Alternatively, we could always open a GQ thread: “Does homosexual sodomy have severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences, which do not necessarily attend heterosexual sodomy?” But manny would probably kick our butts from here to Sunday and back if we tried it. 
He’s probably saying that it’s not open for debate because in all the multiple debates on this board and IRL life no one making the assertion that there are attendant consequences has met the burden of proof. Every arguement has been an Appeal to Authority or Argumentum Ad Populum or other logicall fallacy.
Pryor’s personal feelings on the issue of vibrators were described by some Alabama residents in the previous thread. In particular DeVena mentioned that Pryor was personally against the sale of the devices. Being a citizen of the state and having access to local news sources and most likely far more exposure to the issue than myself I find this evidence trustworthy. Since the main thrust of the case was in 1998/1999 I’m not sure I can find a cite on the web without running afoul of the content filters.
Still, it should be noted that the default statement of Pryor’s bias would be “undetermined” not “nonexistant”. Failure on my part to provide a cite which shows Pryor as personally biased against either homosexuals or marital aids does not prove Dewey’s assertion that he only conducted the defense of the statute criminalizing marital aids out of a sense of professional obligation.
Not quite. The actual quote from the brief is pretty much a position of a wild-eyed fanatic. From Mr Pryor’s brief, linked to by minty.
Show me the logic that says that if two mutually consenting adults have the right to engage in homosexual sex that this “logically extend[s]” to necrophilia. I don’t get the “posession of child pornography” bit at all. There’s not even another PERSON involved in that one. Is he claiming that the pictures of child porn are “partners” and that a consenting, adult, gay man choosing another consenting, adult, gay man as a “partner” is the equivelant of some pedophile wanking to pictures of sexual abuse of children? Sure looks like it.
Enjoy,
Steven
On preview:
Oh, I think you guys may enjoy this little bit, also from the brief of our fair-minded, unbiased Attorney General.
Any number of individuals on this board will tell you they’ve had an intense spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. That doesn’t necessarily mean God exists. Personal anecdote is not rigorous proof.
No, it certainly DOES NOT look like that. The argument is “substantive due process protects consensual adult sexual conduct.” The retort is that this includes some less than savory things. We can have a fulsome discussion on whether a corpse is still a human being entitled but unable to consent to such acts or whether a corpse is just a cold slab of meat serving the same function as a fistful of Vaseline, but the fact remains that its inclusion on the list is not implausible. True, it requires an additional argument that adultery, adult incest and prostitution does not (namely, that a corpse is nothing but a hunk o’ meat), but if you accept that argument then the line of constitutional argument that says all adult sexual activity is protected as a matter of substantive due process.
At any rate, the quoted text does not say homosexual sex is the “equivelant” of necrophilia any more than it says homosexual sex is the “equivelant” of adultery or adult incest or prostitution. The only thing they have in common is that they happen to be sexual practices. Pointing out that the due process argument is overbroad and would protect less savory acts in addition to homosexual activity is not to say that those less savory acts are the moral equivelant of homosexual sex. Indeed, if anything, the argument relies on the reader’s sense that these other acts are actually much worse than homosexual sex.
Really, if you’ve got a beef with this line of argument, you should take it up with the Supreme Court. As I noted, this overbreadth point was a specific concern they had over the due process argument when they decided Bowers.
**
Please show me where I asserted this. Pryor may well adore the anti-vibrator law for all I know. However, unlike you, I demand evidence of that allegation, and his mere defense of the law as AG is insufficient as proof of that fact.
Err…add the following text (I should really proofread better):
…but if you accept that argument then the line of constitutional argument that says all adult sexual activity is protected as a matter of substantive due process does in fact include necrophilia.
You didn’t ask if I had a peer-reviewed, comprehensive sociological study conclusively demonstrating the fact that homosexuality is no more “destructive” or whatever than heterosexuality. You asked if I had a GQ-worthy basis for the claim, and by god, the personal experiences of four bright, articulate, and by all appearances happy and well-adjusted gay men are most certainly a GQ-worthy basis.
