Rousseau, I hope you don’t see me as nitpicking. In my view, the opinion of the court in the contraceptives case (IIRC Griswold v. Connecticut) established a clear right to privacy for one’s sex life kept in private, e.g., in one’s own home. The state had no right to dictate whether a couple may or may not use contraceptives, because their sex life was to be protected by a constitutional right to privacy. The court read this right into the “unenumerated rights” protected by the Ninth Amendment because in their opinion it was implied by the wording of various enumerated rights, including those covered by the Third and Fourth Amendments. And, not to be a smartalec, but because I would like some background, would you (or another poster with legal background) cite cases where a the testimony of a cop entering a dwelling on an “honest mistake” is considered admissible. It strikes me as strongly anti-Fourth Amendment. Or cops would be able to, uh, “make honest mistakes” whenever they felt it appropriate to do so. (Not a slam on honest cops, BTW – the temptation would be there, and some would do it, I am sure, with the good intention of busting a criminal who oughta be busted.)
On the issue of “Constitutionally guaranteed rights,” let me just note that the original framers of the Constitution did not think it necessary to include any definition of rights – they were to be understood as protected. The Bill of Rights as we have it was due to strong opposition from people who believed Lord Acton about power, wanting rights spelled out and all of them, not just the spelled-out ones, guaranteed. (Which, BTW, is why Robert Bork is a jerk in my opinion, though he’s a great legal scholar – by his own statement, he feels that no rights not spelled out in the text of the Constitution are protected, and the Ninth Amendment is effectively a dead letter.) I do see your point about the furore that would result from anyone trying to amend any part of the Bill of Rights. But I don’t think rights spelled out in the text of the original Constitution or Amendments XI-XXVII are any less guaranteed. And the “unenumerated rights” of Article IX are guaranteed – it only requires a case where one of them is clearly being violated to illuminate what that one actually is. E.g., the right to travel is one of them, but I’m fairly sure none of us would have thought of it if asked for an example of a Ninth Amendment right if we’d been asked before the court cases defining it came up for decision.
Rousseau, if you are suggesting that you have adequate bisexual orientation that you could “decide to be gay tomorrow” – then you still couldn’t. I’ve seen this argument go on before, and if you would be kind enough to indulge me, and not think I’m flaming you, I’d like to spell it out.
Quite simply, while one decides what sex acts one will undergo and what one refrain from, one’s sexual interests are not so chosen. IIRC, about 2/3 of the citizens of this country are heterosexually oriented, with little or no interest in members of their own sex. (“Little” implying that for some under very particuarly defined circumstances and with substantial frustration of their normal outlet, they might consider a one-time homosexual interest.) Just over 25% are bisexually oriented, with the idea of having sex with any other person (attractive to them, gender no problem) at least a choice amenable to their sexuality. People with religious or other moral objections to a given sexual relationship would nonetheless fall in this category if the person in question is attractive to them. Snark would be a good example of this – he finds both men and women sexually interesting, has a moral (and taste) objection to homosexual practice. And ten percent are unable to find the opposite sex attractive (again with sporadic specific exceptions in some cases, the exact parallel of the parenthetical note on heterosexuality). Of this last group, there are a few who identify themselves as gay but believe homosexual practice is sinful and lead celibate lives.
Having defined this in sexuality terms, it becomes necessary to go one step further and note that that is not the primary point raised by gay activists. My relationship with my wife is not primarily sexual. Your relationship with your SO is not primarily sexual. It is the person you want to be with, share life with, wake up next to, eat dinner with, tell that funny story you heard from Uncle Beer to, comfort when she’s down and be comforted by when you are. And, as it happens, have sex with.
Gay person X is no different from you. Except that he happened to fall in love with and desire spending the rest of his life with another male. And she did that with another female. And anyone who thinks who one falls in love with is a choice has never been in love.
And anyone who thinks he or she could choose to be gay could not. At most, having repressed the homosexual aspect of their bisexuality, they could choose to be open about it. And I pity the true bisexual more than the straight or gay person standing next to him/her. At least either of them has a chance for happiness with one other person, and no niggling unmet desires. The poor bisexual, unless he/she happens to fall in love with a fully functional hermaphrodite or end up in a viable multiperson relationship, is out of luck on that front. And I would guess the odds of either of them as about equal, and of course vanishingly small. (Although somebody on the board mentioned having ended up on dates with two different hermaphrodites…)
Bottom line, anyway: It’s not a choice. The gay person is what he/she is. And he or she wants much what you or I want, only with somebody who is presumably outside our realm of sexual interest. Sex is a part of it. But only a part. And what they’re asking is for equal treatment, not to be put down because we may find their sexual interests grotesque. (My stomach churns when SqrlCub gets graphic about some of his interests – but were it not for making the point here, I’d never let him know it. And what I think about Ed Asner as a poster boy is not germane – it’s Sqrl’s life, and what he thinks that counts.)
It doesn’t seem too out of line to say “Live and let live.” Or even “whatever you would not wish done to yourself, do not do that to others.”
BTW, I hope it was clear that any allusions to you being bisexual were within the same hypothetical framework you raised in your statements about sexuality being a choice, not a flame. I’m not interested in flaming intelligent posters, just those who spew poison without thought.
