17-09-2003 01:54									#181
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by TCO 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.

Courts don't always use the common meaning of terms, just look at the Supreme Court decision back in the 80s that about Cuban refugees that said that return meant that you had to arrive first. In which case the US was not bound by one of those refugee treaties it was supposed to be bound by, because of a change in definition of a common word.

How many of you are going some place, forget something, and say well I'm going to return home. According to the court, that isn't valid usage of the word in spite of the common usage. The significance is the US can send refugees back into to harms way where they can be tortured, imprisoned, or executed.

I can cite this stuff if anyone here doesn't take what I say to be true of course, but I don't like spending the energy.

	17-09-2003 02:39									#182
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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.

That's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure. You are wrong, that the Bible calls only non-consentual relationships sodomy, it includes all forms of gay sex.

Genesis 19:5-8

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.


Even in the passage you cite, it is not clear that the wicked thing was the lack of consent, but rather, the desire of the men to have sex with the other men.

There are many other passages that confirm the wicked thing as the homosexual conduct, no the lack of consent.

Leviticus 18:22

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.


Judges 19:22-23

"While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

Romans 1:24-27

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

	17-09-2003 02:43									#183
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Leviticus is filled with all sorts of rubbish and should be scorned. Did you catch Laz's thread on the animals which were not to be eaten if one followed Leviticus? Clearly modern Christians have choicen to ignore that part of the bible so why can we ignore some parts but not others? Either the whole thing is the word of god or it is the invention of a bunch of primative sheep herds.

	17-09-2003 03:37									#184
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

Well if you really want to go to an intent argument, you will find that in that the 9th Amendment was simply to protect the rights that states had already granted to their citizens. Therefore, it isn't valid to say a state granted right is invalid simply because it does not exist in the Constitution.

It doesn't mean that you can claim everything under the sun to be a 'right'.

Oh, Boris, you are incorrect. Goldberg's decision in Griswold is a CONCURING opinion. Justice Douglas has the majority opinion, saying that the 'right to privacy' comes from a 'penumbra' of rights arising from the Bill of Rights.

	17-09-2003 04:21									#185
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ramo 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.

I just read it. It does not gaurantee rights. Only says that they are not taken away. Since the right to sodomy was never a traditional right, it will be pretty hard to come up with anything to help you there.

	17-09-2003 04:22									#186
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by TCO I just read it. It does not gaurantee rights. Only says that they are not taken away. Since the right to sodomy was never a traditional right, it will be pretty hard to come up with anything to help you there.

There is a right to sex, it is international customary law that has been incorporated into our country from the beginning.

	17-09-2003 04:25									#187
	Put an end to popups!

I doubt there was a customary international law to a 'right to sex' back in 1776. I STILL doubt there is a customary international law to a right to sex, because there are many countries that do not allow homosexual sex and even fewer countries that allowed all consentual sex 50 years ago.

	17-09-2003 04:25									#188
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ramo And if you really want to take things back to their original meanings

We should take things by the original meaning or pass an amendment. I don't have an issue with reasonable interpretation of scope/intent (for instance if there are new technologies.) I do have a problem with creating stuff that is not in the document, often by very tenous twisting. I recognize that there are some gray areas and am easy-going when they go against me. But "privacy" is a sham. It's a fabrication.

	17-09-2003 04:27									#189
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I doubt there was a customary international law to a 'right to sex' back in 1776. I STILL doubt there is a customary international law to a right to sex, because there are many countries that do not allow homosexual sex and even fewer countries that allowed all consentual sex 50 years ago.

It is on one of those UN documents, there is also a cooresponding one that applies only to Europe.

In that one the UK was found in violation (they signed and radified it), and was forced to allow gays into the military, and remove any other sodomy related laws.

	17-09-2003 04:31									#190
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: It is on one of those UN documents

UN documents are only evidence of international law, they are not sources of international law, and they are NOT custom. UN resolutions have been held not to be custom (such as in the Libya/Texaco Arbitration).

quote: In that one the UK was found in violation (they signed and radified it), and was forced to allow gays into the military, and remove any other sodomy related laws.

That's because they signed onto a treaty which said so.

	17-09-2003 04:35									#191
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: UN documents are only evidence of international law, they are not sources of international law, and they are NOT custom. UN resolutions have been held not to be custom (such as in the Libya/Texaco Arbitration).

Yeah I know, I'm taking a course on international law, quite depressing really. But Imran this defeats my arguement you meany.

	17-09-2003 04:36									#192
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Watch out when someone who understands stuff is around .

	17-09-2003 04:53									#193
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi That's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure. You are wrong, that the Bible calls only non-consentual relationships sodomy, it includes all forms of gay sex. Genesis 19:5-8 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. Even in the passage you cite, it is not clear that the wicked thing was the lack of consent, but rather, the desire of the men to have sex with the other men. There are many other passages that confirm the wicked thing as the homosexual conduct, no the lack of consent.

