# Conservative dopers vs. gay sex decision **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786 "2003-06-27T16:19:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/41 "2003-06-29T01:39:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*The majority elected to use a potentially far-reaching substantive due process argument that, quite bluntly, usurps power properly held by the state legislatures. Rather than finding a basis concretely tied to the constitution, the court adopted a theory which essentially allows them (and has in the past allowed them) veto power over legislation for no better reason than their dislike of the policy choices embodied therein. \*\* Like someone else said many of us are seeing only choppy quotes taken from the decision. I just looked up Kennedy’s opening remarks in the opinion - that’s what I remembered from the paper: _Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions._ Without having much legal terminology at my grasp I’m seeing a pretty large disagreement here. According to the Justices the government is not omnipresent in the home, but a state government can be, if it wishes? ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/42 "2003-06-29T01:53:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SRVick \* > \*\*Because it is not the same act. Without being too graphic, anal homosexual intercourse does not equal anal heterosexual intercourse (otherwise, the words homosexual and heterosexual would lack meaning). > \*\* Explain why. It may be a man inserting his penis in the anus of a woman, but there is _no_ difference between the two. Except for the presence of a prostate. So… how is a different act to bugger a woman over buggering a man? I am very curious, do tell. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/43 "2003-06-29T02:00:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tee \* > \*\*Like someone else said many of us are seeing only choppy quotes taken from the decision. \*\* FYI, [here is the opinion](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-102). \*\* > [@](#): > > Without having much legal terminology at my grasp I’m seeing a pretty large disagreement here. According to the Justices the government is not omnipresent in the home, but a state government can be, if it wishes? \*\* I’m not sure what you’re getting at. My basic point was that there isn’t a right to privacy in the text of the constitution, the court adopted a theory which allows them to create such a right (and, indeed, to write in any provision they fancy into the constitution), and that this is an usurpation of a power properly held by the legislature. More simply: if the constitution’s text doesn’t forbid it, a state can do it; the constitution’s text doesn’t forbid this particular law; ergo, a state can pass it (even though it is a moronic law). ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/44 "2003-06-29T03:06:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > \*\* > As I understand it, conservatives have always pushed for a smaller government that is less intrusive into people’s lives, a movement in the direction of laissez-faire. Why aren’t you celebrating a victory for getting the government out of people’s bedrooms? \*\* Personally, I’m quite happy for anything that moves towards legalizing gay marriage, and this is a step in the right direction. This is one of the biggest disagreements I have with my party (the overtly religious representation is the other biggie; no platform is perfectly aligned with my beliefs, and this one, despite its shortcomings comes the closest on all other issues) and I’d like to see more Republicans declare the same thing, particularly those we elect. While I’m straight, I have friends who are directly affected by these archaic laws, and given they and millions of others are _people_ I think they ought to be allowed the same freedom of declaring permanent unions that the rest of us have. ---
**Author:** ![SRVick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SRVick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SRVick)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/45 "2003-06-29T03:07:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mockingbird \* > \*\*Explain why. > > It may be a man inserting his penis in the anus of a woman, but there is _no_ difference between the two. Except for the presence of a prostate. > > So… how is a different act to bugger a woman over buggering a man? I am very curious, do tell. \*\* How is it different to “bugger” a 13-year-old than a 28-year-old? ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/46 "2003-06-29T03:41:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SRVick \* > \*\*How is it different to “bugger” a 13-year-old than a 28-year-old? \*\* Excuse me? How does that have _anything_ to do with what I asked you? ---
**Author:** ![SRVick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SRVick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SRVick)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/47 "2003-06-29T03:50:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mockingbird \* > \*\*Excuse me? > > How does that have _anything_ to do with what I asked you? \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mockingbird, previously \* > \*\*Explain why. > > It may be a man inserting his penis in the anus of a woman, but there is no difference between the two. Except for the presence of a prostate.\*\* Now, I don’t see what the problem is here. “It may be a man inserting his penis in the anus of a _13-year-old_, but there is no difference between the two.” What’s the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/48 "2003-06-29T04:00:31Z")
[Originally posted by Milum] _…Are you not aware that the norm in all human societies is to sexually couple with the opposite sex in order to reproduce? Do you…not think that homosexuality is a biological condition that is disadvantageous to the continuity of the kind?_ [dutchboy208 in responce] _There is no requirement in nature that every member of a species should procreate. In fact, given the exponential increase in world population over the last 20 years, is homosexuality really that bad a thing for the human race? We’re not exactly endangered… and there’s no evidence that are larger percentage exists now than ever before…_ Exactly **dutchboy**. Any hey \*\* The Ryan\*\*, thanks for the clear thoughts. I would have thanked you earlier but somehow I got cut off. No matter, I asked for a new password and was given one post haste. This is what I was gonna say… I think that the occurrence of homosexuals in human cultures is probably the most altruistic of all of mother nature’s inventions. A 3% rate of homosexuality could hardly be maintained through time without the compensating effects of positive contributions to the breeding group at-large. This social contribution is often made through invention and perception with great detriment to the happiness of the homosexual individual whose role in society is most times misunderstood. And that is sad. And as to the constitutionality of the sodomy laws, the reach by the Supreme Court is justified by Amendment number Nine, with supporting legal reference to the preamble. You are so right **dutchboy** and thank you **The Ryan**. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/49 "2003-06-29T04:10:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SRVick \* > \*\*Now, I don’t see what the problem is here. “It may be a man inserting his penis in the anus of a _13-year-old_, but there is no difference between the two.” What’s the difference? \*\* I don’t see the relevance to suggesting sex with a 13 year old except to slur gay people with a pedophile brush. ---
**Author:** ![SRVick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SRVick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SRVick)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/50 "2003-06-29T04:14:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mockingbird \* > \*\*I don’t see the relevance to suggesting sex with a 13 year old except to slur gay people with a pedophile brush. \*\* Apologies. Not my intention. My intention was to point out that one incident of anal intercourse does not necessarily equal another. Clear enough? ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/51 "2003-06-29T04:17:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SRVick \* > \*\*Apologies. Not my intention. My intention was to point out that one incident of anal intercourse does not necessarily equal another. Clear enough? \*\* It only has one difference: men have a prostate and women don’t. The mechanics and entry are the same otherwise. As you cannot come up with how they are different than to say they are, I do not think your arguement holds weight. Any introductory anatomy textbook could easily show this. ---
**Author:** ![SRVick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SRVick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SRVick)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/52 "2003-06-29T04:20:02Z")
“It has only one difference.” In other words, not the same. Ergo, following that train, equal protection does not apply. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/53 "2003-06-29T04:23:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SRVick \* > \*\*“It has only one difference.” In other words, not the same. Ergo, following that train, equal protection does not apply. \*\* As if a prostate versus none should bear any import on it. What about men who’ve had their prostates removed? You are stretching so far for this one, I am surprised you haven’t snapped in two. ---
**Author:** ![5-HT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/f19dbf/32.png) [@5-HT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5-HT)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/54 "2003-06-29T04:25:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panache45 \* > \*\*This is not meant as a debate; it is a question for those of you who are conservative and opposed to the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay sex. > > As I understand it, conservatives have always pushed for a smaller government that is less intrusive into people’s lives, a movement in the direction of laissez-faire. Why aren’t you celebrating a victory for getting the government out of people’s bedrooms? Is it specifically in the issue of homosexuality that you think the government has the right to control people’s behavior? Could you explain this apparent contradiction? > > Or, to put it another way: Why do you believe “laissez-faire” should apply only to economic issues, and not to questions of morality? \*\* unfortunately, I can’t help you here, I consider myself conservative(definately so by the definition you’re using) and I whole-heartedly support the Supreme Courts decision in this case. ---
**Author:** ![SRVick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SRVick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SRVick)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/55 "2003-06-29T04:25:55Z")
I agree, it shouldn’t matter. As I said (repeatedly), the laws are stupid and immoral. But how can one simultaniously state that two situations are not the same, and yet equal protection should apply. Or are you using a different Constitutional rationale? ---
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/56 "2003-06-29T05:35:21Z")
Mockingbird: > [@](#): > > As if a prostate versus none should bear any import on it. Er…I thought it made ALL the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/57 "2003-06-29T05:54:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SRVick \* > \*\*I agree, it shouldn’t matter. As I said (repeatedly), the laws are stupid and immoral. But how can one simultaniously state that two situations are not the same, and yet equal protection should apply. Or are you using a different Constitutional rationale? \*\* How are the situations different? Are you seriously trying to cling to that prostate thing? That’s riidiculous. Yes, the difference between hetero and homosexual anl intercourse is the sex of the recipient. That’s the whole point of equal protection, that one group can not have differnt rights than another group. Your logic could apply to virtually anything. A woman driving a car isn’t the same as a man driving a car because a woman has a vagina and a man has a dick. The “not the same” part is exactly the _point_. They can’t be treated differently just because they’re not the same. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/58 "2003-06-29T06:19:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > False characterization of the situation. He is attempting to use a word with a known negative connotation. People are disagreeing with that connotation. His defense is to claim that he only means unusual. But few here take this seriously: he very much seems to want to defend the usage of the word ONLY on the simpler “unusual” meaning and yet STILL retain the “bad” meaning. Put simply, he’s equivocating: oldest trick in the book. I simply do not see any evidence that he wishes to still retain the “bad” meaning. I think that criticizing someone for something which you imagined them to intend is rather silly. > [@](#): > > Agreed. Not many people collect stamps, but that’s hardly grounds to call stamp collecting “aberrant.” It depends on the context. For instance, if I said that most people buy stamps to pay for postage, and you said “What about stamp collectors?” it would be appropiate for me to say “That’s an aberrance”. SRVick > [@](#): > > We would most likely agree that the law isn’t discrimnatory, even though those into bestiality would argue differently. Whether it’s discriminatory is irrelevant, because species is not a protected class. If there were a constitutional amendent prohibiting discrimination on the basis of species, then there would be a very strong argument against anti-bestiality laws. > [@](#): > > But how can one simultaniously state that two situations are not the same, and yet equal protection should apply. I really don’t see what the problem is that you have. Eqaul protection means exactly that: equal **protection**. It doesn’t mean equal situations. If equal protection only applied to situations which were exactly the same, then it would be pointless, because in such cases discrimination would already be prohibited by logic. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/59 "2003-06-29T06:46:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Chalk me up as another conservative who thinks this is an extraordinarily stupid and hateful law, but not necessarily an _unconstitutional_ one. I would heartily encourage the repeal of the sodomy law by the state legislature, but do not think it appropriate for the federal courts to intervene. > \*\* There’s no explicit wording in the constitution that says I have the right to walk. I suppose under your reasoning a bare majority of the state legislature could declare walking to be immoral and force everyone to crawl on their hands and knees. And the federal courts trying to intervene would be “usurping power” by doing this. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/60 "2003-06-29T06:57:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pizzabrat \* > \*\*Mockingbird: > Er…I thought it made ALL the difference. \*\* Then all the men in America who have had their prostates removed(not an insignificant number) enjoy a different constitutional standard than the rest of men who retain their prostate? _Interesting_ No… it’s another ‘I’ word: **idiotic**. Biology is not destiny. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786.md?page=4)