I can’t personally demonstrate that E=mc[sup]2[/sup], either. Doesn’t make it any less beyond dispute. And unless you’re actually going to dispute that Pryor’s statement is false beyond rational belief, all you’re doing is stirring the shitbowl.
Interesting. Is the personal testimony of bright, articulate and by all appearances happy and well-adjusted Christians sufficient proof of the existence of God, such as to make atheism false beyond all rational belief?
The basis you are claiming for your position rests on a fallacy, pure and simple. It’s a little like claiming cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer or emphysema because you happen to have four friends who are heavy smokers and who have no smoking-related medical problems. I hardly think that would pass muster in GQ. Do you?**
Spare me. Of course you can demonstrate that. A simple citation to, oh, every physicist from Einstein to Hawking would establish that fact. **
Yes, yes, asking for pesky things like evidence is indeed “stirring the shitbowl.” Well, let it be stirred. Better that than to suffer from permanent knee-jerkitis.
Frankly, this line of reasoning disturbs me less because of the impolications for this particular case and more because it sets up an ideological barrier to genuine scientific inquiry. What you’re basically saying is that there are some conclusions that science simply will not be permitted to draw, period, without even considering the possibility that there might be evidence in favor of those conclusions. The search for scientific truth ought not be pushed aside just because a particular ox is being gored.
Perhaps, gentlemen, the problem could be resolved with the omnipresent cry of the Doper: Cite?.
On the one hand, we have the assertion that Pryor has done no more than would any lawyer retained by a client – to defend the client’s actions against a legal challenge. In this case, the legislature of Alabama passed a law, and he, as the chief legal officer of Alabama, is responsible for defending it against a challenge in Federal court. On the other, we have the assertion that he is going beyond this duty and actively campaigning for the retention and enforcement of this law out of a (presumably religiously based) distaste for vibrators. One or both of you should be able to dredge up evidence that supports your assertion. If he is defending a law in his official role, with no thought for the contents, then there should be evidence that he has as vigorously defended an Alabama law with which he is known to disagree. If he is going beyond what is legally called for, there should be statements, articles, off-the-record comments, and such, that would demonstrate and validate this point.
I believe you both have pushed your legal reasonings about as far as they can go without some supporting evidence, and I suggest that you locate some which supports your perspective, in order that the dispute be resolved.
Poly: Fie on that. The burden of proof rests on the one making the assertion. People have asserted that Pryor is an anti-vibrator zealot. Having made that assertion, it is their burden to bring forth evidence to support it.
All that’s been brought forth to date is his defense of the Alabama law as AG. For reasons already stated, that is wholly inadequate as evidence of the claim asserted.
(And quite to the contrary, I’ve never asserted that Pryor disagrees with the vibrator law; I’ve only pointed out the evidentiary flaw committed by those making that assertion).
Dewey, you are as capable of sociological and psychological research as I am. Knock yourself out. If you come up with serious scientific evidence for the proposition–the proposition that you yourself profess not to believe–that gay folk are all fucked up in the head, do be sure to present it for the assembled Dopers. I will offer you no further excuses to stir that particular bowl of shit. Why you delight in stirring it in defense of such a blatanly homophobic statement is quite beyond me, however.
Point taken, Dewey, but I was not suggesting that you made the assertion that Pryor opposed the vibrator law, merely that you have been staunch for the “he’s only doing his sworn duty” concept – and that there ought to be evidence indicating as much. E.g., “here’s a case where a A.G. in another state did thus and so, clearly going beyond his responsibilities to the legislature in support of a law, and Pryor didn’t do anything of the sort.” Or, “Here’s a comment he made that shows clearly he opposes abortions except on health grounds, and here’s a case where he defended Alabama’s abortion law despite his personal stance.” Something of this sort ought to be easy to Google up.
