Montana GOP: Homosexuality is a crime

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There are a few "dumb laws" sites out there that list state and city laws that were never repealed and are technically "legal" except for the fact that they are superseded by broader national laws. To take Dannos point, we would have to assume that there is no common sense application of common law and that the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law should be the defining factor.

Presumably it should still be illegal for a man with a mustache to kiss a woman in the street of one state, while in another a man should be allowed to beat his wife on the court house steps on one day of the year.

In point of fact there were a couple of states which hadn't formally repealed the laws pertaining to slavery until the early 90s. Strange but true. Yet according to Danno these laws and others like them should be respected, else we are guilty of some sort of discrimination.

Of course the truth here is that Danno is vehemently opposed homosexuality and always has been (he used to refer to gay people as "homos" when he first started posting in OT) if local laws say it is not only illegal but criminal he will hide behind legalistic, bureaucratic arguments, rather than address the deeper ethical dimensions.

Indeed the closest he gets to an ethical conversations involves obfuscating with semantics (hence the concept of consent is irrelevant to him) rather than actually considering what is wrong with things like incest, beastiality and pedophilia.

Your not serious I hope. If we decided to interpret Law by assuming that all active laws in the states at the time of the constitution are valid, it would mean that all sex positons except missionary are illegal. Having sex with the sun up would be illegal etc. Witchcraft would be illegal etc....

[Danno 1,228]

Yet according to Danno these laws and others like them should be respected, else we are guilty of some sort of discrimination.

Of course the truth here is that Danno is vehemently opposed homosexuality and always has been (he used to refer to gay people as "homos" when he first started posting in OT) if local laws say it is not only illegal but criminal he will hide behind legalistic, bureaucratic arguments, rather than address the deeper ethical dimensions.

Indeed the closest he gets to an ethical conversations involves obfuscating with semantics (hence the concept of consent is irrelevant to him) rather than actually considering what is wrong with things like incest, beastiality and pedophilia.

-I never said anyone.. or even I respects all these laws, I simple point out they do exist and have always existed to highlight the silliness of claiming something similar is breaking new ground.

- I still do refer to them as "homos". Since they embrace the name, what are you so afraid of?

-Lets go ahead and follow your lead, you want to have an ethical conversation about what is wrong with say Bestiality... that we need laws concerning it, go right ahead.

[Peikko 1,575]

And you are for discriminating against Homosexual Brothers or cousins who sleep together.

At least I discriminate against all deviant acts equally... you pick n choose, then act like you are better than me.

No Danno, absolutely untrue, but why should you not misrepresent my position in this thread? You misrepresent almost everything else.

[Peikko 1,575]

The laws that govern what one is allowed to do in the bedroom in ones own home have nothing to do with privacy. If you kill your wife in your own home it will still be classified as murder; the law does not step back and say that it is not interested in what happened because it happened behind closed doors. Similarly, any laws that are in place that are intended to determine the fitness of sexual acts are not determined by privacy but by notions of harm to others. If the sex can be deemed to have been enacted with the intent to cause harm it really does not matter where it is committed - hence why husbands/wives can be guilty of rape. At one time sodomy was outlawed because it was felt that those who indulged in it would be placed in moral jeopardy. We are governed by notions of collective morality, the difference between modern laws and old laws is that collective morality is more and more based on equality rather than the demands of a deities and what religion views as right and wrong.

Despite what Gary understands of morality and where it starts and ends, it is in fact a set of standards that we collectively respect. As far as right versus wrong (which is what morality is) if it was entirely down to personal opinion, a person who killed people based on his personal rules of right and wrong could not be prosecuted just because it contravened another person's personal rules of right and wrong. The law would have no way of determining which set of personal morals took precedent and could draw no conclusion as to whether it was right or wrong - the law would in fact be pointless - getting rid of all judicial systems would save a ton of money mind you.

The ideas of consent, harm to others, property, everything that allows the individual to have a right of some sort is protected only because we all agree collectively within each society to abide by a common set of rules determining what is right and what is wrong. There is no innate morality that exists external to human existence - it is an entirely human construct (although of course religious persons will not agree and will conclude that rights are granted to us via the benevolence of a loving deity)

The big revelation of the UN was to make an attempt to enshrine a basic set of rights that could and would be respected not merely within a society or country but by all members of the human race and the principal was to make these rights universally applicable by basing them on one very simple concept; that everyone is born free and equal. Sadly, the inhabitants of the USA singularly fail to understand the importance of maintaining a standard of rights that is external to their own constitution even though they understood this only too well immediately following the second world war. Hey ho, baby steps, baby steps.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

-I never said anyone.. or even I respects all these laws, I simple point out they do exist and have always existed to highlight the silliness of claiming something similar is breaking new ground.

- I still do refer to them as "homos". Since they embrace the name, what are you so afraid of?

-Lets go ahead and follow your lead, you want to have an ethical conversation about what is wrong with say Bestiality... that we need laws concerning it, go right ahead.

Well its bloody OBVIOUS isn't it Danno . Beastiality is covered under the same laws that protect animals from cruel and sadistic treatment. If its illegal to kick the ###### out of the family dog and to set cats on fire, its going to be illegal to ####### them as well.

