Montana GOP: Homosexuality is a crime

[Peikko 1,575]

You know they say, sometimes when you are not getting through to someone...... another way to reach them is to whisper your point, somehow that changes the dynamics and they actually listen.

(Whispering)- Gary, I have never suggested my morals have anything to do with this topic, I have only spoke of common or community morals.

What I found interesting is your "consenting adult" phrase.... as if you get to determine what age that might be. Who left you boss over the sex lives of minors anyway.... or are you using a common moral guide?

You first post in this thread was to give a thumbs up to Montana. When I specifically asked you if you supported making homosexual acts illegal you started on this campaign of obfuscation, essentially you are saying that it's up to the folks in Montana to make whatever laws they see fit. Fine, but do YOU support the idea of making homosexual acts illegal? If not, why the thumbs up for Montana?

[Danno 1,228]

How many incest relationships have you heard about where the daughter seduced the father or uncle?

I won't say its impossible, but its highly improbable to say the least.

Because there are laws against these relationships it helps to keep these things taboo and secretive.

When I was 19 I did know of two brothers who were in their 40s-50s who slept together when they visited (one was in NY the other in Greensboro NC).

[Peikko 1,575]

All these relationships are illegal and yes that means people who engage in them are secretive, so what?

The point of making certain sexual relationships illegal is to give recourse to those who are forced into sexual relations against their will. Sometimes a sexual relationship that falls into the area of being illegal is not in fact abusive, for example a 19 year old who has sex with a 16 year old might not be abusive, it could be consensual but the law does not discriminate. However, those who interpret the law within our legal system not only can but should enforce the law to reflect the probability of abuse. If all sexual relationships were legal, we could not prosecute those relationships that are predatory and abusive and I doubt anyone would be in favour of that.

However to make a law that is designed specifically to punish people for engaging in homosexual acts targets homosexuals and that in and of itself is an abuse of law. We already have laws that can accommodate homosexuals that engage in abusive or predatory relationships, all the laws that protect minors and family members can be applied equally to homosexual and heterosexual relationships, we also have domestic abuse laws that protect people from being forced to engage in activities that they do not consent to so outlawing homosexual acts is unnecessary and a deliberate attempt to punish homosexuals for being homosexual.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Danno 1,228]

You first post in this thread was to give a thumbs up to Montana. When I specifically asked you if you supported making homosexual acts illegal you started on this campaign of obfuscation, essentially you are saying that it's up to the folks in Montana to make whatever laws they see fit. Fine, but do YOU support the idea of making homosexual acts illegal? If not, why the thumbs up for Montana?

Contrary to contemporary opinion these laws were primarily used to prosecute more fully people who had committed other crimes.

Example. Scout master has sex with 14 yr old boy, if there is no law against sodomy that is one less area to convict him on.

The truth is, we never had a sex police unit investigating the sex lives of citizens, but these laws do have a place, as they have historically been used.

Would I vote to strike down such laws if they were used to form a Sex-lives investigation unit? Yes

BUt I think these laws on the books have been used to prosecute people most would want locked up.

[Peikko 1,575]

Contrary to contemporary opinion these laws were primarily used to prosecute more fully people who had committed other crimes.

Example. Scout master has sex with 14 yr old boy, if there is no law against sodomy that is one less area to convict him on.

The truth is, we never had a sex police unit investigating the sex lives of citizens, but these laws do have a place, as they have historically been used.

Would I vote to strike down such laws if they were used to form a Sex-lives investigation unit? Yes

BUt I think these laws on the books have been used to prosecute people most would want locked up.

Rubbish - see above. We do not need sodomy laws to protect 14 year old scouts from scout masters. Such a relationship is statutory rape and statutory rape is going to be sentenced far harsher than sodomy ever would or could be. If that is your best argument for sodomy laws your argument is baseless.

[Danno 1,228]

Rubbish - see above. We do not need sodomy laws to protect 14 year old scouts from scout masters. Such a relationship is statutory rape and statutory rape is going to be sentenced far harsher than sodomy ever would or could be. If that is your best argument for sodomy laws your argument is baseless.

I see you have little experience with the Court system and how bad people are put away for meaningful amounts of time.

But carry on.

[evli1966 88]

You are not aware of a lot of things, and no, it does not have to be the one who is older who is the predator.

Except in cases envolving a minor and an adult.

Contrary to contemporary opinion these laws were primarily used to prosecute more fully people who had committed other crimes.

Example. Scout master has sex with 14 yr old boy, if there is no law against sodomy that is one less area to convict him on.

The truth is, we never had a sex police unit investigating the sex lives of citizens, but these laws do have a place, as they have historically been used.

Would I vote to strike down such laws if they were used to form a Sex-lives investigation unit? Yes

BUt I think these laws on the books have been used to prosecute people most would want locked up.

These laws you are protecting are for the most part knee jerk laws which are readily abused by law makers to contuinally hound former SO or to keep locked up SO becasue they were convicted of such crimes (such as the 3 strikes law)

I will admit there are SO who need to be kept under lock and key but more than 97% of SO are not violent, predators or violent predators. that 97% will never repeat offend again.

the law is another push by the GOP to try and get votes they may not have; for the most part they never had many votes for the Gay and Lesbian Associations.

