| Author | Message | ||
     Karl Loren Moderator Username: Kloren Post Number: 25 Registered: 05-2003 |
Perhaps no "social issue" more than legal legitimization of homosexuality has divided those who follow traditional religious morality from the Gay Community and its homosexuality. As long as homosexual behavior was private, not public, it generally has not caused public distress. The more this behavior has become public, including a demand from Gays for legal legitimazation, the higher the volume of public disagreement has occured. Within the area of homosexuality the concept of sodomy has been so distasteful that it virtually never gets detailed media coverage. The media has been forced to cover these subjects, and we as a society are forced to confront them because of the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court. Here is the view from the Gay perspective:  "The petitioners," wrote Kennedy, "are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." The drafters of the Constitution, he concluded, "knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Source: Click Here. A view of this from the more usual sources is here: In Georgia, they outlawed sodomy for everybody. Texas, only for homosexuals. So what Justice O'Connor did is said is when you make that distinction, that triggers the Equal Protection Clause, and I can strike it down on that ground, not the ground the rest of the justices today used. HUME: All right, now, Justice Scalia says in his dissent, that -- notes that the majority here said that they are not dealing with marital gay rights. He says do not believe it. What is he talking about? Source: Click Here. The plain truth of the matter is that there are very few ways for two men to have sexual relations with oneanother. Sodomy is one of those ways. Sodomy is also, of course, just as feasible between different-sex couples. For the long term survival of mankind, sex is designed to produce children. Obviously this is not the purpose of homosexual sex, including sodomy. If the great majority of mankind were homosexual, then obviously there would be fewer and fewer children -- leading to the end or at least the diminishment of survival for mankind. But Gays could easily argue that we are a society of diversity and that there are plenty of straight marriages that produce children. Let's leave aside this issue, and go to more simple moral issues. The moral basis on which this web site is founded includes the precept of morality that you have a moral duty to obey the laws of the land. It is not uncommon that laws are "wrong." You have a moral duty to support a government ONLY that helps its citizens survive -- you may well speak out about bad laws, but you do not have a moral right to break them as part of your disagreement with them. You can also leave any group that adopts laws or rules that you find to be "wrong." We do not live in a perfect society and when you feel unable to leave a nation, or a group, you disagree with, you may feel that is "unfair." There is nothing in the basic common sense moral code that criticizes homosexuality or sodomy, but this duty to obey the law is on firm moral ground. There is also nothing in the basic common sense moral code that "guarantees" the right to homosexual behavior. The long term survival of life has its base in a common sense moral code that does not even mention homosexuality. But, if a group, or a culture, or a nation, or a religion determines that homosexuality is contrary to their own survival, it is within thier right to pass a law or rule to control such behavior. Any such rule of control, simply, must not itself violate the common sense moral code. Thus, if a nation or group wants to restrict homosexual public behavior, they would have the moral right to do exactly that. It is also true that a "law" which is vague, or cannot be enforced, is a bad law. So a law that makes it illegal to perform sodomy in private cannot be enforced. That is not a part of the moral code, but it is a simple rule of our society and many societies. Since there is a NO "moral right" to be a homosexual, or to commit sodomy, there can be a law restricting behavior that is not acceptable by the current culture. But the basic moral code suggests that you have a moral duty to respect the religious "beliefs" of anyone, and that could include homosexuality. "Beliefs" are, however, not behavior. As a practical matter there cannot be a law to outlaw certain behaviors that are not seen in any public place or way. When a homosexual thrusts his sexual behavior into the public main stream of our culture, at least at present, he disturbs that social fabric. The culture, speaking with a majority voice, through laws that do not violate the common sense moral code, may restrict public behavior of any form of sexual activity. We have long had laws on the books about "lewd" behavior. Our society has no problem with such laws. If the culture, or the citizens approve of laws that change the definition of "lewd" to include public acts of homosexuality, that is morally OK. In fact, if sodomy is committed in a public restroom, in a park, for instance, it would seem to violate the common right for others to use that facility without having to confront this behavior. This has been common, among police who chase down "lewd" behavior. The Sheriff’s Office is getting its message out through a series of periodic undercover sting operations, the most recent of which resulted in eight arrests last week. The rest area is located on the east side of I-4 near where International Speedway Boulevard branches off from the interstate. While the rest area has no bathroom facilities, there is a parking area along with picnic tables and