Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Of course, but I don't think its right for you to molest a 2 year old infant, even in the privacy of your home.

I thought we were talking about consenting adults, club.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Of course, but I don't think its right for you to molest a 2 year old infant, even in the privacy of your home.

The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, anticipated that you might say something like that:

• This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Of course, but I don't think its right for you to molest a 2 year old infant, even in the privacy of your home.

My hypothetical boyfriend is over the age of consent, and I got him to sign one of those Antioch College waivers before I had my way with him.

ETA:
And believe it or not, I didn't have to get him drunk in order to con him into my bed.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When you say that the line should be drawn by the people, you are saying that gays should not have the right to do the sex, and that whether gays can be intimate with those they love should depend on a majority votes.

I can imagine a political philosophy of majority rule without individual rights. I might call it Communism. What I can't figure is how this squares with what you say whenever we start talking about taxes. There you believe strongly in individual rights.

Let's get this straight people, I think consenting adults should be permitted to do whatever the hell they want. What I'm saying is that in certain circumstances, the right to privacy should take a back seat to the will of the people - see my examples above.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
. I might call it Communism.

Or, if you wanted to put the right gloss on it, Communitarianism.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let's get this straight people,

I think our gay friends want to be in on this one too.

I think consenting adults should be permitted to do whatever the hell they want. What I'm saying is that in certain circumstances, the right to privacy should take a back seat to the will of the people - see my examples above.

We all agree that the Due Process Clause should not protect child molestation. The question is whether to treat sex involving consenting gay adults like sex involving consenting straight adults, or to treat it like child molestation.

This is why your friend felt threatened.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
Do you think that the right for me to fuck my boyfriend in my own home is unlimited? Just fucking. Missionary style, doors locked, curtains down, lights off, in a mega three day marathon session. (Yes, yes, FBers, I realize this is as boring of a marathon session as you can think of, but hey, at least I'm getting some in my hypothetical...) Doesn't matter if I live in Alaska or Nebraska. I think that right is unlimited.

If the people of Alaska disagree with you, you can move, no?

Look - we have a sliding scale of "rights" here. What is causing the great divide in this country is an apparent slide past what many Americans are willing to agree with.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Your "appropriate circumstances" eviserates everything else you said.

Only if you define privacy so broadly that it does not end at my nose.

I think you're confusing or conflating privacy and liberty. Liberty generally permits one to engage in acts that are purely self-confined without interference from the state, or with others consenting to that activity. Privacy is a subset of that general liberty, which allows one, in a private setting presumptively to engage in such conduct without (legitimate) claims that your conduct is other than self-confined. That presumption can, of course, be overcome by showing that others in that private setting are non-consenting.

For the Venn-diagram types: Liberty is the big circle; privacy is a smaller circle mostly within it, but somewhat outside it as well.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Of course, but I don't think its right for you to molest a 2 year old infant, even in the privacy of your home.

Bad choice of analogies.

Of course, club, and every relevant court decision recognizes the right of the state to regulate and/or prohibit sexual activities involving beings who cannot truly consent, for their protection, e.g., the mentally handicapped, children, animals, etc.

However, adult humans (of whatever orientation) do not need such protection. Moreover, adult humans are properly regarded as having certain rights when engaged in private, consensual conduct upon which the State should not infringe (as Burger noted above).

You're a big process guy. I'm a big results guy. I don't have problems with the position of the Courts as an intermediary to protect individual rights.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We all agree that the Due Process Clause should not protect child molestation. The question is whether to treat sex involving consenting gay adults like sex involving consenting straight adults, or to treat it like child molestation.

This is why your friend felt threatened.

Right, but how do we get there jurisprudentially (a) while adhering to stare decisis (probably not possible), (b) not centralizing all of these decisions in a court, so that the will of the people is completely eviserated, and (c) protecting people's privacy rights.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let's get this straight people, I think consenting adults should be permitted to do whatever the hell they want. What I'm saying is that in certain circumstances, the right to privacy should take a back seat to the will of the people - see my examples above.

OK. But that is a non sequitur. No one is arguing against you.

S_A_M
etfs

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Only if you define privacy so broadly that it does not end at my nose.

I think you're confusing or conflating privacy and liberty. Liberty generally permits one to engage in acts that are purely self-confined without interference from the state, or with others consenting to that activity. Privacy is a subset of that general liberty, which allows one, in a private setting presumptively to engage in such conduct without (legitimate) claims that your conduct is other than self-confined. That presumption can, of course, be overcome by showing that others in that private setting are non-consenting.

For the Venn-diagram types: Liberty is the big circle; privacy is a smaller circle mostly within it, but somewhat outside it as well.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when we are talking about sexual conduct, there is no liberty right outside the privacy right. E.g, RT does not have the same rights to go on a romping spree with her college boyfriend in public as she does in her own home.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Bad choice of analogies.

Of course, club, and every relevant court decision recognizes the right of the state to regulate and/or prohibit sexual activities involving beings who cannot truly consent, for their protection, e.g., the mentally handicapped, children, animals, etc.

However, adult humans (of whatever orientation) do not need such protection. Moreover, adult humans are properly regarded as having certain rights when engaged in private, consensual conduct upon which the State should not infringe (as Burger noted above).

You're a big process guy. I'm a big results guy. I don't have problems with the position of the Courts as an intermediary to protect individual rights.

S_A_M

This is going to sound like NOt Me, but what about bigamy and incest?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, but how do we get there jurisprudentially . . . (b) not centralizing all of these decisions in a court, so that the will of the people is completely eviserated, and . . .

Sometimes you just have to eviscerate the will of the people, if you can, when the will of the people is wrong.

S_A_M

eta: This is one of the reasons why the government was established with both a legislative branch and a judicial branch. Checks and balances.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is going to sound like NOt Me, but what about bigamy and incest?

Good questions.