"It's not as if these people want to bring back enforced anti-sodomy laws, they just think the word "marriage" should be reserved for a man and a woman"

Bear in mind, sodomy is still ruled as illegal in 12 US states.

They are:

Louisiana
Florida
Idaho
Kansas
Michigan
Missisippi
N. Carolina
S. Carolina
Oklahoma
Texas
Utah

As recently as April of this year, Louisiana's state legislature voted to keep their anti-sodomy law on the statute.

(Sorry, my list missed Alabama, that haven of open-mindedness)

@bo, yes, it harms people. Why is that wrong? Because you, and the vast majority of people think it is. I agree. Which means that those laws are legislated morality of the majority.

@steephie, look, I don't care what people want to live together, sleep together, adopt kids, whatever. I *do* disagree with the term. Murder is defined as killing someone. Theft as stealing. Marriage as the union between one man and one women. Call it something else. I don't say I donate to the poor if I steal from them. I can't change the definition to make me feel better.

"@bo, so are you saying that physically assaulting people for voicing their opinions is fine?"

No, I'm not going to assault people for being assholes. Will I use hyperbole to make a point? Hell yeah. You know very well what I was aiming at and you know very well that you are taking that whole baseball bat thing waaaay too literally.

Besides, I don't want to get my bats dirty.

In other words, "Where's the harm?"

@bo: "Ag is a perfect example" -- what have I said that is an example of using slurs?

You're just being hypocritical as Invictus mentioned. It does not make sense to have an opinion against another group that has an opinion. It's a circular reference.

And you claim the moral high ground because "defend humanity" or whatever. That's the same moral high ground that the religious use for other areas (aka abortion).

Just accept that you're doing to them exactly what they are doing to gay marriage. I'm not even arguing if gay marriage is right or wrong, but you can't call Tru a bigot.

Just like I won't call you a bigot for having an inverse opinion because of "morals" --- which I thought the general opinion of the forums here was there is no truth and no morals.

Hang on there JamietUK...

Those laws may still be on the books, but there were invalidated over a decade ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Wrong, Jamiet99uk. Those laws are all non-enforceable. Banning sodomy is unconstitutional. No one will ever be arrested or prosecuted under those statutes.

As for Louisiana voting to keep the law on the books, I'd like to see more details on that. Legislatures pass absurd resolutions all the time, often without members ever reading them.


Again, I'm fine with gay marriage. I'm just a person who really believes in that silly, outmoded thing called classical liberalism and therefore do not want anyone's views suppressed.

"Why is that wrong? Because you, and the vast majority of people think it is. I agree. Which means that those laws are legislated morality of the majority."

No, it's wrong because murder results in the death of another person, theft results in property loss and potential injury to another person, rape results in potential death, injury, unwanted pregnancy, diseases, and trauma to another person, and arson results in property loss and potential injury/death. All involve non-consenting parties. If I were to force you to marry another person of the same sex under some sort of threat, that would be illegal. If you simply chose to marry someone of the same sex, how does that harm anyone else? It harms me no more than it would if you married someone of another orientation, presumably a straight person.

Whoever I marry, if I marry at all, will be fully aware that I'm pansexual, just as most people who bring the subject up around me are, and none of them are harmed by that knowledge. Were I to marry or date another man (probably not gonna happen), the only person that would be potentially harmed would be myself and my partner because of the hatred that flows throughout every inch of this earth. You would be perfectly fine, and your traditions would be perfectly fine. Your property would be fine, you wouldn't experience trauma, and you could explain to your children that love is love and no dumbass politician or bigoted something-or-other is going to get in the way of one of the strongest facets of your humanity.

@ Jeff_Kuta: They may have been ruled as "invalid" in court, but while they remain on the statute, local police forces and other authorities are still using them to harass and intimidate gay people. As recently as last year, police in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, used the state's anti-sodomy law to arrest a group of gay men. Several of the men were held in custody, and interrogated, for several hours. Since 2011, at least 12 gay men have been arrested and charged with "crimes against nature" in Baton Rouge. None of those men was successfully prosecuted. Nonetheless the presence of that law on Louisiana's statute was still used as the justification for arresting them - and I'm sure you understand that being arrested, put in a police cell, questioned, and charged with an offence, is a very traumatic and upsetting experience, especially when the person in question is doing absolutely nothing wrong.

The Baton Rouge sherriff's office publically stated that they felt they could ignore Lawrence Vs Texas and continue to arrest people for sodomy, specifically because, and I quote: "This is a law currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by the Louisiana legislature".

Source: http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/sodomy-laws-may-be-illegal-thats-not

@ Invictus: "No one will ever be arrested or prosecuted under those statutes."

Wrong Invictus. In Baton Rouge alone, 12 people have been arrested since 2011, on the basis of exactly those statutes.

And you're also not harmed because someone, somewhere, strongly disapproves of you doing those things, bo_sox48. And they have a right to try and advance their beliefs, regardless of how distasteful they may appear.

As of right now, that includes banning gay marriage outright. In a few years (tops) that will not be the case, since King Kennedy will require states to recognize gay marriage. It's over but for the crying on that front. However, people who oppose gay marriage will still have the right to their view, and just because it upsets other people that is not enough of a reason to silence them.

