Gay Sex - Now Fully Legal?

[WeeMouse]

I was channel surfing yesterday (although with 5 channels, it isn't that fun...)

anyways, i came across the news and a report came on saying that in 13 states in America, gay sex between 2 consential (is that the word?) adults in their own home was illegal, but the big court in America has ruled that it should be legal.

Have I got this story correct? I know that church leaders in America probably won't like that...

[j2k4]

The Supremes essentially legalized sodomy, so I'm sure America will turn into a massive "bugger fest".

You are right, as re: the various religious leaders; I suspect, however, the "Reverends" Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will remain mum on the topic.

Likely it is only the beginning of the debate. ;)

[WeeMouse]

Well well...the Catholic church will no doubt complain about the lack of morality or something :D

They couldn't really keep it illegal anyway in this day and age, could they? :huh:

[clocker]

Originally posted by WeeMouse@27 June 2003 - 05:49
Well well...the Catholic church will no doubt complain about the lack of morality or something :D

They couldn't really keep it illegal anyway in this day and age, could they? :huh:

Gay marriage may or may not be a good idea, but leaving consenting adults alone in private is a constitutional idea. Kennedy summed it up well in the opening of the court ruling:

"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."

Given their current legal troubles, the Catholic Church would do well to keep it's mouth shut about this issue.

*ahem*

[WeeMouse]

The Catholic Church thinks gays are unnatural...ah the joys of being taught in Roman Catholic schools for all of my life...

The Church will never keep it's mouth shut about anything...remember that they are spreading the word of God and have to protect us - God's children -from sinful things.

Do i sound scathing enough? :lol:

[clocker]

Originally posted by WeeMouse@27 June 2003 - 06:15


Do i sound scathing enough? :lol:
Well you haven't quite risen to the level of Sinead O'Conner, but keep trying...

[j2k4]

While I agree the Catholic church, however ironically, has foregone any entree in this debate, we shouldn't forget (seriously, here) the beneficience of behavioral restraints historically imposed by religion(s); for centuries, it constituted the only set of guidelines to societal behavior we had.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+27 June 2003 - 07:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 27 June 2003 - 07:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-WeeMouse@27 June 2003 - 06:15


Do i sound scathing enough? :lol:
Well you haven&#39;t quite risen to the level of Sinead O&#39;Conner, but keep trying... [/b][/quote]
Sinead O&#39;Conner?

Speaking of irony........ :lol:

[crazy_billy_bats]

Originally posted by clocker@27 June 2003 - 12:42

Well you haven&#39;t quite risen to the level of Sinead O&#39;Conner, but keep trying...
Dont you recognise her ordination as a Priest? :lol:

[myfiles3000]

same sex marriage is now legal in canada (along with belgium and holland in the world i think). this causes the USA big problems, because normally speaking states respect each others&#39; marriage laws. this would allow US gays to enjoy the benefits of legally married status (in round about, back door fashion, so to speak).

[clocker]

Those damn Canadians are really screwing up things for the US.
First they want to legalize marijuana, now it&#39;s same sex marriage.

Time for a invasion.

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by clocker@27 June 2003 - 14:31
Those damn Canadians are really screwing up things for the US.
First they want to legalize marijuana, now it&#39;s same sex marriage.

Time for a invasion.
i guess you mean the military kind

[clocker]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@27 June 2003 - 07:40

i guess you mean the military kind
Well yeah.

They are sitting on the world&#39;s third largest supply of snow...

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by clocker+27 June 2003 - 13:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 27 June 2003 - 13:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@27 June 2003 - 07:40

i guess you mean the military kind
Well yeah.

They are sitting on the world&#39;s third largest supply of snow... [/b][/quote]
And dont forget the forests....

[Illuminati]

5-1 they&#39;ll claim they&#39;re gonna "liberate the Canadians from that evil government" :D

I wonder what terrorists Canada harbours :P

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@27 June 2003 - 08:20
(in round about, back door fashion, so to speak).
I have no problem with your noting of these circumstances, but others may wish your language had been properly filtered, PC-wise..... :D

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by clocker+27 June 2003 - 14:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 27 June 2003 - 14:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@27 June 2003 - 07:40

i guess you mean the military kind
Well yeah.

They are sitting on the world&#39;s third largest supply of snow... [/b][/quote]
funniest thing i&#39;ve read on this board so far, i think...

