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.

[MrLeRoy]

Personally When I catch people "parking" if I find them engaged in an act of sodomy, I charge Crimes Against Nature (A Felony) over Indecent Exposure (A Misdemeanor).

Has the local DA ever prosecuted any of these felony charges?

If you found a married couple "parking" and engaged in an act of sodomy, would you charge them with the felony?

[MEGoody]

If posting about buttsex is offensive to you, go to another thread. Good grief, you are a grown up, right?

[Polycarp]

Good points, thank you.

[jmc813]

Twit.

Damn! Good one, man. Touche. This is gonna be tough to come up with a worthy comeback. Hmmmmmm......

Dorkface!!!!

[presidio9]

Your fixation on HTML is boring. Withouth the itallics, your post are more difficult to decipher. End of story. Either address my valid points or don't, I honestly don't care. But I suspect you can't, which is why you are suddenly trying to make this thread "about" HTML.

[presidio9]

Damn! Good one, man. Touche. This is gonna be tough to come up with a worthy comeback. Hmmmmmm......

Get over yourself. I'm not trying to score points off of you. I'm merely pointing out that you acted like a twit when you as a juvenile question. Ask a mature question and your response from me will receive serious consideration. Act like a kid and you will be dismissed.

[jmc813]

I just found the stretch you used here...

Actually your HTML challenges are symptomatic of a deeper problem. You think that if everyone does what he or she feels like doing, everything will be hunky-dory, as long as their behavior "doesn't harm anyone."

To be one of the silliest things I've read in a long time.

Anyhow, sorry for the dust up. It appears as if this conversation is dead anyway, because tpaine managed to get himself suspended for something or another.

[ArGee]

Yes, I think that this abuse would be illegal. But we are both aware of the difficulty of pursuing these cases when a spouse does not press charges or, in many cases, does not even involve law enforcement. But, this is not the equivalent in my mind. I think we would both agree that in the case of spouse abuse that one party did not consent to the abuse.

But we can't be sure. There is wierd sex and people seem to be into masochism. So unless the wife admits she is abused, is she? If she willingly stays in the relationship and protects her husband, isn't it a consensual and protected relationship?

Herein is my biggest point. You and I might believe that the wife must be mentally ill to suffer the abuse. It is probable that she needs therapy to understand why she keeps subjecting herself to such abuse but she would deny anything is wrong until after she has been successfully treated. Afterwords she might thank us, but beforehand she might fight us. Would we be right or wrong to keep silent because the relationship is consensual and nobody else is being hurt?

And, knowing that homosexual attraction is also a mental illness, are we right or wrong for keeping silent?

Are you suggesting that the doctor or abused spouse is guilty for not involving law enforcement?

In many cases the doctor does violate a law, but that is a different issue.

I am not certain if you mean emotional, physical or spiritual protection. But wouldn't you agree that there are countless legal behaviors that many would say present a risk to a person?

I would. And I would also agree that they are symptomatic of a mental impairment (perhaps more or less ill-suited to our society) that would benefit the individual to have treated. But since some of those lines are too fine for me to draw, I'll focus on the bold ones.

Same-sex attraction disorder is not a fine line.

Shalom.

[presidio9]

To be one of the silliest things I've read in a long time.

Coming from you I'm not really worried. But I'm interested to know why. Intelligent adults rarely use absolutes without identifing why.

Anyhow, sorry for the dust up. It appears as if this conversation is dead anyway, because tpaine managed to get himself suspended for something or another.

If he got suspended, it is because he is an annoying troll. Just like yourself. I'm sorry he's gone, because it was kind of fun picking apart his idiotic logic, but I'm also glad that I don't need to waste any more time responding to pathetic HTML inquiries when he is no longer confident about defending his position. The great thing about this country is that it is OK to change your mind and say "you are right and I was wrong." Or, if you are not comfortable with that, you can just shut up already. :)

[jmc813]

Coming from you I'm not really worried.

Have we interacted here on FR in the past? To the best of my knowledge we have not.

But I'm interested to know why. Intelligent adults rarely use absolutes without identifing why.

Look, I just thought your contention that the lack of using HTML is indicitive of libertarianism was incredibly dumb.

If he got suspended, it is because he is an annoying troll. Just like yourself.

Why do you insist on personally attacking me? Like I asked before, have we ever interacted in the past? What makes you think I am a "troll"?

The great thing about this country is that it is OK to change your mind and say "you are right and I was wrong."

Agreed. If someone proves me wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. In this case, however, I stand by my original contention that the analogy you used before was silly.

[presidio9]

Look, I just thought your contention that the lack of using HTML is indicitive of libertarianism was incredibly dumb.

Libertarianism is extremely dumb. It is relieant on the good behavior of the weakest links of society. I have no time or patience for those who embrace it.

The anaology makes perfect sense. There are no on this website forcing you to use HTML, but nearly everybody does. Some people can't be bothered, and are offended when people misunderstand them as a result. If this is one of the silliest things you have read in a long time, you need to geread more.

[jmc813]

you need to geread more.

This typo indicates that you did not properly proofread your post, therefore making it harder for me to initially understand. I suppose you're a libertarian.