I take your point that in general the onus is on the person making the assertion to prove his point – but IMHO when two people have argued different positions as long and as hard as you and minty have, I think there’s an onus on the refuter of the assertion to produce evidence in support of his position as well. Otherwise the argument become a His4Everesque parody where one side makes a case and the other side simply insists on what it believes to be correct. (Not that I’m suggesting you’re doing that; I’m merely explaining why I have the sense that you too should back up your position.)
Then where is Pryor’s proof for his assertion that same-sex sodomy is more destructive than mixed-sex sodomy?
Dewey, you’re once again reveling in legal technicalities while the real issues of the world pass you by. The question is Pryor’s suitability for a lifetime appointment as a high-court judge, where he would be above cookbook rulings on specific points of law that trial judges deal with. No, friend, he’d be spending his time - his lifetime, mind - on issues where he’d be using his judgment to interpret meanings. That is, in fact, a political role, not fundamentally a legal one at all. It is the appropriateness of bestowing that responsibility on him in particular, and Administration appointees of similar mind in general, that the Senate must give advice and consent upon.
His choices of what laws to vigorously enforce and argue for, and what ones to delegate and let slide, are a large part of what matters, not the presence of his state-constitutional authority to do so.
Now for pity’s sake, man, step back from that tree you’ve been inspecting and take a look at the forest. Or is it that Pryor represents the type of person you, as a citizen, would like to have lifetime authority over political and social matters? If that is the case, please put down the case law references and do us the favor of saying outright what you want to happen.
And where is Pryor’s proof that homosexuality has “deleterious spiritual and physical consequences”? And it’s going to have to be fairly persuasive because it contradicts the position held by the American Psychological Association,
the American Psychiatric Association
and researchers.
Now that you’ve vigorously defended Santorum and Pryor, I’m starting to be of the opinion that what ElivsL1ves is implying may be correct. Like Pryor you get to choose what battles to fight. It’s interesting the ones you pick.
In all seriousness, the APA and the DSM were the first things I thought of when Dewey raised the question. I just didn’t know where to find them. Thanks, Homebrew.
I’m not implying a damn thing, although our friend can insist otherwise. I’m genuinely asking him to clearly state what he believes and why he believes it, why he chooses the battles he does as you put it, instead of leaving it up to the reader’s interpretation.
Sure, but I’m not the one asserting with metaphysical certitude that this particular question has been definitively answered.
That is a perfectly valid question to ask Pryor during his confirmation hearings. And if you want to be nitpicky, Pryor never personally endorsed that assertion – he simply said that some states had come to that particular conclusion.
This is the last refuge of someone who is losing an argument. What you’re basically asking me to do is ignore the facts and ignore the law and knee-jerk my way into a frothing anger. Well, pardon me if I fail to follow you down that particular path.
As for “what I want to happen:” Pryor may well be unfit for the bench. The truth is, I haven’t followed his career or his confirmation hearings closely enough to make a judgment call on that particular matter. But the things raised here – that he defended a anti-vibrator law, that co-wrote an amici brief that was consonant with the concerns expressed in Bowers (good law until today’s ruling), that he delayed a family vacation to Disney World – are not in and of themselves troubling.
Frankly, for reasons I’ve discussed extensively elsewhere, I think presidents ought to have a lot of leeway in selecting judicial candidates, and the only things I really care about outside of basic competence are (i) will the candidate conform to established precedent, and (ii) will the candidate treat those before him fairly in his official capacity. I frankly don’t care how repugnant the person is on the weekends; I only care what he does on the bench. So I’ll tell you what: give me testimony that Pryor treated gays or minorities or women less fairly than straight white men when they came to him for help as AG, or that he abused or mismanaged the office in some way, or that he ignored a clearly applicable precedent and then I’ll jump on your bandwagon feet first.
Fuck you, dearie.
I don’t like being called a homophobe, even backhandedly.
I think I’ve been scrupulously clear in stating my position on homosexuality. If you are unclear about one of my points, ask me to clarify. If you think I’m lying, then fuck you again.
Goddammit, that last quote was from Homebrew, not minty green.