What the fuck is wrong with these homophobic bigots?

[jab1]

Rousseau, you vs. tomndebb would be like Bambi vs. Godzilla.

Good luck, Bambi.

---

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

[Polycarp]

Rousseau said:

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): The defendant, Michael Hardwick, was interrupted in his own bedroom, in flagrante, by an Atlanta police officer enforcing the state’s anti-sodomy law. Although the Georgia prohibitions, like those of many southern states, apply to any anal and oral sex between consenting adults, the Supreme Court effectively ignored the heterosexual permutations and ruled that there is no constitutional right to practice homosexuality.

There was a law against anal and oral sex. Two men were found breaking that law. End of story. The essential question was whether gay men should be exempt from this law, since they don’t have vaginas. I fail to see how this is a right to privacy issue.

I believe the Supreme Court was in error on this question, not because of any idea I might have that homosexual activity is OK, but because they failed, in a controversial situation, to apply their own precedent.

The facts of the case were as you describe, with the added item that a non-resident guest present in the apartment at the time the police arrived let them in. IIRC, they were serving a summons.

In other words, a policeman, without consent of the resident (who was busy getting his rocks off), without a warrant, without probable cause to believe a crime was being committed, entered the defendant’s property, observed him committing what was under Georgia’s law at the time a felonious act, and arrested him.

In the Connecticut contraceptives case, the Supreme Court had defined a Ninth Amendment right to privacy as “deriving from the penumbras of the enumerated rights” in the first eight amendments. Purely and simply, the officer had no right under the Fourth Amendment and the right to privacy the Court had recognized some years previously to enter the property and make the arrest.

Herbert Block, the moderately conservative political cartoonist who was approaching the end of his career when the case broke, and who held no brief for gay rights, did a scathing cartoon depicting Burger and Rehnquist tearing down a brick wall surrounding a married couple’s bedroom. He saw it as a violation of the right to privacy.

An awful lot of the press followed one of the justices in calling the case " a refusal by the Court to establish a right to commit sodomy." It was in fact nothing of the sort. It was a refusal by the court to extend the right of privacy which they had already defined to a gay man found committing a violation of the state penal code. Whatever he might have been doing in the privacy of his home, absent reasonable grounds to suspect a crime is in the process of being committed before entry, is sacrosanct. Obviously, if the cop had heard a gunshot, screams, smelled burning upholstery, or whatever, he would have been justified in entering. Permission by a non-resident did not give him the right to enter and arrest the occupant.

Tom, while I strongly agree with your basic point that “Constitutionally guaranteed rights” did not end with Amendment 10, I don’t care for your example a whole lot. How about the right of women to vote, the right to not to be deprived by anyone of your constitutional rights without due process of law, and in fact the entire fourteenth amendment, the right not to be enslaved, the right of blacks to vote, the right of anyone over age 18 to vote, the right of District of Columbia citizens to choose Presidential electors. These sound to me like “Constitutionally guaranteed rights.”

JAB, one small cavil with your post. The provision of the Tenth Amendment leaves all non-delegated powers with the states or the people. While there’s no way to define what goes to the states and what to the people, absent a state abnegation of a possible power it could exercise, those last four words get ignored so steadily that I could not resist the opportunity to stress that they are there.

[andros]

andros also posted the same goddamned links to book reviews as he did earlier (or maybe in another thread, I forget).

That was a typo, right? I don’t recall posting any links at all. Unless you’re confusing me with Gaudere?

the Amendments from 11 on are not “Constitutionally guaranteed rights.” Constitutionally guaranteed rights cannot be revoked.

I’m sorry, Rousseau, that’s simply not true. the Constitution CAN and HAS been altered, or amended. A bill was passed to amend the Constitution, broken down into ten specific alterations and expansions to the original Document. It was called colloquially, the Bill of Rights. They do indeed spell out what Congress and the rest of the Gummint can and cannot do (make no laws infringing, etc). However, they are a PART of the Constitution now. That’s what an amendments is. They can be changed, and they can be revoked.

Remember that Amendment about Prohibition?

I sure do. The Constitution was amended to prohibit the sale of alcohol.

It was later amended again to revoke the previous amendment.

The ones you mentioned (suffrage for women, blacks, 18 year olds) are just extensions/clarifications.

No, they are part and parcel of the whole document. They may not be reflections of “certain inalienable rights,” perhaps (although I believe they are), but they are part of the Constitution.

Are you going to tell me that the right of a black man not to be enslaved is merely a “clarification?” Bzzzzzt! Try again.

