The U.S. Constitution

[Socrates]

I'm moving this from the closed Ford Motors boycott debate, because it's really a seperate debate.

Seems a certain person claims the Constitution supports "gay rights" and "gay marriage" and even implies that this was the intent of the framers. (Based on the Fourteenth Ammendment)

I say this is pure nonsense!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote]Or those who believe in the constitution will point to the 14th amendment. You can't say consenting adults have a right to have sex and then deny gay sex. That's unequal application of the law.[/quote]


I know this whole discussion is off the posted topic, but the 14th Ammendment has nothing in it regarding sex. This is an activist liberal twisting of the law.

The idea that all "consenting adults" have a right to sex, is not in the original constitution, and did not even exist in America until the late 20th century.

Most states had anti-Sodomy laws, and no one regarded these as "unconstitutional" until the late 20th century. Liberal activist judges and lawmakers have made a travesty of American Law.

Kizlar, playing the "patriot" card here won't work. "Gay rights" were not a principle America was founded on, as history attests. Even Thomas Jefferson (hardly a religious man), recommended as governor of Virginia that sodomy be punished by castration (common penalty for sex crimes at the time).

Edited June 2, 2005 by Socrates

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 2 2005, 05:37 PM'] I'm moving this from the closed Ford Motors boycott debate, because it's really a seperate debate.

Seems a certain person claims the Constitution supports "gay rights" and "gay marriage" and even implies that this was the intent of the framers. (Based on the Fourteenth Ammendment,)




I know this whole discussion is off the posted topic, but the 14th Ammendment has nothing in it regarding sex. This is an activist liberal twisting of the law.

The idea that all "consenting adults" have a right to sex, is not in the original constitution, and did not even exist in America until the late 20th century.

Most states had anti-Sodomy laws, and no one regarded these as "unconstitutional" until the late 20th century. Liberal activist judges and lawmakers have made a travesty of American Law.

Kizlar, playing the "patriot" card here won't work. "Gay rights" were not a principle America was founded on, as history attests. Even Thomas Jefferson (hardly a religious man), recommended as governor of Virginia that sodomy be punished by castration (common penalty for sex crimes at the time). [/quote]
Thomas Jefferson also had sex with slaves out of wedlock and said that the virgin birth of Christ would someday be seen in the same light as the goddess Venus' birth from the head of Jupiter. So let's leave TJ out of it.

Now, I'm saying that the US government doesn't have the legal right to monitor the sexual activity of consenting adults. I'm saying this based on the 4th amendment. It seems to me that this is a violation of the rules against unreasonable search and seizure of persons and their houses.

What is unreasonable is the issue. It needs to be interpreted. Just because the constitution doesn't say "Gay sex is great" doesn't mean that it doesn't protect it. In fact, the constitution doesn't mention sex or marriage at all. However, I think you'd have a serious problem if laws were passed abridging the rights of heterosexuals to have sex and get married. If it is unconstitutional to make that law, then it is equally unconstitutional to make a law regarding homosexuality.

Note: This is different from pedophilia and beastiality so I don't even want to hear that garbage. We're talking about sex between consenting adults. Children and animals cannot consent under US law.

[Cam42]

In Michigan, where I live, here is the law....

[quote]750.158 Crime against nature or sodomy; penalty. [M.S.A. 28.355]

Sec.158. Any person who shall commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 15 years, or if such person was at the time of the said offense a sexually delinquent person, may be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the maximum of which shall be life.[/quote]

[quote]750.159 Emission need not be proved. [M.S.A. 28.356e]

Sec.159. In any prosecution for sodomy, it shall not be necessary to prove emission, and any sexual penetration, however slight, shall be deemed sufficient to complete the crime specified in the next preceding section.[/quote]

Interesting note....in Michigan, it says crime against mankind or animal...so beastiality does apply.

And in Minnesota, where I went to college....

[quote]609.293 Sodomy

Subdivision 1. Definition. "Sodomy" means carnally knowing any person by the anus or by or with the mouth.