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by j2k4+27 June 2003 - 15:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 27 June 2003 - 15:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@27 June 2003 - 08:20
(in round about, back door fashion, so to speak).
I have no problem with your noting of these circumstances, but others may wish your language had been properly filtered, PC-wise..... :D [/b][/quote]
yeah, the same people who seriously need to get a life (and, as often as not, aren&#39;t gay and don&#39;t have any gay friends....)

in a similar vein, one time i was living in res, talking with someone about a guy that lived in the building, and she absolutely refused to mention the salient fact that he was black when describing his APPEARANCE. So i finally said, Oh, you mean the black guy? (ie, the only black guy in the building), and she said, Well, yes, but I didn&#39;t want to describe him that way.

a century ago we had to contend with unthinking racism. now we have to deal with unthinking anti-racism.

sorry, had a bit of a rant there...

edit: appearance (not experience)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000+27 June 2003 - 10:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 27 June 2003 - 10:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@27 June 2003 - 15:53
<!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@27 June 2003 - 08:20
(in round about, back door fashion, so to speak).
I have no problem with your noting of these circumstances, but others may wish your language had been properly filtered, PC-wise..... :D
yeah, the same people who seriously need to get a life (and, as often as not, aren&#39;t gay and don&#39;t have any gay friends....)

in a similar vein, one time i was living in res, talking with someone about a guy that lived in the building, and she absolutely refused to mention the salient fact that he was black when describing his experience. So i finally said, Oh, you mean the black guy? (ie, the only black guy in the building), and she said, Well, yes, but I didn&#39;t want to describe him that way.

a century ago we had to contend with unthinking racism. now we have to deal with unthinking anti-racism.

sorry, had a bit of a rant there... [/b][/quote]
Some rants should be required reading. ;)

I am confounded, non-plussed and disconcerted by the success the PC crowd enjoys-meanwhile the textbooks get thinner, the vision narrows..... :(

[myfiles3000]

I am confounded, non-plussed and disconcerted by the success the PC crowd enjoys-meanwhile the textbooks get thinner, the vision narrows..... :(

this is veering way off course, but i was just having a conversation with someone yesterday about why creating a new vocabularly is important from a &#39;psycholinguistic&#39; perspective. According to this guy, the brain doesn&#39;t just transfer all information associated with word X to new file folder for word Y when people start using a new term, for example when we talk about African-americans instead of negroes or physically disabled instead of crippled. Rather, a new neural pathway is created, largely free of all the connotations and associations of the old word. So during WW2 we talked about the krauts and the japs, but we used different words post-war which didn&#39;t have all of the negative baggage -- even though semantically we are referring to the same group of people.

so i don&#39;t have a problem per se with PC and the new vocabularly....what I have a problem with is the well-intentioned but not very bright and/or not endowed with much a sense of humour people, who take PC to absurd levels that defy logic and common sense.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@27 June 2003 - 10:50

so i don&#39;t have a problem per se with PC and the new vocabularly....what I have a problem with is the well-intentioned but not very bright and/or not endowed with much a sense of humour people, who take PC to absurd levels that defy logic and common sense.
Well, we certainly can afford to drop outmoded terms and operate with a sense of enlightenment, but the question is for me (as I suspect it is for you, also) where are the limitations-how far is too far?

The people doing the "correcting" are far too ambitious.

[hobbes]

How can a thread about "buggery" degenerate into a discussion of political correctness? Only in this forum could such fertile loam for rants, homophobic comments, and blasphemy be lead uphill to higher ground. Despicable&#33;

Anywho,

This guy walks into a gay bar with a parrot under his arm (oops, wrong joke- never mind the parrot). He spies another patron futilely trying to reach his beer on the bar by rocking his chair to and fro. He galantly steps up behind the man and gently pushes in his stool.

http://www.user.fast.net/~blassey/humor/picts/badtiming.jpg

/drumroll, symbol tap.

Thank you, I&#39;ll be here all the week&#33;

[J'Pol]

I have no problem with gay people and how they wish to express their love for each other.

I&#39;m just worried that things are going so far, in the hands of the rampant liberals and the PC brigade, that in the not too distant future it will become compulsory.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JPaul@28 June 2003 - 13:13
I have no problem with gay people and how they wish to express their love for each other.

