amendment does protect liberties, precisely says that, and also protects equal rights. These laws attacked a group without showing how said group is fundamentally any different from any other. It’s abundantly clear.

    That wasn’t my intention, though it surprises me that it would automatically cause you to think of that.

    Of course it’s your intention. But why would it surprise you? I live in a state that just went through months and months of same-sex marriage debate. The “Yes on 1” side used the term again and again in its ads, constantly suggesting children were at risk and playing big scary music in the background. But maybe that’s all just crazy talk.

  29. Every single founding father would disagree with you. If you don’t support, say, the KKK’s right to free speech, then you have no supported your own right. In effect, you want a privilege.

    It is almost impossible to imagine an African American arguing that is was in his ‘interest’ to support the right of the KKK to spread their hateful message. In fact it is quite contrary to the liberty (and life) of a black citizen to have the Klan advocating their message. However, it wouldn’t be in anyone’s interest to have the government be empowered to repress our rights with regard to free speech and press, and so as far as recognizing out rights limits the power of the government, it maximizes our liberties. There is no corollary when it comes to modifying the institution of marriage to suit the whims of a particular interest group.

    As a far-right wing Christian, odds are you would prefer to have the right to fire gays. That puts you in a horrible (and honest) light. This criminalization is only being taken up a notch.

    So let me get this straight; you make up something that I would supposedly like to do, and on the basis of that imagined action or motivation, i am culpable of what is happening in a particular African nation. What an odd logic you employ.

    I guess he isn’t concerned about the rest of the constitution or virtually everything Jefferson ever said.
    Laws on prostitution serve a legitimate purpose because prostitution spreads disease. Laws against regulated prostitution, however, don’t make much sense.
    Laws against heroin use are justified through much the same reasoning as bans on drunk driving. The severity of heroin laws, however, tend to be on unjust and intended on disproportionately affecting minorities.
    The bakery example only shows Scalia’s genuine stupidity. That’s a choice. Besides that, there are laws requiring overtime pay and other compensation. He has just an awful, awful legal mind. Just awful.

    Scalia was just pointing out that the fact that a law ‘imposes a constraint on liberty’ does not in and of itself invalidate that law. And you are agreeing with him here (whether you realize it or not), so what would that make your mind?

    Isn’t pride a sin, Jack? Shouldn’t you be just a little concerned with ceding that you never, in fact, raised this point?

    Sure I did, when I said, “Oh please; connecting Scalia with the non-existent ‘gay genocide’ in Uganda is beyond preposterous.” Not sure how it would be pride in either case though.

    And why is it silly to connect the belief (supported by Scalia) that it is okay for the government to tell you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own bedroom with the belief that it is okay for another government to tell you the exact same thing but with harsher penalties? It’s a matter of degree, not principle.

    Well, as has been pointed out the government already tells us we can’t do certain things in the bedroom; why you think the Founding Fathers had sodomizing someone in mind when they enumerated our rights is beyond me.

    He explained nothing and I destroyed his argument in about 4 minutes. The 14th Amendment does protect liberties, precisely says that, and also protects equal rights. These laws attacked a group without showing how said group is fundamentally any different from any other. It’s abundantly clear.

    How did you destroy it if it was ‘nothing’; oh right, logic is suspended here, I forget. Laws against sodomy (which can be applied to anyone of any sex, race, or creed) aren’t in and of themselves unequal in their application, so the 14th amendment wouldn’t seem to apply here.

    Of course it’s your intention. But why would it surprise you? I live in a state that just went through months and months of same-sex marriage debate. The “Yes on 1″ side used the term again and again in its ads, constantly suggesting children were at risk and playing big scary music in the background. But maybe that’s all just crazy talk.

    You know, since you already know my ‘intention’, what actions I would like to take, and that every argument I might make has already been ‘destroyed’ by you 100 times over at least, I am wondering why you need to respond at all Michael; simply dictate to us all what the truth is, and we can bow at your incredible ability to read minds, discern motives, and issue dictates on all subjects – who needs democracy when we have a benevolent dictator like yourself to lead us?

    You are making it easier to see why liberties disappear when atheists comes to power.

  30. It is almost impossible to imagine an African American arguing that is was in his ‘interest’ to support the right of the KKK to spread their hateful message. In fact it is quite contrary to the liberty (and life) of a black citizen to have the Klan advocating their message. However, it wouldn’t be in anyone’s interest to have the government be empowered to repress our rights with regard to free speech and press, and so as far as recognizing out rights limits the power of the government, it maximizes our liberties. There is no corollary when it comes to modifying the institution of marriage to suit the whims of a particular interest group.

    Great. Your argument is that the KKK’s right to free speech is contrary to liberty. But it really isn’t. Good job.

    So let me get this straight; you make up something that I would supposedly like to do, and on the basis of that imagined action or motivation, i am culpable of what is happening in a particular African nation. What an odd logic you employ.

    You’ve argued against the extension of equal protection rights to homosexuals already. I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe you would prefer to have the right to also fire gays. But we can settle this. Do you favor extending civil rights acts (state and federal) to homosexuals?