[Danno 1,228]

Well its bloody OBVIOUS isn't it Danno . Beastiality is covered under the same laws that protect animals from cruel and sadistic treatment. If its illegal to kick the ###### out of the family dog and to set cats on fire, its going to be illegal to ####### them as well.

ONly you would equate kicking a dog to allowing him to mount.

Now try again with your line of reasoning.

[Peikko 1,575]

A dog humping a human leg is neither bestiality nor illegal, try again Danno.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Erm, I think most people would make the connection I did. It's not my problem that you want to obfuscate the issue in order to promote a totally illogical argument.

How about you try again.

[Danno 1,228]

A dog humping a human leg is neither bestiality nor illegal, try again Danno.

Who said anything about a leg?

[Peikko 1,575]

Who said anything about a leg?

I did because that is exactly what dogs do. You brought in dogs humping as some kind of preview to dogs and humans enjoying consensual sex. It's not. Dogs want to hump legs, that's it, end of and that is not bestiality. Bestiality is a human USING an animal for their own enjoyment. That would be cruelty in anyone's book apart from yours apparently.

[Danno 1,228]

I did because that is exactly what dogs do. You brought in dogs humping as some kind of preview to dogs and humans enjoying consensual sex. It's not. Dogs want to hump legs, that's it, end of and that is not bestiality. Bestiality is a human USING an animal for their own enjoyment. That would be cruelty in anyone's book apart from yours apparently.

OK....

Lets not get confused here, in my book it's always immoral... but not always cruel.

Wait: DIdn't we do all this back here?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/274915-montana-gop-homosexuality-is-a-crime/page__view__findpost__p__4194387

Edited September 22, 2010 by Danno

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thats nonsensical

[Peikko 1,575]

OK....

Lets not get confused here, in my book it's always immoral... but not always cruel.

Wait: DIdn't we do all this back here?

http://www.visajourn...ost__p__4194387

Dogs wanting to hump is immoral? I am certainly NOT the one that is confused. Your list is pure silly, consent to sex is a very specific form of consent and comparing it to a dog consenting or not to being chained up is puerile and I have no intention of indulging you.

Thats nonsensical

No kidding, once again chasing the white rabbit down the rabbit hole.

[Danno 1,228]

Dogs wanting to hump is immoral? I am certainly NOT the one that is confused. Your list is pure silly, consent to sex is a very specific form of consent and comparing it to a dog consenting or not to being chained up is puerile and I have no intention of indulging you.

No kidding, once again chasing the white rabbit down the rabbit hole.

How you got there I will never know.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The laws that govern what one is allowed to do in the bedroom in ones own home have nothing to do with privacy. If you kill your wife in your own home it will still be classified as murder; the law does not step back and say that it is not interested in what happened because it happened behind closed doors. Similarly, any laws that are in place that are intended to determine the fitness of sexual acts are not determined by privacy but by notions of harm to others. If the sex can be deemed to have been enacted with the intent to cause harm it really does not matter where it is committed - hence why husbands/wives can be guilty of rape. At one time sodomy was outlawed because it was felt that those who indulged in it would be placed in moral jeopardy. We are governed by notions of collective morality, the difference between modern laws and old laws is that collective morality is more and more based on equality rather than the demands of a deities and what religion views as right and wrong.

Despite what Gary understands of morality and where it starts and ends, it is in fact a set of standards that we collectively respect. As far as right versus wrong (which is what morality is) if it was entirely down to personal opinion, a person who killed people based on his personal rules of right and wrong could not be prosecuted just because it contravened another person's personal rules of right and wrong. The law would have no way of determining which set of personal morals took precedent and could draw no conclusion as to whether it was right or wrong - the law would in fact be pointless - getting rid of all judicial systems would save a ton of money mind you.

The ideas of consent, harm to others, property, everything that allows the individual to have a right of some sort is protected only because we all agree collectively within each society to abide by a common set of rules determining what is right and what is wrong. There is no innate morality that exists external to human existence - it is an entirely human construct (although of course religious persons will not agree and will conclude that rights are granted to us via the benevolence of a loving deity)

The big revelation of the UN was to make an attempt to enshrine a basic set of rights that could and would be respected not merely within a society or country but by all members of the human race and the principal was to make these rights universally applicable by basing them on one very simple concept; that everyone is born free and equal. Sadly, the inhabitants of the USA singularly fail to understand the importance of maintaining a standard of rights that is external to their own constitution even though they understood this only too well immediately following the second world war. Hey ho, baby steps, baby steps.

Thank you for demonstrating there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. My very first comment on this issue (check for yourself)

Again the ridiculous claptrao spews out when no logical argument can be made. You and Danno are peas of a pod. You speak of homocide, he speaks of animal sex and now says..."oh well, the laws don't mean anything anyway" If you can't do any better, concede the point and get on with life. You sound ridiculous.

Danno would not agree to a law that banned handguns in North Carolina...or even another state he has never been to...if "it wasn't really enforced" Give me a break. This is all about "My way or the hi-way" and it applies to Repubs and well as Dems.

My point is that Danno, MC and NO ONE else gets to say what my wife and I do, sexually, in our bedroom. Period. Stay out of my bedroom, my refrigerator, my garage, my gun cabinet, my doctors office, all of it. Just stay out! Do what you like and we will do what we like and no one will be harmed.

The homosexuals in this are refer to themselves as "Queers". So what?