The Constitution, thanks to its several changes and amendments, guarantees me the right to vote at 18, not to be enslaved, etc. (Until and unless We the People decide to change those rights, of course.)

And, naturally, you ignored the Amendments like the latest one about Congressional salaries.

Naturally? Why do you say this? I don’t think I have a reputation for ignoring things I don’t like. Whether I agree with it or not, it’s part of the Constitution of the United States.

Maybe I’m just not understanding your point, but please don’t make the mistake of thinking I don’t know the Constitution.

-andros-

[system]

Rousseau

I decided to take the weekend off from the SDMB, since I was growing tired of adolescent posturing and indecipherable statements. Instead, I watched the NBA All-Star Weekend.

But now I’m back.

And lost no time picking up your adolescent posturing and indecipherable statements right where you left off.

Rousseau

Otto, hows about from now on you take your cue from Esprix, and read through all the new posts before replying?

I’m not allowed to make a point similar to, but not identical to, someone else just because they got there first? Fuck that shit!

Rousseau

First, in response to andros’s comment, which Otto just repeated like a

third grader.

As it was addressed to you, it was more like repeating it to a third grader.

Rousseau

the Amendments from 11 on are not “Constitutionally guaranteed rights.” Constitutionally guaranteed rights cannot be revoked. Remember that Amendment about Prohibition? The ones you mentioned (suffrage for women, blacks, 18 year olds) are just extensions/clarifications. And, naturally, you ignored the Amendments like the latest one about Congressional salaries. No, Amendments not in the Bill of Rights are not “Constitutionally guaranteed rights.” Sorry.

Seeing as how I read through the rest of the posts before responding to yours, I’ll refrain from pointing out yet again that the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments are all part of the Constitution and all guarantee Constitutional rights. Nor shall I point out that again that while the first ten amendments are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, it is possible for Constitutional rights to be found in parts of the Constitution outside of those ten amendments. I will say that Rousseau, you have the single worst grasp of the Constitution it has ever been my displeasure to encounter. Take a fuking high school civics class, you stupid ninny.

Rousseau

Otto. My feelings about scientific research in the field of animal homosexuality has nothing to do with my open mind.

You did not say you didn’t care in response to anything to do with “animal homosexuality.” You said it in response to Esprix’s statement that the medical community disagrees with your assertion that human homosexuality is a choice.

Rousseau

You can continue to dissect my posts, in search of some inkling of evidence that I share in the hypocrisy you know deep down you exercise, but you’re just going to embarass yourself further.

Fair warning.

Oooh. I’m trembling. BTW, since you keep throwing around that word “hypocrite,” do you think you might provide an example of my supposedly acting with hypocrisy?

Rousseau, dissecting my post and pulling out sentence fragments

I’ve been “considering” the point of view of people who think like Diamond for decades…I have a feeling I’ve spent more time thinking about the First Amendment than you have…

---

OK. Enough with the assumptions that you are more educated than I am.

I make no assumptions about your educational background, other than your obvious lack of a background in American high school civics. I am merely pointing out that as a gay man I have been hearing and thinking about ideas like those expressed by Diamond for a very long time, and that as a civil libertarian and civil rights activist I have devoted a fairly good chunk of time to thinking about the First Amendment, and based on your fundamental misunderstandings of the Constitution that time is probably more than the time you’ve spent.

Rousseau

No, using the First Amendment as some kind of trump card that allows you to do or say whatever you want, while ignoring the feelings/rights of others, is selfishness of the highest order.

Hmmmm…Diamond calls me a pervert and I call him a whoreson. Of the two, whom do you criticize? The one you disagree with. If you’re so interested in civility, where is your condemnation of Diamond for his remarks, obviously made without a thought for the feeling of others? No need to dissect your posts for hidden hypocrisy, junior. There it is in plain view.

Rousseau

You are, as I said, a selfish, self-centered egomaniac.

And from where did you obtain you doctorate in psychology, that you may diagnose someone over the Internet on the basis of a handful of posts?

Rousseau

Then why don’t you tell me, professor, exactly how your First Amendment rights are being abridged because you are gay?

I have already given you the USSC cites. Do your own homework.

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): The defendant, Michael Hardwick, was interrupted in his own bedroom, in flagrante, by an Atlanta police officer enforcing the state’s anti-sodomy law. Although the Georgia prohibitions, like those of many southern states, apply to any anal and oral sex between consenting adults, the Supreme Court effectively ignored the heterosexual permutations and ruled that there is no constitutional right to practice homosexuality.