an open field that has become a popular meeting spot for men looking for sex. The Sheriff’s Office’s Crime Suppression Team has targeted the area for periodic sting operations where a male deputy working undercover waits to be approached by suspected offenders. Once approached, the suspects strike up a conversation that quickly turns to sex. When the suspect exposes himself or commits any other offense, a signal is sent for the take-down team to move in. Source: Click here. In fact, the people of Texas are now looking specifically at the legal possibility of calling public sodomy a lewd act. It is hard to believe the Supreme Court would feel it had the power to define "lewd" differently than what society measures it. In Kansas, the decision was likely to affect several criminal cases in Johnson County District Court, where prosecutors have used the state's law to combat sexual activity in public park rest rooms. Source: Click Here. Thus, we have reached a watershed on the Supreme Court, where the "people" recognize that moral rights are being trampled by the Bench. I believe it is perfectly OK for homosexual behavior in private, even sodomy whether between the same sexs or not, but not in public. Such public display of that behavior that offends the majority of a culture is a valid and moral target for restrictive laws. The Supreme Court erred om this decision, and nothing could have been a better boost to the Republicans. The awareness of the vital importance of electing Senators who will approve Supreme Court Justices who recognize the truth of this article is now greatly elevated -- you will see many, many quiet campaigns, using this Supreme Court decision to explain why we need a more moral group in our Congress. Any Congress which could not impeach Clinton has abandoned its moral footings -- it is time for a return to moral behavior. Again, I say, it would NOT be OK to restrict private sexual behavior of any type -- but public sexual behavior is the righteous area for public concern. | ||
| Babu New member Username: Babu Post Number: 3 Registered: 05-2003 |
I am in complete agreement with Mr. Karl Loren on this issue. But I will add something more. Sodomy has one most dangerous side-affect. AIDs...!!! -- very few may know that AIDs came into existence in this world because of, and through sodomy. Nature has a strange and ruthless way of punishing when it is not obeyed. Any un-natural channel of gratification will not go unpunished -- in the short run or the long run -- either directly or indirectly. Sex is strictly a private affair between two individuals. Hence any sexual behavior - be it homo or hetero - cannot be explicit in public. Even normal sexual conduct, when it is exhibited in public is -- "lewd". "Lewdity" comes from not just the behavior per se, as much as the public exhibition of it. Do not we consider burping and farting as offensive in public, which are normal biological reactions...?? Even the normal sexual behavior can be considered lewd & very offensive to the public if they are forced to confront it at public places at odd times and circumstances. Another most important aspect of lewdity is -- the small children and their comforts and rights in public places. Why should the child be forced to get exposed to a behavior that they cannot understand and relate to properly & rationally. It has a terribly corrupting influence on the child, which when not properly regulated or corrected, will help produce rapists of the worst type. Sexuality has its own responsibility to go along. Law should never allow any liberty that has no corresponding responsibility to the society attached to it. Sex is for pleasure and progeny -- as is evidently designed by nature. Let us listen to the nature and thrive in it, instead of violating and perishing. Law has to promote "morals" -- not liberty to violate morals. MSR Ayyangar. | ||
| Karl Loren Moderator Username: Kloren Post Number: 28 Registered: 05-2003 |
Wow! I like Babu's comments and agree, but only add this one proviso. What is not acceptable TODAY may become so tomorrow. Farting and burping are good words to use -- words that, almost, would not be used in public, but nonetheless I think modern society can tolerate. I don't foresee a time when burping is socially OK, but I've heard that there is much greater acceptance of this in China? I hate to show my ignorance about Chinese culture, but in any event it is very common place in Africa for women to expose their breasts, where even normal "dress" may not cover a breast. Christian missionaries did a great disservice in Africa by criticizing the natives that it was sin to go naked. The common culture of an area should control such matters. The woman revealing her breasts in a subway in New York? I don't think that is within acceptable norms even though the Court says it is. Here is a good example where community norms have been subverted by a liberal judge, as was done recently in the US Supreme Court. The New York Supreme Court said it was OK for a woman to bare her breasts because a man can do that. Has this Court lost touch with reality? I'm no prude, and I'm certainly not a censor. I've defended theater owners who want to show pornographic movies to consenting adults, nudists who want to cavort naked on specially designated beaches and gay adults who wish to have sex with other gay adults. But the recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals allowing women to "expose their breasts" in a Rochester public park went too far even for me. Source: Click here. And this quote from the same famous Harvard Law Professor: We endanger freedom and equality when we trivialize it. The Supreme Court of the United States trivialized freedom last