Subd. 2. Repealed, 1977 c 130 s 10

Subd. 3. Repealed, 1977 c 130 s 10

Subd. 4. Repealed, 1977 c 130 s 10

Subd. 5. Consensual acts. Whoever, in cases not coming within the provisions of sections 609.342 or 609.344, voluntarily engages in or submits to an act of sodomy with another may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.[/quote]

14 states + Puerto Rico, sodomy laws still apply......

[KizlarAgha]

Interesting Cam, but I would argue, unconstitutional.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 05:43 PM'] Thomas Jefferson also had sex with slaves out of wedlock and said that the virgin birth of Christ would someday be seen in the same light as the goddess Venus' birth from the head of Jupiter.  So let's leave TJ out of it.

Now, I'm saying that the US government doesn't have the legal right to monitor the sexual activity of consenting adults.  I'm saying this based on the 4th amendment.  It seems to me that this is a violation of the rules against unreasonable search and seizure of persons and their houses.

What is unreasonable is the issue.  It needs to be interpreted.  Just because the constitution doesn't say "Gay sex is great" doesn't mean that it doesn't protect it.  In fact, the constitution doesn't mention sex or marriage at all.  However, I think you'd have a serious problem if laws were passed abridging the rights of heterosexuals to have sex and get married.  If it is unconstitutional to make that law, then it is equally unconstitutional to make a law regarding homosexuality.

Note:  This is different from pedophilia and beastiality so I don't even want to hear that garbage.  We're talking about sex between consenting adults.  Children and animals cannot consent under US law. [/quote]
First of all, I'll all add anything to this debate that I feel is relevant. I chose the topic - I choose the parameters.

Your ad hominem against Jefferson is not relevant to this debate (and in fact, the whole fathering childern out of wedlock with a slave thing is far from proven fact), but my bringing up his views on state law with regard to punishing sodomy are.

The intent of the framers matters when interpreting law (despite what you liberals say), and my point is that none of the founding fathers or the framers of the Constitution had any problem with state laws against sodomy, or considered such laws in violation of the Constitution.
Thus your claim that the framers intended to protect "gay rights" is beyond absurd.

How you go from the Fourth Amendment (against unreasonable search and seizure of a citizen's person or property - a quite reasonable law to hold tyrannical government) to saying that it supports public legal protection and recognition of homosexual acts as equal to marriage is beyond me! Certainly no one saw it that way for over 200 years!

The state laws do in fact have laws regarding "straight" marriage and sex (legal age of consent, laws against polygamy, bigamy, etc.)
As you've admitted, the Constitution orginally said nothing about sex or marriage (such things belonging in the realm of state law). So by your own logic, these laws must be considered "unconstitutional" too.

And since you brought up pedophilia and bestiality, that brings up another legitimate point. Why should laws against these things not also be considered "unconstitutional"? Until recently, homosexuality was considered hardly more legitimate than these things. Couldn't it be argued that what someone does with is his own dog or his own kids in the privacy of his own home is protected by the Constitution, according to your logic? Who is to determine what constitutes "consent"? There is a move to legalize pedophilia and for "bestiality" rights. Legal defintion of consent could be changed!
In fact, your alleged "privacy" implication can be used to justify or leagalize absolutely anything!

And your implication that laws against unjust search and seizure of homes are a basis for the legal recognition and protectionof sodomy is ludicrous! You're applying the liberal activist method of legal "interpretation" by which one takes the words of a law and "pulls" out of them something completely different, and obviously unrelated to to the intent of the framers of the law.

That is how you liberals have raped the Constitution!

Edited June 2, 2005 by Socrates

[KizlarAgha]

You've called me a liberal 3 times. I'm not a liberal. My statements on Jefferson are valid - what he thinks doesn't matter since he wasn't a framer of the constitution.

You talk about intent. As an historian I can tell you that determining motivations and intents for people hundreds of years ago is IMPOSSIBLE. So you can't know the intent of the constitution.

Answer honestly: If the state of Virginia made sex between a man and a woman illegal, would you consider that unconstitutional?

Finally: I said to leave bestiality and pedophilia out of it. I won't even dignify that with a response.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 2 2005, 08:25 PM'] First of all, I'll all add anything to this debate that I feel is relevant. I chose the topic - I choose the parameters.