I&#39;m just worried that things are going so far, in the hands of the rampant liberals and the PC brigade, that in the not too distant future it will become compulsory.
That would probably lead to better decorated living rooms.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@28 June 2003 - 14:01
How can a thread about "buggery" degenerate into a discussion of political correctness? Only in this forum could such fertile loam for rants, homophobic comments, and blasphemy be lead uphill to higher ground. Dispicable&#33;


Thank you, I&#39;ll be here all the week&#33;

Good on you to spot this unfortunate downhill trend. ;)

I shall write a book:

"Up From Political Correctness"

You&#39;ll be around all week?

Maybe if the board cooperates, huh? :lol:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+28 June 2003 - 20:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 28 June 2003 - 20:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@28 June 2003 - 13:13
I have no problem with gay people and how they wish to express their love for each other.

I&#39;m just worried that things are going so far, in the hands of the rampant liberals and the PC brigade, that in the not too distant future it will become compulsory.
That would probably lead to better decorated living rooms. [/b][/quote]
Gay sex would do that ?

Still I suppose if it makes my living room more habitable then why not give it a try.

Break out the swatches and gel up clocker I&#39;ll be there before you can phone Jack Robinson.

[clocker]

Sorry JP, my heart ( and regions south) belong to another.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@28 June 2003 - 19:07
Sorry JP, my heart ( and regions south) belong to another.
Another what? :lol:

Speaking of; wasn&#39;t she gonna spot us a better picture of you?

[kAb]

hmm.

well i support america being all about freedom.

but being gay is completely psychological. now i was fine with it when it meant less population because they couldn&#39;t have kids, but now they can.. test tube babies. being raised by homosexuals, well that would ruin the kids life.


as long as it doesn&#39;t become a huge problem.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by kAb@29 June 2003 - 03:11
hmm.

well i support america being all about freedom.

but being gay is completely psychological. now i was fine with it when it meant less population because they couldn&#39;t have kids, but now they can.. test tube babies. being raised by homosexuals, well that would ruin the kids life.


as long as it doesn&#39;t become a huge problem.
Yes, but which partner donates the egg?

[clocker]

Originally posted by kAb@28 June 2003 - 20:11



as long as it doesn&#39;t become a huge problem.
At what point does it become a "huge problem"?

Who decides?

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 June 2003 - 20:00


Speaking of; wasn&#39;t she gonna spot us a better picture of you?
At one time I was considering posting another pic, but now that I&#39;m being stalked by JPaul I fear that it would only fuel his unhealthy fantasies.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker+29 June 2003 - 04:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 29 June 2003 - 04:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-kAb@28 June 2003 - 20:11



as long as it doesn&#39;t become a huge problem.
At what point does it become a "huge problem"?

Who decides?[/b][/quote]
A prarie dog with a bazooka, obviously&#33;

At any rate, gay men cannot create babies in a test tube or otherwise, without the input of a female, so nothing has changed.

I think the whole JPaul/Clocker encounter post threw a huge wet blanket on this thread.

edit: POTENTIAL encounter

[hobbes]

Although Myfiles thinks that snow is funny, snow is really just pre-snowballs, which can really sting when they hit you.

Canada really needs to be liberated and these weapons of minimal destruction neutralized.

I think this whole forum thing is working. In this thread alone, we are learning about Myfiles the person, rather than Myfiles the angry. We are seeing that humans, despite country of origin have common ground.

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

The Texas law that banned sodomy was for straights as well as gays.
It made no distiction between the two.
The thing about this though is that the supreme court has now become far too powerful.
More so than ever was intended (note the politically incorrect phraseology) by our founding fathers.

Everyone should just move here to California where they think sodomy is succulent and just about anything goes except common sense.

[J'Pol]

Oh, it&#39;s cogs in your avatar&#39;s head. I always thought it was flowers. That explains it.

[clocker]

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@28 June 2003 - 22:44
The Texas law that banned sodomy was for straights as well as gays.
It made no distiction between the two.
The thing about this though is that the supreme court has now become far too powerful.
More so than ever was intended (note the politically incorrect phraseology) by our founding fathers.


Was the law ever applied to a heterosexual couple?

In what way has the Supreme Court become too powerful?