year when it upheld an Indiana statute that required topless dancers to wear "pasties" over their nipples when they danced in front of people who wanted to see them nude. And the New York Court of Appeals trivialized freedom and equality when it ruled that women have the right to walk down a busy street with their breasts exposed. That is why when I was asked, several years ago, to bring this kind of lawsuit challenging the Massachusetts nudity law, I turned down the case. But I will continue to defend the rights of any woman or man who wants to expose any part of his or her anatomy to any other willing adults. Source: Click here. Here is another example of the type of coverage this issue gets in courts: The City of New York undertook to zone adult entertainment establishments. The definition of such establishments under the ordinance depends in part on employees' or performers' regular exposure of "specified anatomical areas," including the female breast. Plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the regulation violates free speech and equal protection. The district court dismissed. Source: Click here. I really think the courts have better things to do -- but, I do agree that the community standards will find their way into the laws, and that people will try to find their way "around the laws." If the law should ever stay away from some area it would be sex. The Supreme Court should never had gotten into this mess. There is a "morals commentator" I admire, Dennis Prager. Here is his background. Dennis Prager, one of America's most respected and popular nationally syndicated radio talk-show hosts, is the author of several books and a frequent guest on television shows such as Larry King Live, Politically Incorrect, The Late Late Show on CBS, Rivera Live, The Early Show on CBS, Fox Family Network, The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes. Source: Click Here. I happen to agree with this view of his: Judges. Too many judges are unfit for their position. How else can one explain the New York State Supreme Court ruling that women can bare their breasts in public because men can? How to explain the judges who liberate criminals only to have those criminals murder and rape again? Or the many judges who regard their primary role as imposing their values on society? This has led to an undermining of the democratic process beyond the wildest hopes of any homegrown fascist or communist. Source: Click Here. Sex and sexual activities are the proper subject of LAWS only when some otherwise private behavior impacts on the public, and then those laws should be never any higher than by a State. These should never be the subject of Supreme Court review. If the States differ? So be it! A bare breast does not offend anyone in a strip club, but well may in a crowded subway. Breastfeeding a child should certainly not be restricted, but even breastfeeding can be done in a provocative or obtrusive way. The main philosophical point here is that laws have a way of reflecting public thought. You may disagree with that thought, but those are the morals of the group -- expressed in law because the individuals don't like to see the immorality. They cannot convince the "sinners" so they get laws passed. Since the legal system, particularly the court system, has been infiltrated by liberal thinking, it is common for the courts to feel that THEIR judgment is better than the "people." This is the mess we have gotten into in this society, with our present court make-up. But, the community standards do change, and I believe the courts will revert to sanity and common sense. Then the laws will reflect the community standards on these matters. Basically the liberals do not trust the people and think that they must "watch out for them." The conservatives are willing to allow democracy a chance. I am on the side of democracy. | ||
| Babu New member Username: Babu Post Number: 7 Registered: 05-2003 |
Yes it is very true that what is not acceptable today may become acceptable tomorrow. Society is constantly changng in values - but with a deeply inherent desire to evolve for better. Every change of cultural behaviour can only be adjudged by its repurcussions -- short term and long term. We very often hear elders saying -- "such things never happened during our time" -- when they refer to a human behavioural disaster of the present time. There have always been regrets over things after having accepted. Even the laws have been reversed after having been enacted, as they were found to be promoting disasters. If a man considered it to be a positive evolution and progress from being a nude animal to -- a dressed human, going without dressing cannot be considered a forward movement but -- just an aberration. Freedom is that which pleases all -- the person and the onlookers. An act or conduct that only pleases a particular person but offends the others is a wrong exhibition of freedom -- an "outrage". Coming to legal interpretation of "liberty" -- it is sad that "law" is often being interpreted to defeat its own purpose, by the very scholars who have undertaken to promote and protect it. MSR Ayyangar. | ||
| Karl Loren Moderator Username: Kloren Post Number: 30 Registered: 05-2003 |