    Also, please stop attempting these strawmen. I’m arguing that favoring legal discrimination against homosexuals is being taken to its conclusion in Uganda. What you’re saying would be the same as me arguing that when you say Stalin took atheism to its logical conclusion that you’re also saying I’m responsible for all the deaths caused by the Soviet Union. I don’t argue that because I am honest.

    Scalia was just pointing out that the fact that a law ‘imposes a constraint on liberty’ does not in and of itself invalidate that law. And you are agreeing with him here (whether you realize it or not), so what would that make your mind?

    Here’s one reason I just implied I am far more honest than you are. Alternatively, you can refer to where I’ve called you a dolt. Your choice.

    Scalia’s argument has no nuance. He is saying that because one law restricts liberty, one cannot rightfully argue that a similar restriction on other liberties should be illegal or disallowed. He is ignoring, as I went ahead and already noted, that there are reasons which justify restrictions of liberty. That, of course, only concerns his first two examples. His bakery example has nothing to do with government sanctioned restriction of liberty.

    Sure I did, when I said, “Oh please; connecting Scalia with the non-existent ‘gay genocide’ in Uganda is beyond preposterous.” Not sure how it would be pride in either case though.

    In fact, you only connected the issue after I tried to get things back on topic. Even then, you only stated that I was connecting Scalia – not his decision – to Uganda.

    Well, as has been pointed out the government already tells us we can’t do certain things in the bedroom; why you think the Founding Fathers had sodomizing someone in mind when they enumerated our rights is beyond me.

    The government cannot tell you what to do in your bedroom in terms of sexual actions, provided there is consent. It cannot tell you not to have anal sex. It cannot tell you what position to use for vaginal sex. It cannot tell you one thing or another about oral sex. The Supreme Court has ruled on this sort of issue, legislatures have passed laws protecting such privacy.

    It would seem that you may not favor the government making particular actions illegal in the bedroom, but you would favor its right to do so. So if that’s the case, then do you also favor Uganda’s right to do so to its people?

    How did you destroy it if it was ‘nothing’; oh right, logic is suspended here, I forget.

    Playing semantics doesn’t work well for you.

    Laws against sodomy (which can be applied to anyone of any sex, race, or creed) aren’t in and of themselves unequal in their application, so the 14th amendment wouldn’t seem to apply here.

    Many of the laws were specific to homosexual men. Furthermore, the laws were intended to discriminate against them anyway. It’s equivalent to the literacy laws passed throughout U.S. history which were intended to disenfranchise black voters. Maybe they can be applied to anyone, but that isn’t the reason behind them. Of course, you can disagree. You just have to do it without the support of history, logic, common sense, or the Supreme Court.

    You know, since you already know my ‘intention’, what actions I would like to take, and that every argument I might make has already been ‘destroyed’ by you 100 times over at least, I am wondering why you need to respond at all Michael;

    It may be my desire to see how many times you will address me without the proper use of commas, Jack.

  31. Great. Your argument is that the KKK’s right to free speech is contrary to liberty. But it really isn’t. Good job.

    No, my argument is that the KKK’s intentions as they express them are contrary to liberty.

    You’ve argued against the extension of equal protection rights to homosexuals already. I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe you would prefer to have the right to also fire gays. But we can settle this. Do you favor extending civil rights acts (state and federal) to homosexuals?

    No, I have argued against forcing someone to act contrary to their conscience; that is different – there is more than one photographer in the world.

    Also, please stop attempting these strawmen. I’m arguing that favoring legal discrimination against homosexuals is being taken to its conclusion in Uganda. What you’re saying would be the same as me arguing that when you say Stalin took atheism to its logical conclusion that you’re also saying I’m responsible for all the deaths caused by the Soviet Union. I don’t argue that because I am honest.

    Stalin happened in the past; we already know what his atheism led him to do in his country. How a US supreme court justice argues (or preacher preaches) with regard to laws in this country doesn’t have anything to do with the laws passed in another country. Obviously it hasn’t led to the death penalty for gays.

    Here’s one reason I just implied I am far more honest than you are. Alternatively, you can refer to where I’ve called you a dolt. Your choice.

    Actually you do those things because you arguments fail; so you have to re-assure yourself and call other people names. It’s the tactic of a three year old, that I have seen many three year olds practice, and embarrassingly a few adults.

    Scalia’s argument has no nuance. He is saying that because one law restricts liberty, one cannot rightfully argue that a similar restriction on other liberties should be illegal or disallowed. He is ignoring, as I went ahead and already noted, that there are reasons which justify restrictions of liberty. That, of course, only concerns his first two examples. His bakery example has nothing to do with government sanctioned restriction of liberty.

    No, he is saying there is no general ‘right to liberty’. He says it pretty explicitly. There are specific rights that define our liberties, but no unspecific right to liberty – at least not one the court can act on.

    The government cannot tell you what to do in your bedroom in terms of sexual actions, provided there is consent. It cannot tell you not to have anal sex. It cannot tell you what position to use for vaginal sex. It cannot tell you one thing or another about oral sex. The Supreme Court has ruled on this sort of issue, legislatures have passed laws protecting such privacy.