Your ad hominem against Jefferson is not relevant to this debate (and in fact, the whole fathering childern out of wedlock with a slave thing is far from proven fact), but my bringing up his views on state law with regard to punishing sodomy are.

The intent of the framers matters when interpreting law (despite what you liberals say), and my point is that none of the founding fathers or the framers of the Constitution had any problem with state laws against sodomy, or considered such laws in violation of the Constitution.
Thus your claim that the framers intended to protect "gay rights" is beyond absurd.

How you go from the Fourth Amendment (against unreasonable search and seizure of a citizen's person or property - a quite reasonable law to hold tyrannical government) to saying that it supports public legal protection and recognition of homosexual acts as equal to marriage is beyond me! Certainly no one saw it that way for over 200 years!

The state laws do in fact have laws regarding "straight" marriage and sex (legal age of consent, laws against polygamy, bigamy, etc.)
As you've admitted, the Constitution orginally said nothing about sex or marriage (such things belonging in the realm of state law). So by your own logic, these laws must be considered "unconstitutional" too.

And since you brought up pedophilia and bestiality, that brings up another legitimate point. Why should laws against these things not also be considered "unconstitutional"? Until recently, homosexuality was considered hardly more legitimate than these things. Couldn't it be argued that what someone does with is his own dog or his own kids in the privacy of his own home is protected by the Constitution, according to your logic? Who is to determine what constitutes "consent"? There is a move to legalize pedophilia and for "bestiality" rights. Legal defintion of consent could be changed!
In fact, your alleged "privacy" implication can be used to justify or leagalize absolutely anything!

And your implication that laws against unjust search and seizure of homes are a basis for the legal recognition and protectionof sodomy is ludicrous! You're applying the liberal activist method of legal "interpretation" by which one takes the words of a law and "pulls" out of them something completely different, and obviously unrelated to to the intent of the framers of the law.

That is how you liberals have raped the Constitution! [/quote]
K is not a liberal. But the points are valid. Pointing this out does not mean K agrees with them.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:59 PM'] K is not a liberal. But the points are valid. Pointing this out does not mean K agrees with them. [/quote]
You can call me Kiz. I think it's cuter.

[Qoheleth]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 07:30 PM'] Answer honestly: If the state of Virginia made sex between a man and a woman illegal, would you consider that unconstitutional? [/quote]
The Constitution says nothing about marriages of any kind. And since all powers not held by the federal government are given to the states, Virginia would be able to. Would it be wrong? Yes, but not unconstitutional.

[Nicole8223]

interesting...this country was built on the foundation of the 10 commandments...no coincidence there.

how can we stand up for gay marriage? is this happening on phatmass? crazy....

our constitution is PRO-FAMILY and gay marriage is anti-family. they are completely contradictory.

Think of it this way....we have the right to life, love, and the pursuit of happiness. is homosexual marriage an aid in these things? it's not...it's twisted. its no way to live, love, or pursue happiness.


just my thoughts.

[kateri05]

and good thoughts they are

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:30 PM'] You've called me a liberal 3 times.  I'm not a liberal.  My statements on Jefferson are valid - what he thinks doesn't matter since he wasn't a framer of the constitution.

You talk about intent.  As an historian I can tell you that determining motivations and intents for people hundreds of years ago is IMPOSSIBLE.  So you can't know the intent of the constitution.

Answer honestly:  If the state of Virginia made sex between a man and a woman illegal, would you consider that unconstitutional?

Finally: I said to leave bestiality and pedophilia out of it.  I won't even dignify that with a response. [/quote]
Ok, I really don't know what you are politically, though your positions/opinions on things thus far (support of "gay rights" legislation, adament opposition to anybody opposing the homosexual agenda or trying to bring moral values into the public sphere, fast and loose interpretation of the Constitution, and contempt for patriotism and America's founders) are hardly the marks of a conservative!

In fact, your arguments have neither coherence not direction - first you scream against people for opposing the homosexual agenda, then you condemn the framers of the constitution for supposedly supporting this same agenda! (Maybe "seriously confused" is a better term than liberal )

It seems you're just trolling by making various statements calculated to tick off conservatives.