(emphasis added)

There was a law against anal and oral sex. Two men were found breaking that law. End of story. The essential question was whether gay men should be exempt from this law, since they don’t have vaginas. I fail to see how this is a right to privacy issue.

The essential question of Bowers was whether two consenting adult males behind closed doors should be the subject of State intrusion.

Rousseau

OK, so if “sexual orientation” has psychological, sociological, and legal meanings, then what distinguishes it from a “lifestyle?”

A “lifestyle” is a defined as “the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture.” Since you are unable to define anything which in your opinion constitutes a “gay lifestyle” (other than seeking sex/relationships among one’s own sex and which I’ve already explained would not apply to celibate gays) you should perhaps be asking yourself why you cling to the idea that “lifestyle” is an appropriate word choice.

Rousseay

OK, I’m sorry. I meant to come back and continue the list, but I guess I forgot. Here’s some more:

2. The psychological ramifications of your “sexual orientation.”

3. The sociological ramifications of your “sexual orientation.”

4. The legal ramifications of your “sexual orientation.”

The “one thing?” comment was in reference to your feeble “list” of “gay lifestyle” characteristics.

Me

I said that my anger at being denied my Constitutional rights does not detract from that which causes hardship to others.

Rousseau

[quote]
Right. What you said wa

[CalifBoomer]

Otto:
Seems to me Rousseau ate yer lunch.

You continue to make my point that your perversion is a result of YOUR CHOICE, to wit-

Otto:

Diamond calls me a pervert and I call him a whoreson.

A pervert practices perversion. It is a behavior. The pervert alone is responsible. A ‘whoreson’ describes a condition into which someone is born through no fault or act of his own. See the difference?

You, or one of your sycophants, in an effort to perpetuate the myth that homosexuality is purely genetic (like being negro or female), asked whether I chose to be heterosexual. The answer, of course is no, because heterosexuality is the normal course of ‘sexual orientation’ on this planet. You continue to attempt to make the point that your choice is a anomaly, and as such, you are a victim, and entitled to special priveleges. This tactic has been overused and there are way too many of us who see through it.

There is some solace for those of us who are weary of the ‘in-you-face’ tactics employed by those of your ilk. The aids epidemic is mitigating the problem.

---

“No, its not foolproof…unfortunately, fools are very clever people.” --Joseph Caro

[Otto]

I was going to spend some time writing out a response to CALIFBOOMER’s most recent post, until I came to:

The aids epidemic is mitigating the problem.

Obviously, when he gleefully invokes the horrible and painful deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, gay and str8, to justify his willingness to stand complicit in the denial of basic civil rights, there is no reasoning with him. There is no point in trying to discuss human rights with someone who has no humanity.

[SterlingNorth]

sorry for the hijack, but…

[quote]
Herbert Block, the moderately conservative political cartoonist who was approaching the end of his career when the case broke…**

Approaching the end of his career? Herblock’s still doing cartoons for my paper, Poly.
We now return to our regularly scheduled invective, already in progress.

[Polycarp]

CalifBOOMER, it is appropriate that you posted in the Pit. For nowhere else would the disgusting unreason that you perpetrate in the name of your unthinking prejudices be acceptable. You make me sick.

The aids epidemic is mitigating the problem.

Yeah, absolutely. It is now sinful to be a non-celibate African, a heterosexual female who is not chaste, a hemophiliac (remember Ryan White? That boy had more guts in his dying body than you could ever aspire to having.) And even if “the problem is mitigated” you would still be far sicker than anyone dying of AIDS. Sicker in soul.

-==-==-

Sterling, if Herblock is still actively producing, I’d love to know about it. My impression was that he retired in the late 70s or early 80s.

[SterlingNorth]

Reports of Herblock’s retirement have been greatly exaggerated.

[StarvinMarvin]

Boomer-

That was over the line. Way over. Im sorry but I cant be found in conspiracy with such a group. Consider me out of this one, as I am not an extremist or a hatemonger. Sadly, AIDS doesnt just pick on the deserving, or those whos practices “invite” it. Many innocents are lost due to the actions and deceit of others. God just reading that line hurt Boomer, it also killed any credibility you had. Take this from a person who shared a “sliver” of your views, that one hurt you.

[andros]

Sadly, AIDS doesnt just pick on the deserving, or those whos practices “invite” it.

So it would be OK if AIDS only killed the faggots, huh Starvin?

Many innocents are lost due to the actions and deceit of others.

WTF?? Are the bad ol’ queers deceiving heterosexuals into getting AIDS? But then, gays aren’t innocent, they DESERVE to die, is that what you’re saying?