    It certainly can; it can tell you can’t pay for it, it can tell you it can’t be with a minor, or sibling, or animal. So again, you are simply wrong on the facts.

    It would seem that you may not favor the government making particular actions illegal in the bedroom, but you would favor its right to do so. So if that’s the case, then do you also favor Uganda’s right to do so to its people?

    The only good argument I can see against specific laws like the one considered in Lawrence, within American jurisprudence (which I won’t apply to Uganda, because it doesn’t apply) about what two consenting adults might do in the privacy of their own homes is that such laws create a situation where the 4th amendment is widely disregarded. On that basis, such laws are lacking.

    Playing semantics doesn’t work well for you.

    Much as logic doesn’t seem to work well for you.

    Many of the laws were specific to homosexual men. Furthermore, the laws were intended to discriminate against them anyway. It’s equivalent to the literacy laws passed throughout U.S. history which were intended to disenfranchise black voters. Maybe they can be applied to anyone, but that isn’t the reason behind them. Of course, you can disagree. You just have to do it without the support of history, logic, common sense, or the Supreme Court.

    Well, if they were specific to homosexual men then they might on that basis make a 4th amendment claim. What the intent might be is somewhat irrelevant unless it can be shown they discriminate in actuality.

    It may be my desire to see how many times you will address me without the proper use of commas, Jack.

    To quote Churchill when a nattering nitpicky busybody attempted to improve his use of grammar, “This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.”

  32. No, my argument is that the KKK’s intentions as they express them are contrary to liberty.

    The goalposts aren’t centered around the content of what the KKK says. They are centered around the right of the KKK to say anything at all. Your argument is not on point and thus is moot.

    No, I have argued against forcing someone to act contrary to their conscience; that is different – there is more than one photographer in the world.

    Then a photographer can refuse to photograph a black family?

    And you still haven’t answered my question: Do you favor extending civil rights acts (state and federal) to homosexuals?

    Stalin happened in the past; we already know what his atheism led him to do in his country. How a US supreme court justice argues (or preacher preaches) with regard to laws in this country doesn’t have anything to do with the laws passed in another country. Obviously it hasn’t led to the death penalty for gays.

    You’re a liar about Stalin, but I digress.

    Here’s your strawman again. No one ever said Scalia’s poor legal mind is why Ugandans want to murder gays. The argument is that his argument supports the criminalization of homosexuality, something which is being taken only steps further than what many Americans would like to see.

    Actually you do those things because you arguments fail; so you have to re-assure yourself and call other people names. It’s the tactic of a three year old, that I have seen many three year olds practice, and embarrassingly a few adults.

    It’s self-defeating when you compare me to a three year old.

    No, he is saying there is no general ‘right to liberty’. He says it pretty explicitly. There are specific rights that define our liberties, but no unspecific right to liberty – at least not one the court can act on.

    Your squirrel-y language toward the end indicates to me that you realized just how wrong you are. I refer you to the preamble of the constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence and virtually everything Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Washington, Adams, Franklin, and other founding fathers ever said of the issue. Liberty is at the core of the U.S., no matter how much you would like to restrict it for a group you don’t like. Or maybe just so you can save face in your attempt to defend a terrible legal mind.

    You may want to also note that Scalia had limited himself to a specific part of the constitution, not the whole document as you just extended the argument.

    It certainly can; it can tell you can’t pay for it, it can tell you it can’t be with a minor, or sibling, or animal. So again, you are simply wrong on the facts.

    All your examples have reasons behind them, unlike the whimsical Texas law. Prostitutes spread disease, minors cannot consent (something I actually specifically raised; please bother reading), sibling relations often cause trauma and can result in genetic disorders, and animals cannot consent (again, read before responding).

    The only good argument I can see against specific laws like the one considered in Lawrence, within American jurisprudence (which I won’t apply to Uganda, because it doesn’t apply) about what two consenting adults might do in the privacy of their own homes is that such laws create a situation where the 4th amendment is widely disregarded. On that basis, such laws are lacking.

    So do you favor the right of government to pass laws telling you what you can and cannot do in the bedroom? In addition to the unanswered question about Uganda, do you also favor the right of the government to declare that Jack Hudson can no longer have sex with his wife?

    Well, if they were specific to homosexual men then they might on that basis make a 4th amendment claim.

    This is numb. If a 4th Amendment case can be mounted here, it has nothing to do with the targeting of a specific group.

    What the intent might be is somewhat irrelevant unless it can be shown they discriminate in actuality.

    Laws that milk can only be sold at a certain minimum price may discriminate against minorities since they tend to be poorer than whites, but that doesn’t mean such laws are unconstitutional.

    To quote Churchill when a nattering nitpicky busybody attempted to improve his use of grammar, “This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.”

    Churchill was referencing prepositions. I’m referencing grammar learned and practiced in the 2nd grade, Jack.

  33. “Your freedom and mine cannot be separated. ~Mandela. ”

    Brilliant quote!
    I’m not going to weigh in on the Hudson vs Hawkins debate (Count me on the Hawkins side), but thanks for the Blogpost. I’m doing a project on Homophobia in Uganda and this was helpful.

    Take care
    Angus

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: