Still knee-deep in homophobia

The Arizona Republic ^ | Apr. 29, 2003 | O. Ricardo Pimentel

[presidio9]

Let me translate into "bigotspeak" what Sen. Rick Santorum meant when he compared gays to bigamists, polygamists and practitioners of incest and adultery.

Translated: Hey, I place you in the same category as all those scummy people I just mentioned. Oh, and if you act on who you are, you're also a criminal.

[Kevin Curry]

That's in there with the Constitutional "right" to universal health care, . . .

That's right, to pay for AIDS, anal gonorrhea, prolapsed and ruptured rectums, hepatitis B etc, etc, etc.

The sodomite's slogan: "My sick pleasure at your expense."

[Jhoffa_]

I figured it might come in handy..

Anyone who can accomidate another man's arm back there needs some form of comprehensive health care coverage.

[Jorge]

What a terrible blow to the self-esteem of minorities, to say: "I'm a minority; homosexuals are a minority; therefore we're equal." That's what the homosexuals are saying. So a black person is supposed to say: "Oh? I'm equal to a homosexual?"

I don't beleive homosexuality make one a minority in the same way blacks are a minority....and I think for gays to make such a claim is an insult to blacks.

I don't disgree with this point at all. You're arguing with the wrong person.

[Mr. Mojo]

Sorry, he's still labeling the person a sinner - for just being.

No, he's labeling the person a sinner for doing.

[Mr. Mojo]

Homophobia....Francophobia....Islamophobia ......what a bunch of bullsh/t. I don't fear 'em; I just don't like 'em.

[Jhoffa_]

Homophobia....Francophobia....Islamophobia ......what a bunch of bullsh/t. I don't fear 'em; I just don't like 'em.

Yeah, I just had a guy (who, interestingly enough refers to gays as "we") tell me I am obviously a latent homo because I don't approve of homosexual behavior.

According to him, I guess I am going to snap someday soon and just flat rape someone or something when I am overcome by these pent up homosexual urges.

Since he approves of the lifestyle, engages in it (he did say "we") and generally just thinks it's grand. I wonder if he's a latent, repressed heterosexual?

[jwalsh07]

Yes he did.

No, he didn't. He made several arguments, the first being that the practice of homosexuality was abnormal and abhorent to him.

The second was that a SCOTUS finding a right to privacy for consensual sexual acts in the "penumbra" of the Constitution would of necessity apply to all such acts. Homosexuals mau find incest abhorent but if done in private by consensual adults, the abhorence is simply in the eyes of the beholder.

Thirdly, the SCOTUS has no business legislating from the bench. These issues are the province of the people and the states they resdie in as set forth in the 9th and 10th Amendments, not dictatable by 9 folks in black pj's across from the Capital building.

If you don't like the Constitution as is, I suggest you amend it to enumerate a Constitutional right regarding sexuality.

In the meantime, I would refrain from referring to people as stupid when you are clearly ill informed.

[Jhoffa_]

"Implicitly" was the key word. You'll find it and the right to cocaine, prostitution and beastiality (although not Universal Health Care) in Amendment X and Amendment XIV.

Oh BS: It does no such thing.

You have no implied 'constitutional right' to sodomy. Period.

It's a States issue and their prohibitions are constitutional. They have been on the books for centuries.

[Cultural Jihad]

What about the freedom to establish and maintain community standards? What about the freedom to decide what kind of a society they are to live in? Oh, I see. The libertarians are afraid of that level of freedom and personal accountability.

[jwalsh07]

One other word on the matter. The government peeking in windows and respecting the Constitution and freedom are not mutually exclusive issues here. In Texas, where this cas emanates from arrests for consensual sex are as rare as blue moons.

You support an activist supreme court here because it advances your ideology. The problem with that is that it always, and I mean always, comes back to bite you in the ass.

One need only look at the unintended consequences devolved from the Roe and Bolton SCOTUS decisions to understand the effects of "penumbra" privacy.

[Jorge]

Don't pitch your pro-sodomy horsesh*t in my direction, George.

His posts didn't appear to be "pro-sodomy" to me.

Since when does the fact a person doesn't think we should arrest and jail adults for consensual sodomy in the privacy of their homes make them "pro-sodomy"?

The fact is MOST people in MOST states have removed sodomy from the law books...not because they are pro-sodomy but because they are not interested in going into the bedrooms of consenting adults to regulate their sexual conduct.

You on the other hand seem obsessed with the private sexual acts of others that are none of your business...and also accusing people who disagree with you on this board of all kinds of things that exist only in your own sick imagination. Grow up.

[Mr. Mojo]

I guess it makes them feel better about themselves to think that all males have homo tendencies, latent or othewise. Or perhaps they think that calling a straight guy who doesn't like fruits a "latent homo" is just about the biggest insult going. Whatever it is, the best response when dealing with those types is to tell them the truth --- that homosexuality is a mental (and spiritual) disorder. That usually shuts their traps .....so to speak.

[Cultural Jihad]

You'll find it and the right to cocaine, prostitution and beastiality (although not Universal Health Care) in Amendment X and Amendment XIV.

Do we need people coming around here trying to claim that bestiality is a Constitutional right? We get enough of that kind of drivel in the liberal media.

[tpaine]

People need to realize that there is a difference between (a) a belief that something should be illegal and (b) an understanding that the constitution does not prevent such illegality. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits banning the import and sale of apricots. Stating this fact about the constitution is not the same as stating one's opposition to the import and sale of apricots. And if my state did ban the import and sale of apricots, I would not be 'anti-apricot' by stating that there is nothing in the constitution on the topic. In fact, insofar as I happen to like apricots, I would say this:

There is nothing unconstitutional about the apricot ban.

It might be a silly law, or unenforceable, or even offensive, but until we change the constitution, the apricot ban is not unconstitutional. We might want to add a 'right to apricots,' but until that amendment succeeds, a ban on apricots is well within the authority of the government.

45 -Pski-

Backwards.
Goverments in the USA, neither fed, state, or local, have ever been granted the power to ban/prohibit any type of property,
-- as was evidenced by booze prohibition & repeal, made possible only by constitutional amendment.

A reasonable case can be made for criminalizing the possession of WMD as a health/safety measure, - and thats about it.
Thus, there is ~everything~ constitutionally wrong with ludicrous apricot type 'bans'.

They shove the principles of our free republic down a 'democratic' style totalitarian toilet.

[Cultural Jihad]

And 'Banned in Boston' was the name of a pre-MTV and pre-Larry Flynt colonial melodious troope, eh?

[Torie]

Perhaps you could help me with some of this. Just how would you frame a legal opinion that holds that the Contitution protects abortion as a fundamental right of privacy, or for that matter contraception, which trump proscriptive state laws, but does not protect sex between consentual adults?

[tpaine]

Do we need people coming around here trying to claim that banning apricots is a Constitutional right?
We get enough of that kind of drivel in the liberal media.

[PatrioticAmerican]

So, all I have to do is pound other men and boys in the butt and I get "protected" status, too?