If you had read further you would have discovered that when Lot refused to give up his guests the men of Sodom tried to force their way. This certainly means that they, the men of Sodom, attempted to force their way upon Lot's guests.

quote: Leviticus 18:22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Quoting Leviticus? How does your wife take to being locked up during her menestrual cycle?

quote: Judges 19:22-23 "While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

Does it say that the man they wanted to "take" was agreeable with the idea of going with them? Obviously not, for that would have made a very different story. Please have the courtesy to read the entire story, because if you do you will discover that it's not really about homosexual sex at all. The story goes that the men do indeed settle with just taking the daughter, and proceed to molest her so brutally that when the man takes her home she dies on the way. This causes the man to gather his tribesmen, and they annhilate the offending village.

quote: Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Oh man! Ppuuuuhhhhllllleeeeeaaasssseeeee don't throw me into that briar patch Br'er Fox! READ THE ENTIRE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF PAUL'S LETTERS TO THE ROMANS IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THIS!!! In the subsequent passages Paul agrees qwith his audience that people who would do this surely deserve to be put to death. He then goes on to point out that according to various parts of the Hebrew scriptures many other common offenses deserve such treatment - including not only murder and rape, but also lying, braging, argueing, boasting and at least twenty other common human activities. He goes on to propose that his audience is composed of two types of people: gentiles, who do not obey traditional Hebrew religious laws and who are shunned by the other type, and Jews, many of whom may indeed be able to rightfully boast have lived their lives in complete compliance with Hebrew law. He then drops the othwer shoe on the floor - any Jew who BOASTS about being in complete compliance with scriptural law is as guilty of sin and as worthy of death as.....what? You guessed it - the people he described at the beginning of his speech who had traded their love of God for mere earthly pleasure!!!


If you're goping to quote the Bible please read the whole section you're quoting and make certain that you truly understand what is being said. It is evident in this case that Paul did not intend his letter to stand as a diatribe against homosexual behavior, but instead to mend a rift within the early Roman church. He also compels his readers to weigh mere technical compliance with written law against the true intentions of their hearts.

	17-09-2003 06:22									#194
	Remove this text

quote: I just read it. It does not gaurantee rights. Only says that they are not taken away. Since the right to sodomy was never a traditional right, it will be pretty hard to come up with anything to help you there.

You're misreading the Amendment as per the founders interpretation. What it's saying (along with the 10th) is that the state's powers are bounded by the constitution, and that if there is no explicit legitimization of the usurpation of certain liberties of the people in the constitution, the state cannot usurp these liberties.

quote: We should take things by the original meaning or pass an amendment. I don't have an issue with reasonable interpretation of scope/intent (for instance if there are new technologies.) I do have a problem with creating stuff that is not in the document, often by very tenous twisting. I recognize that there are some gray areas and am easy-going when they go against me. But "privacy" is a sham. It's a fabrication.

I call the entire Constitution of 1789 a sham and a fabrication. I don't see why so many people have such reverence to an over 200 year old anti-democratic document created by a bunch of mercantilistic industrialists and feudalistic slave owners, who had absolutely no regard for the liberties of the marginalized in society, created primarily because the powers that were were afraid of popular rebellion (see Shay's Rebellion). The Constitutional principles establishing individual liberties forged after the Civil War, while still having numberless problems, is something I have far more respect for. Not only do these principles shape a far more free society, these principles were shaped far more by the common person. I don't see why we should totally ignore the principles regarding individual liberty that we've been operating under for over a century just because some people have sticks up their asses.

	17-09-2003 07:11									#195
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: 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. Well if you really want to go to an intent argument, you will find that in that the 9th Amendment was simply to protect the rights that states had already granted to their citizens. Therefore, it isn't valid to say a state granted right is invalid simply because it does not exist in the Constitution.

Huh? Where'd you get this, an article by Hamilton or Madison or someone? I still can't find 'State' in the text.

quote: Oh, Boris, you are incorrect. Goldberg's decision in Griswold is a CONCURING opinion. Justice Douglas has the majority opinion, saying that the 'right to privacy' comes from a 'penumbra' of rights arising from the Bill of Rights.

I wonder, could the penumbral region from which these rights emanate be the 9th Amendment?

	17-09-2003 07:24									#196
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo You're misreading the Amendment as per the founders interpretation. What it's saying (along with the 10th) is that the state's powers are bounded by the constitution, and that if there is no explicit legitimization of the usurpation of certain liberties of the people in the constitution, the state cannot usurp these liberties. I call the entire Constitution of 1789 a sham and a fabrication. I don't see why so many people have such reverence to an over 200 year old anti-democratic document created by a bunch of mercantilistic industrialists and feudalistic slave owners, who had absolutely no regard for the liberties of the marginalized in society, created primarily because the powers that were were afraid of popular rebellion (see Shay's Rebellion). The Constitutional principles establishing individual liberties forged after the Civil War, while still having numberless problems, is something I have far more respect for. Not only do these principles shape a far more free society, these principles were shaped far more by the common person. I don't see why we should totally ignore the principles regarding individual liberty that we've been operating under for over a century just because some people have sticks up their asses.