As you have noted, the Constitution says nothing directly supporting homosexuality, and there exists absolutely no evidence that the framers were in support of special "rights" for homosexuals, nor did any of them regard state anti-sodomy laws as being in violation of the Constitution. So I think we can rest assured that the Constitution was not written with the intention of supporting "gay rights."

If Virginia (or any other state) passed such an asinine law, it would indeed be unjust (and a good reason to leave the state!) Would it be unconstitutional? Arguably, though not definitely. Anyway, for a state to pass such a law, would be so self-defeating that federal intervention would likely not be needed!

Marriage is something fundamentally good to human society. Homosexual sodomy is not. This is natural law and was recognized by the states (and the framers of the Constitution recognized the rights of states to make such laws).

Again, homosexual activity does not constitute a marriage.

And I think the real reason you refuse to deal with bestiality and pedophilia with regards to this is not genuine abhorrence at the topic, but the fact that you realize this is a MAJOR weakness in your fast and loose interpretation of the 4th ammendment. If, as you say, this ammendment means the states must be forced to accept and legally recognize homosexual unions, then it can be interpreted must be forced to accept and legalize [b]absolutely anything![/b] (And to hell with what the state, or the people of that state want!)
This is the opposite of conservatism - it is federal tyranny in which the federal government is granted the power to enforce whatever some activist federal judge deems is the "right" of some "minority."

If you were intellectually honest, the most you could say is that the Constitution does not really address homosexual "marriage." Why are you so inisistent that it be interpreted in such a manner?

Answer honestly: Are you for or against "gay rights"?

Edited June 3, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Qoheleth' date='Jun 2 2005, 07:16 PM'] The Constitution says nothing about marriages of any kind. And since all powers not held by the federal government are given to the states, Virginia would be able to. Would it be wrong? Yes, but not unconstitutional. [/quote]
Good answer.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote]Ok, I really don't know what you are politically, though your positions/opinions on things thus far (support of "gay rights" legislation, adament opposition to anybody opposing the homosexual agenda or trying to bring moral values into the public sphere, fast and loose interpretation of the Constitution, and contempt for patriotism and America's founders) are hardly the marks of a conservative!

In fact, your arguments have neither coherence not direction - first you scream against people for opposing the homosexual agenda, then you condemn the framers of the constitution for supposedly supporting this same agenda!  (Maybe "seriously confused" is a better term than liberal  )

It seems you're just trolling by making various statements calculated to tick off conservatives.[/quote]

This is really assinine. I'll explain my views in a few moments.

[quote]If Virginia (or any other state) passed such an asinine law, it would indeed be unjust (and a good reason to leave the state!)  Would it be unconstitutional?  Arguably, though not definitely.  Anyway, for a state to pass such a law, would be so self-defeating that federal intervention would likely not be needed!
[/quote]

If this is your belief, then you lose. Because for it to be unconsitutional, you'd have to make the very same arguments you have denied in my case. Either it is unconstitutional in all cases to limit sex between consenting adults, or it is constitutional in all cases. There's no middle ground here thanks to the 14th amendment and the lack of the word "heterosexual" in the 18th century vocabulary, much less intention.

[quote]Marriage is something fundamentally good to human society.  Homosexual sodomy is not.  This is natural law and was recognized by the states (and the framers of the Constitution recognized the rights of states to make such laws).[/quote]

This is a religious belief. The United States government is set up from a position of secularism. As such, this belief has no place in US jurisprudence.

I refuse to deal with beastiality and pedophilia because it is a disgusting non-sequitor. You don't have to change consent laws to realize that gay sex is consensual. An adult can choose to have sex with an adult of the same sex. They have the mental faculties to do this. In addition, the power dynamic, while not equal, is certainly more equal.

Beastiality is having sex with a piece of property that has the capacity for emotions and injury but not the rational thought process to consent to sexual intercourse. An animal is never capable of consenting to sex, and the sex is not beneficial to the animal. Therefore, if it can be shown (and I think it has been) that this sort of sexual intercourse harms an animal then it should be outlawed. Note, I'm not saying it should be outlawed because it is morally reprehensible. Because America seems to believe in subjective morality it would be a difficult argument to make in court.

Pedophilia: Do I really need to explain how grievously injurious these actions are to a child or the inability of a child to consent? I don't think I do.

