15-09-2003 01:54									#151
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov None that requires the government to stick its nose into the private affairs of people in their homes. I've engaged in sodomy numerous times, and I can attest to it not having harmed me. On the contrary, it allowed me to share physical intimacy with people I have cared about. Regardless, it's not your nor your friends' business to tell me what is good or bad for me via legal fiat when I'm in private with the person I choose to be in private with.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but sodomy is a biblical concept isn't it? In the Bible the men of Sodom wanted to FORCE themselves on Lot's visitors. So do you get emotional satisfaction forcing yourself on strangers? Is that your idea of physical intimacy? Surely not! Who can argue against banning prison rape from the world outside of prison walls? Actually I'd be all for banning it from within prisons too. A 14 year old patient od mine just got sent up the river for burglary. I've been caring for this kid since he was 6. I'd hate to think.....nah, I can't even come to grip with it. No. No sodomy, in the big house or out.

	15-09-2003 04:47									#152
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Doc:
I think you and Boris simply don't share the same definition. For you, sodomy seems to be anal rape. For Boris, it is anal sex. Big difference.

	15-09-2003 05:37									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Personally, I have no problem with homos having sex or what have you. I have been working with one and she is pretty straight up. Really respect her actually.

That said...it is bullkaka to think that it is in the constitution. Same with abortion. That is just inventing stuff.

	15-09-2003 06:52									#154
	Got spare money?

TCO -- I don't understand your complete argument.

Are you saying that you are willing to have your privacy violated in every way imagineable by government officials, law enforcement, and whoever else, just because, technically, right to privacy is not spelled out letter-by-letter in the Constitution?

	15-09-2003 07:51									#155
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Doc: I think you and Boris simply don't share the same definition. For you, sodomy seems to be anal rape. For Boris, it is anal sex. Big difference.

My definituion is the right one.

	15-09-2003 22:49									#156
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

According to whom?

Yourself?

	15-09-2003 23:47									#157
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

How many gay men have you known in person, Doc?

	16-09-2003 03:20									#158
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by MrFun TCO -- I don't understand your complete argument. Are you saying that you are willing to have your privacy violated in every way imagineable by government officials, law enforcement, and whoever else, just because, technically, right to privacy is not spelled out letter-by-letter in the Constitution?

Only Constitutional rights are protected by the Constitution. Others must be assured by the states (9th amendment). If there is a desire for a new Constitutional right, an amendment must be passed.

	16-09-2003 03:34									#159
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

So you disagree with Imran's explanation on where the traditional value for right to privacy comes from?

	16-09-2003 03:35									#160
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I don't think he disagrees, he just thinks its total BS .

FYI, I totally agree with TCO's last statement.

	16-09-2003 03:38									#161
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Doc: I think you and Boris simply don't share the same definition. For you, sodomy seems to be anal rape. For Boris, it is anal sex. Big difference.

whatever the definiton for sodomy is, I think I have the right to bang a chick up the tush if she wants it.

	16-09-2003 03:43									#162
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I don't think he disagrees, he just thinks its total BS . FYI, I totally agree with TCO's last statement.

That was nothing but an explanation on how amendments are added -- anyone would have to agree with that one, since that is a fact based on our legal system, rather than an opinon.

	16-09-2003 03:45									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Um... no. The statement said that the only 'rights' you have from the Constitution are those specifically specifed, and other rights must come from the states (9th Amendment), or be added by amendment.

What exactly were you reading?

	16-09-2003 03:51									#164
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Um... no. The statement said that the only 'rights' you have from the Constitution are those specifically specifed, and other rights must come from the states (9th Amendment), or be added by amendment. What exactly were you reading?

The wink I put after my statement was meant as a joke -- TCO is indisputable.

	16-09-2003 06:20									#165
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove My definituion is the right one.

Your definition is as wrong as your spelling.

"Sodomy" is, as discussed in this thread, a legal definition, and it is defined as oral or anal sex. It has nothing to do with coercion or force.

Now, many people charged under sodomy laws are charged in conjunction with sexual assualt and rape charges, but that is done to add to sentences. If sodomy were the same as rape, charging a rapist with both would be redundant, wouldn't it?

Regardless, the case which spurred the SCOTUS ruling on sodomy laws involved fully consensual sex between the two men who were arrested.

	16-09-2003 06:51									#166
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MrFun So you disagree with Imran's explanation on where the traditional value for right to privacy comes from?

there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. If you want one, pass an amendment. I would also recommend being more precise in terminology. Privacy means not having people watch you. It is not the same as having freedom to do something.

	16-09-2003 06:54									#167
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Your definition is as wrong as your spelling. "Sodomy" is, as discussed in this thread, a legal definition, and it is defined as oral or anal sex. It has nothing to do with coercion or force.

As far as I can recall, didn't Georgia also apply sodomy to refer to lesbian sex? Having spoken to several lesbian friends this isn't something that regularly appears in the sexual lexicon of lesbians. Sorry to disappoint all you red-blooded heterosexual males out there, fantasizing about strap-ons, etc....

I very much doubt that the translators or compilers of the various Bibles had lesbian sex in mind.

	16-09-2003 07:17									#168
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by TCO If there is a desire for a new Constitutional right, an amendment must be passed.

Naw. We can just get liberal judges to pretend that it's there simply because the lima deltas wish it was there.