1. That is not what it says.

2. It does not surprise me that you feel that way. You of course are a clueless kid.

	17-09-2003 07:28									#197
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Huh? Where'd you get this, an article by Hamilton or Madison or someone? I still can't find 'State' in the text.

Simply because 'state' isn't the text doesn't mean that it does not apply to them. What were the 'rights retained by the people' back then? The ones granted by the states.

The 'intent' argument comes from Madison's reasoning of the amendment. The reasons articulated for the 9th Amendment were concerns that Constitutional rights would render state granted rights obsolete. The Amendment was designed to make sure that Constitutionally granted rights were not the be all and end all of rights.

quote: I wonder, could the penumbral region from which these rights emanate be the 9th Amendment?

No, in fact, I don't think Justice Douglas even mentioned the 9th Amendment. He states:

"guarentees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance".

Griswold is mainly based on the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments. Goldberg is the one who bases his argument on the 9th. Penumbras, while sounding new age, is something that arises from every amendment says Justice Douglas for the majority.

	17-09-2003 08:54									#198
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: [SIZE=1] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Simply because 'state' isn't the text doesn't mean that it does not apply to them. What were the 'rights retained by the people' back then? The ones granted by the states.

I thought you were a textualist - now you're an originalist? I thought the original intent was to prevent the government from construing the bill of rights as exhaustive. Thus, the 9th amend would form the basis for a decent Natural Law argument. That is, political rights are coextensive with natural rights - and the 9th amend would short-circuit any attempts to render the two sets disjoint.

quote: quote: I wonder, could the penumbral region from which these rights emanate be the 9th Amendment? No, in fact, I don't think Justice Douglas even mentioned the 9th Amendment. He states: "guarentees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance". Griswold is mainly based on the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments. Goldberg is the one who bases his argument on the 9th. Penumbras, while sounding new age, is something that arises from every amendment says Justice Douglas for the majority.

Forgot the smilie on that one. A regular person would have said something more like 'inferential' or 'entailed' from the explicit rights or combination of rights as opposed to the overly purple term 'penumbra'.

Seriously though, the 9th amend could have been used. Although I can see why nobody would want to open the can of worms the 9th could create (imagine a right to prayer in school ...)

	17-09-2003 09:12									#199
	Tired of ads?

quote: I thought you were a textualist - now you're an originalist?

I can argue both. You were talking about original intent.

quote: I thought the original intent was to prevent the government from construing the bill of rights as exhaustive. Thus, the 9th amend would form the basis for a decent Natural Law argument.

That's an argument, but not an original intent argument. And as you said, if you read it to mean that people can assert 'Natural Rights' then you get a can of worms no one wanted, even back then. In a textualist view, it would create something very silly, and you never interpret the text to create a silly result.

quote: A regular person would have said something more like 'inferential' or 'entailed' from the explicit rights or combination of rights as opposed to the overly purple term 'penumbra'.

I'm not sure 'inferential' or 'entailed' rights would fly. Inferential 1st amendment right to privacy is really streaching it. A penumbra is vague and large enough to fly.

quote: Although I can see why nobody would want to open the can of worms the 9th could create (imagine a right to prayer in school ...)

This is why I don't think that is the reason it is intended or textually interpreted that way.

	17-09-2003 10:19									#200
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Dr. Strangelove.

quote: If you're goping to quote the Bible please read the whole section you're quoting and make certain that you truly understand what is being said.

Fair enough.

quote: It is evident in this case that Paul did not intend his letter to stand as a diatribe against homosexual behavior, but instead to mend a rift within the early Roman church.

First off, Paul wants to show people why they are sinful, both Jews and Gentiles, and in need of redemption. Chapter 1 specifically addresses the sins of the Gentiles, including homosexuality.

quote: He also compels his readers to weigh mere technical compliance with written law against the true intentions of their hearts.

True. That's why Paul makes his argument in 1 Corinthians about sins against the body also being sins against God.

quote: This certainly means that they, the men of Sodom, attempted to force their way upon Lot's guests.

I don't doubt that. However, the sin makes no distinction between rape and consentual sex within the text.

quote: How does your wife take to being locked up during her menestrual cycle?

Why don't you start another thread on that topic? The quote in Leviticus specifically addresses the sin of homosexual conduct, and not homosexual rape. I quoted Romans to show that the NT also considers homosexuality to be sinful.

quote: This causes the man to gather his tribesmen, and they annhilate the offending village.

The whole story shocks the Jews, including the demand for homosexual sex.

	17-09-2003 10:30									#201
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I thought you were a textualist - now you're an originalist? I can argue both. You were talking about original intent.

No, I was talking about the text itself.

quote: quote: A regular person would have said something more like 'inferential' or 'entailed' from the explicit rights or combination of rights as opposed to the overly purple term 'penumbra'. I'm not sure 'inferential' or 'entailed' rights would fly. Inferential 1st amendment right to privacy is really streaching it. A penumbra is vague and large enough to fly.

I'm pretty sure inferential is what he has in mind. The right to privacy could be inferred from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments in terms of groups of amendments entailing a conclusion. Even freedom of press or right to bear arms on their own imply other rights (the right to actually have access to weapons or to the means of disseminating information). I don't think a federal ban on all gun sales, purchases, and leases (?) would be in the spirit of the 2nd Amend (as such would render the second a nullity with no arms to keep or bear).

quote: quote: Although I can see why nobody would want to open the can of worms the 9th could create (imagine a right to prayer in school ...) This is why I don't think that is the reason it is intended or textually interpreted that way.

Nonetheless, I think this is where the text takes us. Which just goes to show the text isn't always convenient - but it is the text.

	17-09-2003 16:01									#202
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The text of the 9th is interesting. It says that the document does not proscribe rights not enumerated. Are you are arguing that this means all conceiveable rights ARE protected?

	17-09-2003 20:26									#203
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: I'm pretty sure inferential is what he has in mind.

He may have it in mind, but I'm not sure he can say it and carry a majority for his opinion. Basically writing that there are inferential rights arising from the amendments leads to the idea that each amendment has rights arising that are not stated within it. A 'penumbra' on the other hand, seems to say that all rights taken together lead to other rights.

The difference is between how many amendments does it take to assert another right. A penumbra seems to indicate more than one, while inferential seems to say that only one amendment can come up with rights not in the text. That is why I don't think it would fly.

quote: Nonetheless, I think this is where the text takes us. Which just goes to show the text isn't always convenient - but it is the text.

There are TWO ways the text could be read.

1) Simply because the Constitution asserts rights doesn't mean that other rights are also not protected. The question arises then what are these 'reserved rights'. No one really seems to know.

2) Simply because the Consitution asserts rights, that doesn't mean that the people don't have other rights. HOWEVER, these 'reserved rights' are not Constitutional rights, so they must be enforced at the state or local level. The judiciary only enforces the Constitution and merely saying the people have reserved rights doesn't mean the federal government is the entity that must guarentee them. This way you don't have to specify which are the 'reserved rights'.

#2 is where I think the text takes us. It is the more rational reading, IMO.

	17-09-2003 21:38									#204
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Oi Doc! Over here!

How many gay men have you known?

	18-09-2003 02:47									#205
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I've treated quite a few gay men in my career if that's what you mean. Professional ethics requires that I give them the same service I would give a hetero. It's my sworn duty.

	18-09-2003 03:00									#206
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Sodomy..... mmm sounds like fun!!

	18-09-2003 03:00									#207
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Dr. Strangelove. First off, Paul wants to show people why they are sinful, both Jews and Gentiles, and in need of redemption. Chapter 1 specifically addresses the sins of the Gentiles, including homosexuality.

He is essentially equating the pridefulness of the law-abiding Jews with homosexual acts by the virtue of prescribing the same punishment for both. Hence, being gay is no bigger sin than displaying a sticker with your school team's logo on your car.

quote: True. That's why Paul makes his argument in 1 Corinthians about sins against the body also being sins against God.

But in Romans 1 he states that the obsession with fulfilling lustful needs is wrong because it distracts people from the love of God and righteousnes. This could apply to any "worldly" concern.

quote: I don't doubt that. However, the sin makes no distinction between rape and consentual sex within the text.

Well, there's no mention of any offer of consensual sex so this passage has no relevance as to whether or not consensual gay sex is sinful or not.

quote: Why don't you start another thread on that topic? The quote in Leviticus specifically addresses the sin of homosexual conduct, and not homosexual rape. I quoted Romans to show that the NT also considers homosexuality to be sinful.

But Romans is really addresing an attempt to mend a rift in a Christian community. [/QUOTE]
The whole story shocks the Jews, including the demand for homosexual sex. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, murdering a man's daughter would hardly have called for retribution in that place and time. A mere fine would have redressed that transgression, right?

	18-09-2003 03:01									#208
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Damn. You'll never make it as a straight man, and I'm talking in the comedian sense.

	18-09-2003 03:14									#209
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp Damn. You'll never make it as a straight man, and I'm talking in the comedian sense.

I've already go two beautiful kids, so I've already made it as a "straight" man!