-andros-

[StarvinMarvin]

Andros-

Ill speak for me, dont INTERPRET plain old english to mean anything but. Cheating husbands kill wives, and sometimes newborns, with AIDS no? Cheating SO’s kill others with AIDS. Transfusions and donors who arent “clean” can kill us all. So lets say for the sake of argument that Im talking about those folks, because I was.

By deserving I mean those who CHOOSE not to be safe, and not be monogamous, and not be tested, and not be clean. Simply put, that wasnt what you tried to make it say.

My comment was without prejudice towards gays, dont BEND it to hit those it want aimed at.

[StarvinMarvin]

Oh and sure.

Apology accepted.

[andros]

No apologies necessary, none offered.

I asked for clarification, you answered. I appreciate it.

I’m sure you can understand, from reading your post in context of the rest of the thread, why I might have wondered a bit at your meaning.

I am glad you don’t see AIDS as punishment for some imaginary sin.

-andros-

[cleosia]

I have been quietly following this discourse (I’m being polite) and it seems to me that that the augment against being gay is that it is a sin and evil. That is fine if you subscribe to a religion that holds this as one of its beliefs. However, I was raised to understand that there exists a separation of church and state. It goes counter to one of the principles that this country was founded on to pass laws that cater to the beliefs of one religious group or another. The Amish believe that a wife should be subservient to her husband’s will and authority. I would be pretty pissed of the government decided, “Hey, yeah. Let’s pass a law like that because the Amish believe that women should be submissive.” If someone wants to live in that way, fine. But they shouldn’t inflict their life choices on me.

Also, I don’t think who you fall in love with is a “lifestyle” or a conscious choice. How many of you may have fallen for somebody that you knew was bad for you, but you couldn’t help the way you were feeling.

Being gay is part of the person’s essence. You can’t deny yourself and be a whole person, especially just so a segment of society doesn’t have to feel uncomfortable with you around. And, no I’m not gay, but I can see it clearly from their point of view. I would be furious if someone tried to tell me whom I could love. “Loving a guy is so sick. Have you ever tried dating a woman?” Bah!

---

Bitch by Birth

[Esprix]

By the by, I’m not out of this discussion - I’ve been reading, but have been unable to post replies as of yet. (They’ve actually got me working at work… {shaking fist} You bastards!)

So let me catch up and post one long message, since doing otherwise would invite the wrath of Rousseau. (As if anything I said wouldn’t, but I disgress…)

Esprix

---

Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.

[John_Corrado]

Oh, and to continue the hijack…

Herbert Block, the moderately conservative political cartoonist who was approaching the end of his career when the case broke…

Funny. I’m moderately conservative, and I’ve always seen Herblock as a flaming liberal. If he’s moderately conservative, I have to wonder why his cartoons excorciating Republicans and conservative politics outnumber his cartoons attacking Democrats and liberal politics by about 350:1…

---

JMCJ

This is not a sig.

[jab1]

Originally posted by CalifBoomer:
Otto: You, or one of your sycophants, in an effort to perpetuate the myth that homosexuality is purely genetic (like being negro or female), asked whether I chose to be heterosexual.

I asked if you chose to be straight. As others have related, studies show that animals also engage in this behavior. Did they choose to engage in homosexual behavior? Do animals have the ability to choose, or do they just act on instinct? I say it’s instinct, how about you? Human beings do have the ability to go against their instincts, true, but our instincts are more often good for us than bad. One of my instincts is to help others who are trying to do the right thing. Which leads me to:

“sycophant: A servile, self-seeking flatterer,” from www.m-w.com Sorry, that doesn’t describe me. I’m not Otto’s slave, nor do I flatter him in order to get his favor. I help defend him and his point of view. BIG difference.

I’m straight, but I’ve been called gay in the past, so I have some idea what Otto and his fellow gays have to face.

polycarp, you’re right. I should have mentioned those four words, “or to the people,” that are in Amendment 10. I should’ve also included #9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because the right to marry whomever you choose is not in the Constitution, it does not mean such a right does not exist.