	16-09-2003 08:12									#169
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Your definition is as wrong as your spelling. "Sodomy" is, as discussed in this thread, a legal definition, and it is defined as oral or anal sex. It has nothing to do with coercion or force. Now, many people charged under sodomy laws are charged in conjunction with sexual assualt and rape charges, but that is done to add to sentences. If sodomy were the same as rape, charging a rapist with both would be redundant, wouldn't it? Regardless, the case which spurred the SCOTUS ruling on sodomy laws involved fully consensual sex between the two men who were arrested.

Hey, my keyboard is sticky. Yours would be too if you had an eight-year old child.
Oh wait.......that's a biological impossibility. Sorry, my bad.

Sodomy is what they did in Sodom. right? The Bible is pretty clear on the point that the men of Sodom were demanding, not requesting, the pleasure of the company of Lot's visitors. It stands to reason then that Sodomy was originally meant to refer to a non-consensual relationship.

Besides, who uses the word "sodomy" when refering to gay sex? A few southern states? You're not going to let a bunch of crackers write the dictionary are you?

	16-09-2003 08:17									#170
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Naw. We can just get liberal judges to pretend that it's there simply because the lima deltas wish it was there.

conservative ad hominem arguments sometime get REALLY old

	16-09-2003 09:04									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by TCO there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. If you want one, pass an amendment. I would also recommend being more precise in terminology. Privacy means not having people watch you. It is not the same as having freedom to do something.

A right to privacy is a reasonable inference from the text of the Constitution - like the 3rd and 4th amendments. The constitution does not say that '1+1=2' but I think even Scalia will concede that he is bound by the laws of mathematics.

More importantly, whatever consenting adults do on the privacy of their own bedroom is none of your (or NC's) goddamned business (unless the broadcast via webcam).

	16-09-2003 09:12									#172
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Hey, my keyboard is sticky. Yours would be too if you had an eight-year old child. Oh wait.......that's a biological impossibility. Sorry, my bad. Sodomy is what they did in Sodom. right? The Bible is pretty clear on the point that the men of Sodom were demanding, not requesting, the pleasure of the company of Lot's visitors. It stands to reason then that Sodomy was originally meant to refer to a non-consensual relationship. Besides, who uses the word "sodomy" when refering to gay sex? A few southern states? You're not going to let a bunch of crackers write the dictionary are you?

Apparently, I need to repeat myself:

quote: "Sodomy" is, as discussed in this thread, a legal definition, and it is defined as oral or anal sex. It has nothing to do with coercion or force.

What the Bible has to say on the subject doesn't concern me, or the courts.

	16-09-2003 09:15									#173
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Um... no. The statement said that the only 'rights' you have from the Constitution are those specifically specifed, and other rights must come from the states (9th Amendment), or be added by amendment. What exactly were you reading?

Let's see, the 9th Amendment reads:

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

I.e. there may exist other rights not mentioned. There is no mention of States in the text - these rights may just exist on their own without the States granting them.

(And before you go citing any cases to argue with me - look again at the text. The fact that states aren't explicitly mentioned mitigates against thus confining the 9th.)

	16-09-2003 09:30									#174
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Moreover:

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.''

That's from the majoirty opinion written by Justice Goldberg, Griswold et al. v. Connecticut, 1965.

	16-09-2003 09:58									#175
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny of disparage others retained by the people." I.e. there may exist other rights not mentioned. There is no mention of States in the text - these rights may just exist on their own without the States granting them.

The text of the 9th Amendment does NOT allow people to claim rights for anything and everything. That would simply be silly. There is not a right to take drugs, for instance. The text seems to say that simply because a right isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean that other rights which were retained by the people (and what other rights did the people have before the Constitution... that's right, those given by the states) are invalid, simply because the 'federal' Consitution does not bestow them.

And Boris, as Templar has anticipated, I can cite cases to show the 9th is meant not to disparage the rights that the states had bestowed upon its populace, by saying the Constitution doesn't mention them. And yes, I think the court is wrong in Griswold. The 'penumbra' argument just increases the sillyness.

edit:

quote: That's from the majoirty opinion written by Justice Goldberg, Griswold et al. v. Connecticut, 1965.

I said this in my next post, but Goldberg is a concurring opinion. Douglas has the majority opinion that case and speaks of a 'penumbra' of rights arising from the Bill of Rights.

	17-09-2003 01:29									#176
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by The Templar A right to privacy is a reasonable inference from the text of the Constitution - like the 3rd and 4th amendments. The constitution does not say that '1+1=2' but I think even Scalia will concede that he is bound by the laws of mathematics. More importantly, whatever consenting adults do on the privacy of their own bedroom is none of your (or NC's) goddamned business (unless the broadcast via webcam).

No it's not a reasonable inference. That's why it wasn't there until it was invented out of the air a hundred years later.

It may be reasonable to HAVE. But it is not granted by the Constitution.

	17-09-2003 01:30									#177
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

And again privacy means not having people watch or be near you. It does not mean "right to take an action". That is just English.

	17-09-2003 01:38									#178
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Templar,

You are right on the text of the 9th. The tenth is probably also relevant here.

	17-09-2003 01:40									#179
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The right to privacy has been institutionalized so it exists, like so many other aspects of our government (i.e. judicial review). There isn't any explicit reference to it in the 14th as the writers of the Amendment interpreted it, but if you want to go back to their interpretation of the 14th, I think you'll start a few revolutions.

	17-09-2003 01:41									#180
	Inflate your Upload Space

And if you really want to take things back to their original meanings, there is a little matter of the 9th you'd have to deal with.