[quote]If you were intellectually honest, the most you could say is that the Constitution does not really address homosexual "marriage."  Why are you so inisistent that it be interpreted in such a manner? 

Answer honestly:  Are you for or against "gay rights"?[/quote]

I am intellectually honest. I can say that the constitution addresses gay sex in the same way it addresses heterosexual sex and gay marriage in the same way it addresses heterosexual marriage. Which is to say, the degree to which these topics come up in the constitution is debateable. It certainly isn't spelled out but that is why documents need interpretation.

What I'm saying is this: In the United States, an institution of no particular religious faith, run by the letter of the law and not morality, homosexual sex is as much or as little a protected right as heterosexual sex.

Do I believe in gay rights? Well that depends on what you mean I suppose. Do I believe gay people should be getting married? No. However, I do feel, being as intellectually honest as I can be, that such a thing is mandated by the constitution. I don't like it, but that's the truth as I see it.

Do I think that gays should be treated with human dignity and respect regardless of whether or not they are "practicing" homosexuals? Yes, without a doubt. I also think they shouldn't be fired from their jobs for simply being gay, kicked out of their homes, lynched, attacked, or ridiculed. Why? Because that's how every human being should be treated.

You clearly have a problem with that. You want to beat homosexuals over the head with the catechism because they disgust you. Then you want to hide behind claims of hating the sin and loving the sinner while you really hate both. Then you call everyone who disagrees with you an amoral liberal just so you can feel better about yourself.

Well, you're wrong. I'm not a liberal, I'm Catholic. I'm not in favor of the US government, I'm against it. And guess what, the US government is against the Catholic Church. It is fundamentally an un-Catholic, amoral institution and it will continue to degrade society for as long as it exists. The US is more religious than most western nations, but I have no doubt in 20 years we will be what Europe is today - mostly socialist and allowing any kind of perversion you are capable of dishing out.

Is this wrong? Yes. Is this illegal? No.

[Qoheleth]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 09:15 PM'] If this is your belief, then you lose. Because for it to be unconsitutional, you'd have to make the very same arguments you have denied in my case. Either it is unconstitutional in all cases to limit sex between consenting adults, or it is constitutional in all cases. There's no middle ground here thanks to the 14th amendment and the lack of the word "heterosexual" in the 18th century vocabulary, much less intention. [/quote]
While the word "heterosexual" may not have existed in the 1700s, the idea certainly did. The famous Thomas Jefferson quote, as well as the Pentateuch, all defend the idea that homosexuality was definitely perceived as something different somehow from heterosexuality. "Heterosexual" as a concept was unnecessary. Heterosexuals were simply the complement of the set of homosexuals--that is, everyone who is not a homosexual. In a society where homosexuality was so rare, this was sufficient. Today, for a similar reason, we do not have a word for non-pedophiliacs.

The idea of "sex between consenting adults" assumes that all sexual activity is the same. However, if there is an ontological difference between hetero- and homosexual sex, then there is no need for the law to treat them equally. On the Ford thread I posted an explanation of why this difference exists, and I'm sure people more learned than I have more exact reasoning.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Qoheleth' date='Jun 2 2005, 10:16 PM'] While the word "heterosexual" may not have existed in the 1700s, the idea certainly did. The famous Thomas Jefferson quote, as well as the Pentateuch, all defend the idea that homosexuality was definitely perceived as something different somehow from heterosexuality. "Heterosexual" as a concept was unnecessary. Heterosexuals were simply the complement of the set of homosexuals--that is, everyone who is not a homosexual. In a society where homosexuality was so rare, this was sufficient. Today, for a similar reason, we do not have a word for non-pedophiliacs.

The idea of "sex between consenting adults" assumes that all sexual activity is the same. However, if there is an ontological difference between hetero- and homosexual sex, then there is no need for the law to treat them equally. On the Ford thread I posted an explanation of why this difference exists, and I'm sure people more learned than I have more exact reasoning. [/quote]
Actually, you're mistaken. Homosexual didn't exist either. The concept that humans are defined by their sexuality into two concrete categories is relatively new.