[presidio9]

Spelling and "reading comprehension" complaints are a trademark of the unimaginative. Take another hit off your bong, and get back to me when you are able to put together some semblence of a dissent. Like that pseudointellectual tompaine, you fail to respond to what I have to say because you can't. Changing the subject won't make you right.

[jmc813]

Spelling and "reading comprehension" complaints are a trademark of the unimaginative.

I know. I was just busting your ba@&s a bit.

Take another hit off your bong, and get back to me when you are able to put together some semblence of a dissent.

I don't smoke pot. Again, why the hostility? We don't have previous issues, and I've tried to treat you with respect on this thread.

you fail to respond to what I have to say because you can't.

I've responded to you plenty. Look, we're not going to agree on the merits and/or lack therof of libertarianism, but realize that it is because of my libertarian/constitutionalist side that, believe it or not, we agree on the unconstitutionality of the Supreme Court getting involved in this case in the first place.

[FF578]

Has the local DA ever prosecuted any of these felony charges?

Yes.

Crimes Against Nature is charged all the time in North Carolina. It is not as common as other charges, but it is prosecuted. Even in Big jurisdictions like Raleigh, Crimes Against Nature charges have been prosecuted.

If you found a married couple "parking" and engaged in an act of sodomy, would you charge them with the felony?

No, I could not charge them. The North Carolina Crimes Against Nature statute only applies to sodomy committed between unmarried couples wheter they be same-sex or opposite-sex. Homos cannot be married in North Carolina, so by definition all homosexual sodomy is illegal. Unmarried Heterosexual sodomy is also illegal.

I would charge indecent exposure instead.

[MrLeRoy]

The North Carolina Crimes Against Nature statute only applies to sodomy committed between unmarried couples

So according to NC, heterosexual sodomy is "unnatural"---but only if they're unmarried.

Ah, the hypocrisy of moralistic law ....

[presidio9]

I am hostile with you, because I have run out of patience for libertarians who are the scourge of conservativism. I don't know your personal politics, but to me libertarianism stands for PRO-ABORTION, PRO-DRUGS, PROiISOLATIONISM, ANTI-RELIGION, and PRO-IMMORALITY. If you are not against those things, you are for them. I don't have time or compassion for people that think that way. Now, I appreciate your civil tone, and I apologize for offending you in the past, but when you choose to naively ally yourself with the Gay Rights movement out of a misguided sense of universal liberty, expect more of the same. This issue is not about gay men having the right to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. I understand the libertarian urge to see things in such black and white terms, but there is much more at stake here. Which is why Santorum is being crucified for things he didn't really say. I see that you have attracted a few really dumb libertarians to this thread now. Ones that I have dealt with in the past. Why don't the whole lot of you go back to your nutty WOD threads and give the gay right sympathies a break?

[presidio9]

I don't smoke pot

NONE of you guys do. Of course not. Perish the thought. You are all worked up about Government. My mistake.

[jmc813]

PRO-ABORTION

I am pro-life. So are many libertarians - Libertarians for Life

PRO-DRUGS

Like I said, I don't use drugs (other than alcohol), but you don't believe me anyway.

PROiISOLATIONISM

If that means getiing the heck out of the UN, and acting in our own self-interest rather than that of the "international community", than so be it.

ANTI-RELIGION

I am a Lutheran who volunteers as an usher at my church.

PRO-IMMORALITY

Of course I'm not pro-immorality, I just have different opinions on the whether the government is the proper means of enforcing morality.

but when you choose to naively ally yourself with the Gay Rights movement out of a misguided sense of universal liberty, expect more of the same.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I also believe in racist rights, as disgusting as I think racists are. Now, once groups start asking for SPECIAL rights, such as gays wanting to indoctrinate our youth in the schools, then I am as against them as you are.

This issue is not about gay men having the right to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. I understand the libertarian urge to see things in such black and white terms, but there is much more at stake here. Which is why Santorum is being crucified for things he didn't really say.

I agree that the liberal media twisted Santorum's words. I also agree that I agree with Santorum to the extent that this is out of the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and should be up to Texas to decide.

Why don't the whole lot of you go back to your nutty WOD threads.

You're on a thread with at least one person who believes that gays should be executed. And you're calling the WOD threads nutty? ;-)

[Dolphy]

Herein is my biggest point. You and I might believe that the wife must be mentally ill to suffer the abuse. It is probable that she needs therapy to understand why she keeps subjecting herself to such abuse but she would deny anything is wrong until after she has been successfully treated. Afterwords she might thank us, but beforehand she might fight us. Would we be right or wrong to keep silent because the relationship is consensual and nobody else is being hurt?

Again, I don't think a relationship wherein one partner is physically abusing the other is equivalent to a homosexual relationship. You might find the latter spiritually abusive, emotionally abusive and morally abusive, but these are not necessarily abuses that develop any physical symptoms or imperil ones life as in the case of physical abuse.

And, knowing that homosexual attraction is also a mental illness, are we right or wrong for keeping silent?

I don't think you should keep your beliefs silent, but this is about outlawing conduct that you find repulsive and immoral. We do not have laws that make mentally ill conduct, in and of itself, illegal. We have laws that protect others from that behavior should it result in a tangible loss to another party.

I am short of time and will address your other points later tonight.