---

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

[Rousseau]

Otto, I’m through with repeating myself to you. I’m through dealing with you at all. Over the last three pages, a few things have become apparent:

1. You are obviously devoid of original thought, since nearly everything you write has already been written. Even when you try to insult me, your insults amount to nothing more than repeating what I’ve said to you.
2. You refered to Diamond’s statements as (parphrasing) “a member of the most priveleged group on the planet complaing because he has to be sensitive to others.” You fail to mention the fact that white males lose out on jobs and college admissions regularly for no other reason aside from their race and gender. This means you are either ignorant of this fact, or choose to ignore it since it doesn’t serve your purpose.
3. Lacking any real points, you insist on pointing out my technical errors. This is the calling card of the troll. Yes, I thought that Sodom was a man. I’m sorry. But you failed to attack the real core of the issue. You also accused me of leaving off “…or with beasts,” because somehow that was detrimental to my argument (when, as anybody with two braincells to rub together could see, I left it off because it had nothing to do with the topic at hand). If you look at the last three pages, you’ll find that you really haven’t made any theoretical points, as the others on this thread are doing.
4. You have perhaps the thickest skull of anyone I’ve ever encountered. You challenge me to do things, and I do them, and then you challenge me to do them again. You say “show me my hypocrisy.” And I do. And then you say “You didn’t show me my hypocrisy. Show me my hypocrisy.” So I do again. If I want to deal with five year olds, I’ll get a job at a daycare center.

You may respond to this however you want. But I am through dealing with you. You can even believe that I’m bowing to your intellectual superiority, if that helps you sleep at night. But, really, I’m just going to ignore you now, because having a discussion with you is like herding cats, and I can’t deal with that kind of frustration anymore.

OK, let me clarify my point about “Constitutionally guaranteed rights.” The Articles of the Constitution basically lay out the structure of the government. They have little to do with the “rights” of the people. The first ten Amendments were, as the founding fathers saw them, the rights that absolutely had to be guaranteed by the government at all costs. That’s why nobody ever alters or deletes them, although every single other part of the Constitution can be modified. If it can be modified, it obviously is not “guaranteed”. So, from my point of view, the first ten Amendments are “Constitutionally guaranteed rights.”
Ploycarp, what “precedent” did the Court fail to apply? The Supreme Court has in fact protected “honest mistakes” by police officers (i.e.-going into the wrong apartment by accident, and finding evidence of a crime there). I don’t know too much about this case, but if the officer was under the impression that the person who let him in was a resident, precedent would dictate that the conviction should be upheld.
andros, I apologize. I recognized the links, knew they had been posted on the board before, and assumed that it was you who had previously posted them. Sorry.

Are you going to tell me that the right of a black man not to be enslaved is merely a “clarification?” Bzzzzzt! Try again.

No. I didn’t claim that all Amendments after 10 were “clarifications.”

The Constitution, thanks to its several changes and amendments, guarantees me the right to vote at 18, not to be enslaved, etc. (Until and unless We the People decide to change those rights, of course.)

See, there you go. If it can be changed or removed, it ain’t “guaranteed.” I think that we just have different interpretations of what “guaranteed” means in this context.

Naturally? Why do you say this? I don’t think I have a reputation for ignoring things I don’t like.

I said “naturally,” meaning, “naturally, since it does not jibe with your viewpoint.” In no way did I mean to assert anything about you personally, or your “reputation.” I apologize again.
Boomer, you were doing so well there, until that last bit. It’s statements like that that hurt our side of the argument the most. You gain much more respect for your point of view by refraining from saying things like that.
But, what’s really funny is that Otto admonished Boomer, and then added a rider of his own: “There is no point in trying to discuss human rights with someone who has no humanity.” Which, in function if not meaning, is quite similar to the statement that Boomer himself made.
cleosia:

…it seems to me that that the augment against being gay is that it is a sin and evil.

I don’t think that many people are arguing “against” being gay. The central issue here is same sex marriages, and whether or not gays face a restriction of certain inalienable rights. What I’m saying, and what others have said, is that I believe that homosexuality is a choice made by free will. I’m not gay, but if I woke up tomorrow and decided to be, then I could. And it works in reverse as well. But if you make that choice, you are also choosing to accept all the burdens that come with it (like not being able to get married). If you choose to be straight, you accept certain burdens (like paying higher taxes if you get married). I admit, it is much harder to be gay than straight. And so people who make that choice have my respect (until they lose it by some other means). Many people then ask me, “why shouldn’t we make it just as easy to be gay?” And I say to them that, as a society, we aren’t ready for that yet. Hopefully, someday we will be, but the reality today is that we are not.

---

“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill

[StarvinMarvin]

Temporary hijack to ask a question:
Who INVENTED the term homophobia, I mean it was obviously someone homosexual, using it to make others feel as though they are “sick” if they dont accept homosexuality.

What I am asking is who is credited with the invention of this “illness”? I dont see it listed in the DSM, which I think makes its use invalid, but its so mainstream now, that it almost falls in the UL (urban legend) category.

But I want to be proved wrong, or shown evidence. Please help me on this.

Genuinely curious!
-ME