[balamm]

Could we get on with this invasion of Canada then so I can get some reasonably priced Jack Daniels&#33;

Note there was a debate here on the west coast some years ago and a resolution that we all march down to the Peace Arch in Blaine with our 410/22 over unders and fire a few shots over the border guards heads, then wait for the tanks to roll up before surrendering enmass and allowing ya&#39;ll in to liberate us from the overbearing dominance of the the centrall and eastern provinces.
In typically Canadian fashion though, it was decided to wait for a week and see what happened.
I believe that was 15 years ago now?
God this country is is so boring sometimes.
Oops&#33; must run, CBC is re-airing a Tommy Hunter and Anne Murray singalong&#33;
Ooooh&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[clocker]

Be careful what you wish for, balamm.
As hobbes so correctly pointed out, Canada not only openly flaunts the precursors to Weapons of Minimal Destruction, but you have been harboring a viper&#39;s nest of French speakers in your very bosom. Surely Washington can ill afford to ignore this threat for much longer.

Also, you guys use the metric system. :o

[balamm]

Originally posted by clocker@29 June 2003 - 13:08
Also, you guys use the metric system. :o
Only officially&#33; I personally have no Idea what a kilometre(the proper french spelling) looks like and buying gas is so confusing I have nightmares about it.

Speaking of gas and weapons of minimal destruction, I&#39;ve just pulled a freezer out of storage after 5 years and am about to unleash the nastiest, most noxious substances from within if my demands for cheap bourbon are not met immediately&#33;

ViVa libre le Colombienne du Brittanique&#33;&#33;

(or somethng like that)

[clocker]

If you will rid us of Alanis Morrisette and Alex Trebec I will personally send you all the Black Jack you can handle. :P

[balamm]

Alex Trebec - no problem&#33;

Alanis Morrisette -


NO&#33;

You got her, she&#39;s yours now lol

(skanky, nasty... yuck)

[clocker]

Sorry.

All or nothing.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by balamm+29 June 2003 - 07:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (balamm &#064; 29 June 2003 - 07:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-clocker@29 June 2003 - 13:08
Also, you guys use the metric system. :o
Only officially&#33; I personally have no Idea what a kilometre(the proper french spelling) looks like and buying gas is so confusing I have nightmares about it.

Speaking of gas and weapons of minimal destruction, I&#39;ve just pulled a freezer out of storage after 5 years and am about to unleash the nastiest, most noxious substances from within if my demands for cheap bourbon are not met immediately&#33;

ViVa libre le Colombienne du Brittanique&#33;&#33;

(or somethng like that)[/b][/quote]
First, you must decide:

Bourbon, or Jack Daniels? Jack is sour mash, not bourbon; however, your preference (no matter which) is fine with me, as I like Jack or bourbon (Wild Turkey is fine).

As to the problem of frozen precipitate-whether loose snow or packed into "balls", the problem is already being addressed, in the usual under-handed and sneaky ways by the U.S.: Global warming&#33;

Yes, much as our country will become "North Mexico" in a few years, so will Canada (North North Mexico) become a tropical snow-free paradise. Our next step: Hairless Grizzlies and Moose.

These plans can be expedited in the event you forego all things FRENCH.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@29 June 2003 - 07:41
If you will rid us of Alanis Morrisette and Alex Trebec I will personally send you all the Black Jack you can handle. :P
You forgot Celine Dion and Bryan Adams.

[WeeMouse]

I like Bryan Adams and Alanis Morisette...but then again, I also like haggis......... :P

[Rat Faced]

Oats and Barley cooked in a sheeps stomach?

[Lamsey]

Not if you get the veggie variant. And I am reliably informed by many meat-eaters that the veggie variant is nicer too. :)

[clocker]

Oddly enough, both versions are illegal in Texas.

You are under arrest&#33;

[Lamsey]

Originally posted by clocker@30 June 2003 - 01:35
Oddly enough, both versions are illegal in Texas.

You are under arrest&#33;
Texas legislation applies in Scotland?

Does that mean I can marry my cousin???

[tite-wad]

Originally posted by Lamsey@29 June 2003 - 20:11
Texas legislation applies in Scotland?