There is a very basic observation about life -- whether we are surviving better or worse, over some relatively long time period of observation. I am aware that ancient history features the immoral in great numbers, but I think it is hard to know the full truth about that past. The literature of the past, I think, featured the extremes as both criminals and heroes. With modern communications and record keeping, we have a much more accurate account of detailed activities of today. Over the last 70 years, when I have been observing, there seems no question that we are on a declining moral path. My friend, Dr. Ayyangar, has written: Society is constantly changng in values - but with a deeply inherent desire to evolve for better. I would disagree with this. The "desire" may be there, but along with that are impulses toward self-destruction and destructive acts against others -- impulses that I see in the ascendency. It is easy to point out the elements of this decline -- drugs would be one of the main factors. There are many influences to push man into immorality, but any immoral act must start first with the choice, by man, to move in that direction. It is useless to blame anyone else for your own moral failures. Drugs, particularly those drugs which do not wash out of the body in a short time, but, like most street drugs, and most psychiatric drugs, are "oil soluable" and stay in the body for decades -- these drugs create something that has been called a "chemical personality." I suspect that India has not been so much the target for drug pushers as has been the US. We see it here on every corner, and in every jail cell. That chemical personality is prone to aberrated sexual behavior, crime and self-destruction. He does not learn well in school, and falls to many practices in poor diet and lack of exercise to lead to the inevitable poor health. Heart disease did not exist 400 years ago. It is now the number one killer in many countries. It is a man-made disease. Certainly much other illness is self-inflicted. I would differ with Dr. Ayyangar in this respect and suggest that the impulse which pushes man onto an ever-more moral path is in constant conflict with the impulses toward self-destrction. Man is capable of being good, but is too often not good. The world abounds with these examples. Left to his own impulses, man goes down the declining spiral of immoral behavior. There is a solution, I think, and an important part of that solution is web sites like this, attracting large and larger numbers of visitors and contributors, and this influence comtrasting with the effect caused by the media -- which is generally always harmful. Man can still learn, but needs a teacher! | ||
| Karl Loren Moderator Username: Kloren Post Number: 34 Registered: 05-2003 |
The moral guide serving as the foundation to this discussion group holds that promiscuity is a serious moral failure in a person and in society. But, there is no moral condemnation, in the basic moral code, of homosexual sex. It is important, then, to differentiate between homosexual sex which is also promisuous and homosexual sex which is NOT promiscous. No sexual behavior, straight or Gay, belongs thrust into the public view. But what a couple does sexually in private, as the Supreme Court says, is not the business of the Government. Unfortunately the Gay Community has been hung with allegations of promiscuity -- far more than the heterosexual community. This may be because gay-bashers heap whatever additional condemnation they can think of onto homosexual behavior -- and exagerate the promisuous percentage of Gay Men or Women. My own studies suggest that gay men DO have a much higher degree of promiscuous behavior than do heterosexual men. My studies do agree with one of the thoughtful pieces on the related "news" page. In my experience, most promiscuous people tend to be politically/socially left-of-center - what I term liberal - while monogamous ones are largely right-of-center - what I term conservative. Among gays, the liberal gays are the ones who are more 'out and about' - not shy about proclaiming their homosexuality to the world from every rooftop, participating in public gay events (such as gay parades), being active in gay organizations etc. In contrast, the conservative gays are largely hidden - they may be busy mowing their lawn with their partner or hiding in a suburban nook or cranny. They may not even be 'out' to others i.e. they may not even have revealed their gaiety to others. When such a 'gay scene', is surveyed, the gays who are visible are mostly (if not overwhelmingly) the out-and-about, promiscuous ones. So based on that sample, it might appear that most gays are promiscuous. These types of statistics are very much prone to falsity and opinion, but that's where I come out on this. So, I think it is worthy of notice that Gay sexual promiscuity is immoral even when many Gay Men justify it and we are on the verge of the Supreme Court furthering the moral decline in our nation by saying that "promiscuity" is not a matter of government concern either. Once you have read about the sexual behavior of Gay men in a Gay Bath House, you are not likely to ever forget it. You are very likely to agree that there should be a local law calling such behavior "unsafe health practices" and even "public lewdness." Click Here for a sexually explicit but accurate description of sexual encounters among gay men in a gay bath house. The moral people in our country need to take back the nation's morality. Just as we rightly criticize the Muslim leaders who FAIL to condemn Muslim Terrorists, we can say that the Gays have a large responsibility to protect themselves by having prominent Gay leaders condemn promiscuity, but not homosexual sex. Those promiscous gay men must come to realize that as long as the public perception is for a high incidence of promiscuity among Gay men, without criticism from Gays, the society will contiunue to condemn homosexuality. It could well be that the Gay political agenda includes deliberatly publicizing blatant sexual behavior because they want to shock society, not live in peaceful homosexual privacy. There are several articles on this issue here: Click Here. |