1000 years ago, sleeping with a man (if you were a man) didn't make you a homosexual. It made you a man with different tastes. However, it wasn't seen as a cultural identity the way it is today. Nor was it seen as effeminate (provided that you were doing the penetrating). It was still a sin of course, but these sorts of concepts of almost cultural differences based on sexual object choice didn't exist.

[Qoheleth]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:23 PM'] Actually, you're mistaken. Homosexual didn't exist either. The concept that humans are defined by their sexuality into two concrete categories is relatively new.

1000 years ago, sleeping with a man (if you were a man) didn't make you a homosexual. It made you a man with different tastes. However, it wasn't seen as a cultural identity the way it is today. Nor was it seen as effeminate (provided that you were doing the penetrating). It was still a sin of course, but these sorts of concepts of almost cultural differences based on sexual object choice didn't exist. [/quote]
I agree completely that sexuality was not in anyway associated with a subculture, but that does not mean that it was possible to make a distinction between the two groups. When a medieval writer makes reference to homosexuals using any of the terms prevalent at the time, they indicate a group within the population defined not necessarily by "lifestyle," but by a single action (which even today is the ultimate criterion for sexuality). The stereotypes attendant to sexuality are not uncommonly accurate, but they themselves are not now, and were not in ancient times, the defining factor in determining sexuality.

But whether or not homosexuals (that is, participants in homosexual activity) choose to band together as homosexuals (that is, participants in a "lifestyle"), there still exists the difference between the two types of sex. Because of this difference, hetero- and homsexual sex are not really two means of practicing the same basic act, but rather fundamentally different actions in themselves. Therefore the laws under the Constitution are entitled to treat them as different from each other.

On a sidenote, the law is currently able to make different provisions for men and women (such as mandatory maternity leave, and various other provisions). This is "unequal treatment" if men and women are seen as equal, but that is not the case. The differences between the two genders allow for different laws, a legal parallel to the case of gay marriage.

[popestpiusx]

I think you are all missing something. But this is all very interesting.

Edited June 3, 2005 by popestpiusx

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:23 PM'] Actually, you're mistaken. Homosexual didn't exist either. The concept that humans are defined by their sexuality into two concrete categories is relatively new.

1000 years ago, sleeping with a man (if you were a man) didn't make you a homosexual. It made you a man with different tastes. However, it wasn't seen as a cultural identity the way it is today. Nor was it seen as effeminate (provided that you were doing the penetrating). It was still a sin of course, but these sorts of concepts of almost cultural differences based on sexual object choice didn't exist. [/quote]
Perhaps. (Or perhaps not.) But what you could be assured of was a severe beating or execution. Social stigma? Is wasn't necessary.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 08:15 PM']
If this is your belief, then you lose. Because for it to be unconsitutional, you'd have to make the very same arguments you have denied in my case. Either it is unconstitutional in all cases to limit sex between consenting adults, or it is constitutional in all cases. There's no middle ground here thanks to the 14th amendment and the lack of the word "heterosexual" in the 18th century vocabulary, much less intention.

[/quote]
I'd say the law would be constitutional, though unjust. Laws concerning marriage were always recognized as falling under jurisdiction of the state, as defined in the 10th Ammendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As I have shown repeatedly, the fact that the framers, nor anybody for centuries afterward, saw state sodomy laws as being in violation of the constitution, shows that clearly the framers did not regard the state laws as being unconstitutional.

And the Constitution says nothing specifically about sex or marriage, so legislation on such matters would fall under those powers reserved "to the States respectively, or to the people."

What the word "heterosexual" has to do with all this is beyond me.

[quote]This is a religious belief.  The United States government is set up from a position of secularism.  As such, this belief has no place in US jurisprudence.[/quote]

This is nonsense! You're arguing about whether something is constitutional here. And I'm arguing from natural law, not specifically religion. Stop arguing like an atheist. Even Jefferson recognized sodomy as an abomination. One need not be Catholic, nor even Christian, to recognize this.

Where in the Constitution does it say that moral beliefs (based on religion or no) have no palce in the law?

You're arguing from modern militant secularist/atheist propaganda, not the Constitution. This "interpretation" was never even argued until the 1950s, and has no bearing on what is constitutional.