Does that mean I can marry my cousin???
No Lamsey, you&#39;re confusing Texas with West Virginia and Kentucky. http://members.roadfly.com/tite-wad/laugh.gif

In Texas you can marry your horse though&#33; :P

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

You forgot Celine Dion and Bryan Adams.
And Peter Jennings and Paul Schaeffer&#33;

[brotherdoobie]

Originally posted by balamm@29 June 2003 - 06:53
Could we get on with this invasion of Canada then so I can get some reasonably priced Jack Daniels&#33;

Note there was a debate here on the west coast some years ago and a resolution that we all march down to the Peace Arch in Blaine with our 410/22 over unders and fire a few shots over the border guards heads, then wait for the tanks to roll up before surrendering enmass and allowing ya&#39;ll in to liberate us from the overbearing dominance of the the centrall and eastern provinces.
In typically Canadian fashion though, it was decided to wait for a week and see what happened.
I believe that was 15 years ago now?
God this country is is so boring sometimes.
Oops&#33; must run, CBC is re-airing a Tommy Hunter and Anne Murray singalong&#33;
Ooooh&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
LOL&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Peace brotherdoobie

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Lamsey+30 June 2003 - 01:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey @ 30 June 2003 - 01:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@30 June 2003 - 01:35
Oddly enough, both versions are illegal in Texas.

You are under arrest&#33;
Texas legislation applies in Scotland?

Does that mean I can marry my cousin??? [/b][/quote]
Erm, yes you can marry your cousin in the UK.

But...would you want to??

[clocker]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 June 2003 - 11:50

Erm, yes you can marry your cousin in the UK.

But...would you want to??
Who wouldn&#39;t?
http://www.wklt.com/ellis&co/hillbilly.jpg

[tite-wad]

Apparently the word "wouldn&#39;t" needs to be replaced with "shouldn&#39;t"&#33; http://www.emule-project.net/board/html/emoticons/shock.gif

[clocker]

Women love these guys.

They are obviously very good listeners. :P

[evilbagpuss]

I cant believe that gay sex has been illegal in 13 states till now. I also find it slightly insane that some people see this as political correctness gone mad and that it will lead to "compulsory" sodomy. What two consenting adults do in their own home with each other is no ones business but their own. If it were one of those silly laws that never get enforced then I&#39;d understand.. but check this out. Conservatism gone mad? I think so.



In the case being considered by the court, two men, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, were arrested after a neighbour falsely reported that a man with a gun was "going crazy" in Mr Lawrence&#39;s apartment.

The neighbour was convicted of filing a false report, but Mr Lawrence and Mr Garner were arrested, jailed overnight, and fined &#036;200 each plus court costs.


full story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2889175.stm)

Land of the free indeed...

[hobbes]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@1 July 2003 - 16:05
I cant believe that gay sex has been illegal in 13 states till now. I also find it slightly insane that some people see this as political correctness gone mad and that it will lead to "compulsory" sodomy. What two consenting adults do in their own home with each other is no ones business but their own. If it were one of those silly laws that never get enforced then I&#39;d understand.. but check this out. Conservatism gone mad? I think so.



In the case being considered by the court, two men, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, were arrested after a neighbour falsely reported that a man with a gun was "going crazy" in Mr Lawrence&#39;s apartment.

The neighbour was convicted of filing a false report, but Mr Lawrence and Mr Garner were arrested, jailed overnight, and fined &#036;200 each plus court costs.


full story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2889175.stm)

Land of the free indeed...
Sometimes it is hard to get the Church out of the State, particularly in regard to sexual conduct, but it is apparently harder to get Mr. Lawerence out of Mr. Garner.

I simply couldn&#39;t resist.

[J'Pol]

You could have resisted, you know you could.

However as long as it was tongue in cheeck it&#39;s not that bad.

(Your comment that is)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by JPaul@1 July 2003 - 13:25
You could have resisted, you know you could.

However as long as it was tongue in cheeck it&#39;s not that bad.

(Your comment that is)
TONGUE? CHEEK? :lol:

[WeeMouse]

:blink:













:lol:

[kAb]

women donate eggs, and gay men pay for them edit: and vice versa.

or they adopt children.

but supposedly children brought up by homosexuals do not become homosexual themselves, in fact the partners discourage it (generally) because they do not want the child to go through what they went through.

as long as it doesn&#39;t become hard to find women because they are all lesbians, i&#39;m down with it.

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Ummm
Women need something apart from themselves to commit this act.
Or do they? :blink:

I did a search for a discrete graphical representation of Sodomy and this came up on page 2 google.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9709/25/albert.wrap/albert.jpg