Rubbish - see above. We do not need sodomy laws to protect 14 year old scouts from scout masters. Such a relationship is statutory rape and statutory rape is going to be sentenced far harsher than sodomy ever would or could be. If that is your best argument for sodomy laws your argument is baseless.

I agree.

[Peikko 1,575]

I see you have little experience with the Court system and how bad people are put away for meaningful amounts of time.

But carry on.

Targeting homosexuals because the court system fails to put bad people away for meaningful periods of time (if that is the case) is nonsensical. I am aware that it is not enough to simply suspect that a crime has taken place, evidence has to be provided that substantiates the claims but I fail to see how the evidence that would prove sodomy would fail to prove statutory rape in the case of a minor having sex with an adult. Care to tell me how that might work?

[Danno 1,228]

the law is another push by the GOP to try and get votes they may not have; for the most part they never had many votes for the Gay and Lesbian Associations.

Don't be so easy.

I mean, do you really think... be honest now, do you really think the GOP has some nationwide movement to pass such laws?

Thats laughable, this is no more than political fear-mongering by the desperate as the climate darkens for them and their ideas.

Even Far-Right Danno has not seen a whisper of such things among the likeminded.

[Danno 1,228]

Targeting homosexuals because the court system fails to put bad people away for meaningful periods of time (if that is the case) is nonsensical. I am aware that it is not enough to simply suspect that a crime has taken place, evidence has to be provided that substantiates the claims but I fail to see how the evidence that would prove sodomy would fail to prove statutory rape in the case of a minor having sex with an adult. Care to tell me how that might work?

While I do respect your opinion differs from mine, I don't see why you are missing the simple math part of it.

Rape= 10 years

Rape+ sodomy =18 years

PS: Sodomy can be charged in heterosexual crimes as well so no need to keep calling it a "homosexual crime".

[Peikko 1,575]

While I do respect your opinion differs from mine, I don't see why you are missing the simple math part of it.

Rape= 10 years

Rape+ sodomy =18 years

PS: Sodomy can be charged in heterosexual crimes as well so no need to keep calling it a "homosexual crime".

Again, if there is a problem with the law that needs to be addressed find another way to address it - increase the maximum penalty for statutory rape (if that is the term for statutory rape, increase the maximum term for rape per se, it is after all the RAPE that makes the criminal a criminal that needs locking away, not the sexual act employed).

Using sodomy to address the problem of predatory sexual crimes is necessarily discriminatory against homosexuals; or are you pretending that is not true?

[Danno 1,228]

Again, if there is a problem with the law that needs to be addressed find another way to address it - increase the maximum penalty for statutory rape (if that is the term for statutory rape, increase the maximum term for rape per se, it is after all the RAPE that makes the criminal a criminal that needs locking away, not the sexual act employed).

Using sodomy to address the problem of predatory sexual crimes is necessarily discriminatory against homosexuals; or are you pretending that is not true?

And paraphernalia laws are discriminatory against those who smoke tobacco with home made pipes or rolling papers... it's tuff building the perfect legal system no?

[Peikko 1,575]

And paraphernalia laws are discriminatory against those who smoke tobacco with home made pipes or rolling papers... it's tuff building the perfect legal system no?

It is tough, and it can not be perfect but that is no reason to re-instigate bad law.

I believe you will get almost unanimous agreement that predatory sexual activity should be illegal and have severe maximum sentences. There is no justification for designating specific sexual acts as illegal and have those who engage in those acts within a properly consensual relationship live in fear of someone 'outing' them for whatever reason, the consequences of which would be completely disproportionate to the actions.

If anyone who smokes tobacco with a home made pipe, or uses rolling papers is prosecuted (which I highly doubt tbh) the repercussions are not going to be significant or life changing and I doubt any smoker lives in fear of someone grassing them up.

[Danno 1,228]

If anyone who smokes tobacco with a home made pipe, or uses rolling papers is prosecuted (which I highly doubt tbh) the repercussions are not going to be significant or life changing and I doubt any smoker lives in fear of someone grassing them up.

I made the same case that few people were ever sought after for simply having sodomy with their wife or even boyfriend and you dismissed it..... yet you find a reason to allow it for the prosecution of drugs.

Paraphernalia laws like sodomy laws are tools to discover or further punish more serious crimes.

This is why if you get pulled over and rolling papers are found, you will then be further searched, if nothing is found..... little or nothing is done about the rolling papers.

MC, we have had homos in this country for a long time and though people generally held an even greater disgust for such things before.... we don't have a history of persecuting these victimless crimes.... unless evidence of such behavior was thrown in the lap of the justice system.

However I do understand your position... The law its self stigmatizes those who for some reason wrap their identity around their sex life.

[Peikko 1,575]

Just out of interest Danno, do you believe the abusive sex is worse when it is man against boy than any other abusive sex? If not,then why stop at sodomy? Surely, if we need individual sexual acts to be designated as illegal in order to be able to properly sentence nasty criminals then surely we need to bolster the laws across the board, no? That would mean making all sexual acts illegal or the resulting laws would be unjust.

Of course making all sexual acts illegal would be making a mockery of the law, but I certainly can not see a justification in making some sexual acts illegal while leaving others legal, particularly if by so doing one necessarily targets a specific group which sodomy laws do, even if you have pointedly failed to acknowledge that very pertinent fact.