[quote]I refuse to deal with beastiality and pedophilia because it is a disgusting non-sequitor.  You don't have to change consent laws to realize that gay sex is consensual.  An adult can choose to have sex with an adult of the same sex.  They have the mental faculties to do this.  In addition, the power dynamic, while not equal, is certainly more equal.

Beastiality is having sex with a piece of property that has the capacity for emotions and injury but not the rational thought process to consent to sexual intercourse.  An animal is never capable of consenting to sex, and the sex is not beneficial to the animal.  Therefore, if it can be shown (and I think it has been) that this sort of sexual intercourse harms an animal then it should be outlawed.  Note, I'm not saying it should be outlawed because it is morally reprehensible.  Because America seems to believe in subjective morality it would be a difficult argument to make in court.

Pedophilia: Do I really need to explain how grievously injurious these actions are to a child or the inability of a child to consent?  I don't think I do..[/quote]

People have argued that animals can consent. People push for lowering the age of consent. I can also argue that "consensual" homosexuality is indeed harmful. Remember, homosexual behavior was also once regarded as so repugnant and perverted that legal recognition of it as equal to marriage would be unthinkable!

And where is "consent" mentioned in the Constitution with regards to sex? Again, it's not there. You're dealing with state laws, which by your own logic, could easily be declared "unconstitutional."

[quote]I am intellectually honest.  I can say that the constitution addresses gay sex in the same way it addresses heterosexual sex and gay marriage in the same way it addresses heterosexual marriage.  Which is to say, the degree to which these topics come up in the constitution is debateable.  It certainly isn't spelled out but that is why documents need interpretation.[/quote]

As we have seen, the constition does not adress sex. This is a power reserved to the states or the people.

Here's the ammendment you use to declare anti-sodomy laws "unconstitutional."

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is clearly about placing limits on the government's power to unreasonably search citizen's property and person, as British soldiers had done to American colonists. It has absolutely nothing to do with sex, sodomy or marriage. How you go from prohibitions against unreasonable searches to saying this means the states must recognize homosexual "marriage" is beyond me!


[quote]What I'm saying is this: In the United States, an institution of no particular religious faith, run by the letter of the law and not morality, homosexual sex is as much or as little a protected right as heterosexual sex.[/quote]

You have not proven this. Homosexual activity has no protection under the constitution. And there is nothing in the Constitution saying that morality must be excluded from the states' legistlative decisions. In the early years of this country, there were even official state churches!

[quote]Do I believe in gay rights?  Well that depends on what you mean I suppose.  Do I believe gay people should be getting married?  No.  However, I do feel, being as intellectually honest as I can be, that such a thing is mandated by the constitution.  I don't like it, but that's the truth as I see it.

Do I think that gays should be treated with human dignity and respect regardless of whether or not they are "practicing" homosexuals?  Yes, without a doubt.  I also think they shouldn't be fired from their jobs for simply being gay, kicked out of their homes, lynched, attacked, or ridiculed.  Why?  Because that's how every human being should be treated.

You clearly have a problem with that.  You want to beat homosexuals over the head with the catechism because they disgust you.  Then you want to hide behind claims of hating the sin and loving the sinner while you really hate both.  Then you call everyone who disagrees with you an amoral liberal just so you can feel better about yourself.[/quote]

More opinions and personal accusations (you like to accuse people who disagree with you of being motivated by hate - How's that for being "nonjudgmental")

[quote]Well, you're wrong.  I'm not a liberal, I'm Catholic.  I'm not in favor of the US government, I'm against it.  And guess what, the US government is against the Catholic Church.  It is fundamentally an un-Catholic, amoral institution and it will continue to degrade society for as long as it exists.  The US is more religious than most western nations, but I have no doubt in 20 years we will be what Europe is today - mostly socialist and allowing any kind of perversion you are capable of dishing out.

Is this wrong?  Yes.  Is this illegal?  No.[/quote]

This is a rant, not a reasoned argument - you're basically saying, "The U.S. is evil and anti-Catholic, therefore the intent of the Constitution was to promote gay rights and other immorality," regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

And if you're so much against the U.S. Constitution's supposed (and totally unproven) support of homosexuality, why do you attack anyone who is opposed to legislation promoting homosexuality?