The Nazis can march through Skokie, the Westboro Baptist Church can say all the vile things they want. This is what freedom looks like. No one's asking you to like what other people say or think, just that you cannot silence them simply because you disagree or are offended.

@KingCyrus: "Yes, it harms people."

Pronouns suck.

What harms and how does it harm?

Jamiet99uk, those people should be delighted that this blockhead had them arrested. They're about to cash in on a slam-dunk civil rights case.

@ Invictus: First of all, do you admit that I was not "wrong" ?

Second of all, I'm bisexual. If I was harassed by the police for my sexuality, I can assure you I would be far from "delighted". I would feel intimidated, persecuted, harssed and discriminated against. It would be hell - a horrible experience. Shame on you for making light of the torture experienced by gay people in Louisiana at the hands of bigoted police officers enabled, empowered, and encouraged by Louisana's anti-sodomy laws.

Invictus, your entire argument is a straw man. Nobody's saying people aren't allowed to hold or express these beliefs. We're saying those beliefs are disgusting and bigoted. You're the only one trying to suppress opinions here.

"Murder is defined as killing someone."
Legally defined, yes. Therefore it counts for me too.

"Theft as stealing."
Legally defined, yes. Therefore it counts for me too.

"Marriage as the union between one man and one women."
Defined by Christianity, yes. I'm not a Christian though. Legally, it is defined as a large bunch of terms in one contract that unite two people in various ways.

Christians don't have to change their definition of marriage at all. No matter what the law says, they can talk to other christians about those funny gay sinners who think they have a marriage as much as they like.

All of this should NOT be taken into consideration when legally defining marriage in a secular state, because christianity has NOTHING to do with that.

You pointed out one instance in which an idiot police chief used a sodomy law to arrest people. They were not prosecuted. Your original claim was that well over a dozen states still outlawed sodomy. So yes, you were wrong.

Of course it must be a horrible experience to go through, being arrested like that. It's not "torture" but it's clearly a violation of their constitutional rights. That's why, I am SURE there is a multi-million dollar suit against the police department for this outrageous behavior. These people will get the justice they deserve AND a nice pay out. Coming from the UK, I suppose you don't have the same litigious frame of reference as an American does.

Also, still @KingCyrus:

"Call it something else."

You call it something else.

So, civil rights injustices are a positive as long as the victims get paid afterwards?

[insert slippery slope argument here]

@ Invictus: You claimed that "No one will ever be arrested" under those laws. I have provided you with evidence of 12 people being arrested under those laws. Do you admit that your claim was wrong?

"Coming from the UK, I suppose you don't have the same litigious frame of reference as an American does."

That's correct. Your culture of litigation disgusts me. I'd rather not be intimidated and harassed by the police in the first place, rather than saying "Ooooh, I'm being beaten by the police and held in a dirty cell without any respect for my rights! How marvellous! This is great! I'll have a wonderful story to tell my lawyer later!"

People who are abused often have mental scars which last a lifetime. No amount of financial compensation can wipe those scars away.

I never said that. I said that it's a clear violation of their rights. They'll win. They deserve to. The police were wildly out of line. We can't prevent all bad things from happening, but we can often make it right after the fact.

@ Invictus: "I never said that."

You did. I was literally quoting you. You said: "Wrong, Jamiet99uk. Those laws are all non-enforceable. Banning sodomy is unconstitutional. No one will ever be arrested."

That is a word-for-word quote. It is literally what you said. You were wrong.

Compensation and reparation don't make it right, they just provide some sort of closure to a certain degree in that the court didn't approve of his actions. Making such abuses right again is a near impossibility.

"You claimed that "No one will ever be arrested" under those laws. I have provided you with evidence of 12 people being arrested under those laws. Do you admit that your claim was wrong?"

Fine I was wrong about twelve people being IMPROPERLY arrested, and then not prosecuted. Still less wrong than you saying that sodomy was illegal in all those states. People are wrongfully arrested all the time.


"That's correct. Your culture of litigation disgusts me. I'd rather not be intimidated and harassed by the police in the first place, rather than saying "Ooooh, I'm being beaten by the police and held in a dirty cell without any respect for my rights! How marvellous! This is great! I'll have a wonderful story to tell my lawyer later!""

I saw nothing in that article about them being beaten or treated badly in jail. That would be MONUMENTALLY worse case. I doubt these people even had to post bail once they got in front of a judge. It's that ludicrous that they were even arrested.

"People who are abused often have mental scars which last a lifetime. No amount of financial compensation can wipe those scars away."

True. You can't fix everything.

Just because the police were wildly out of line doesn't necessarily mean they'll cash in on a civil rights lawsuit.

I'd venture that most people who are simply going through life minding their own business would prefer to *not* be harassed by LEOs for laws that are clearly unconstitutional. No one's doing this looking to cash in.

"You did. I was literally quoting you."

That post was to ghug on the slippery slope.

"Just because the police were wildly out of line doesn't necessarily mean they'll cash in on a civil rights lawsuit."

Something as clear-cut as this? I bet local firms were tripping over one another to take the case. This is what people go into civil rights law to do.

Of course people would rather go through life without being hassled by police. But now that it happened, I hope they bleed that fascist police department dry.

You addressed Jamiet by name, how was that to ghug?