Lawrence vs. Texas verdict

I disagree. Laws are supposed to protect the rights of others. The Social Contract. Stealing is immoral, but the reason its illegal is because it protects my property. Murder is immoral, but the reason it is illegal is it protects my right to life, etc, etc. The problem comes when you have laws entirely based on morality. Who's rights does preventing gay men from having sex protect???

 

but where does the acknowledgement of rights come from, pgabriel? from our morality, i would argue. the idea that we trumpet that kind of liberty is, ultimately, a judgement we make of competing interests.

 

Our rights are directly related to democracy and capitalism. That is the system we have chosen. I will agree, it is arguable that we have chosen democracy because it is the most just system which could be construed as a moral judgement. I however believe that we choose democracy, because it fits hand in hand with capitalism, which has nothing to do with morality but all to do with economics.

Our forefathers came here to get away from religious rule and the pursuit of wealth, and our legal system is a directly reflection of those goals.

 

Morality and legality are a part of the same western philosophy. There is supposed reason behind why something is considered "right" or "wrong". There is also supposed reason behind why something is considered legal or not. When you break this philosophy down you run into the concepts of "me", "life" , "property" etc. This is what I was referring to when I said a true separation would be impossible. It runs that deep.

 

Max: I basically agree with you. I just do not believe that if we removed laws, we would simply turn into an anarchistic society. There are some who believe that laws are the only things that keep us civilized.

I just don't see it that way. But, I'm not a believer in the original sin theory of life. I believe rather in the inherent goodness of others and I see our morality or ethical behavior as an extension of our consciouness rather than a dictate from a religious or moral authority.

I do agree with you and Mr. Meowgi thought that these ideals are intertwined into the fabric of our society. You can't just remove them.

 

pgabriel, the notion that people have rights is a moral concept. The right to privacy is a moral concept. Democracy is a moral, not economic, concept. I agree with Max that any legislation is an imposing of a certain kind of morality on everybody. The notion that "we can't legistrate morality" is a myth.

What is more accurate is to differentiate private morality from social/public morality. We can argue that laws should only impose social morality, but not private morality.

For example, the view on homosexuality is private morality. The government should not interfere with what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

Education, on the other hand, is social morality. What we should teach our children is a big public moral question. I agree with the gay right people that the law should not impose sexual morality on them. But I find it hypocritical that the same people turn around and demand that children in the public school should be forced to learn that homosexuality is a viable lifestyle. Isn't that imposing their morality on somebody else?

 

Well, I think imposing morality is pretty much an inevitability in education. For example, teachers don't just talk about when the Holocaust occurred and how many people die - they openly express their revulsion and sadness.

In the case of homosexuality, you can't just not talk about it and expect kids to make their own judgments. So if you aren't teaching kids that homosexuality is ok, then you're either (1) explicitly teaching them that it's not okay, or (2) implicitly teaching them that's it's not okay by not mentioning it at all. Kids aren't stupid, and they'll figure out the real message behing the silence.

I think the ruling today is great. The reasoning behind any law that limits individual rights is that such rights run counter to a compelling interest of society. Despite the protests of the fundamentalist wackos, homosexuality does not pose any risk to families. Last time I checked, the gay community was not seeking to "convert" married men and women and have them abandon their families.

Scalia's statements show his real reason for opposing the ruling. He clearly does have something against gays, and proved that of all the justices, he's the one with the agenda.

 

There is a big difference between teaching the existence of a lifestyle and promoting it OVER some other choice.

Pretending homosexuality doesn't exist is simply a historical inaccuracy.

I just think that too often any viewpoint is taught as leaning in the correct or incorrect direction. Can't the existence of homosexuality or any other point of view be discussed openly without an endorsement?

 

Sure. But so can many other sexual acts. Does that mean they all have to be taught to kids?

I agree with the ruling, btw.

 

As far as I know from my parents' experience as teachers, the discussion of sex in school is clinical, not technical. No one is discussing the best way to perform oral sex or the location of the G spot.

But, they do talk about pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. There is no reason why, in those limited discussions, homosexuality shouldn't be mentioned, especially when dealing with the prevention of STD's.

Besides, homosexuality isn't just about sex any more than heterosexuality is. So often, the focus on homosexuality is on the sex part of it. In any good, long-term relationship, sex represents only a small part of the overall. That is as true for same-gender partners as opposite gender, which is why I see this as a much more general issue rather than simply a sexual one.

Also, it is impractical to say no discussions about it can be held. It is very likely that a government class that reads the paper every day (mine had that requirement in school), had school been in session now, would face this as a potential topic. In that setting, the discussion would more likely be about law and the Supreme Court, but you cannot ignore the context.

Unfortunately, I think that the "they shouldn't teach that in the schools" commentary often seems to stem from the belief that kids are being handed vibrators and shown gay p*rn videos in middle school classrooms or the concept of teachers editorializing on the virtues of lesbian sex. Maybe it is because our view of sexuality in America is colored by Maxim Magazine and beer commercials rather than honest, frank discussions about the realities of it.

But, anyone who has been in the classroom setting and has seen what health class amounts to realizes it is about the least titilating discussion you could possibly imagine. As a result, homosexuality in that context seems completely appropriate, especially if a student asks the question or if safe sex is on the agenda.

 

Good discussion. I'm glad we've taken another step out of the 50's. Scalia is frightening.

 

I totally disagree. Laws are absolutely necessary for any civil society. What do you think people would do if there was no fear of acting on your emotions? Don't you think people as a whole are very aggressive by nature? Hell the freeways alone would turn into warzones. There are a lot more people that would turn this country into an anarchy then would want to stay a peaceful, civil state. Why don't you think so?

 

I totally disagree. Laws are absolutely necessary for any civil society. What do you think people would do if there was no fear of acting on your emotions? Don't you think people as a whole are very aggressive by nature? Hell the freeways alone would turn into warzones. There are a lot more people that would turn this country into an anarchy then would want to stay a peaceful, civil state. Why don't you think so?

I have to agree here. Anytime you have a disruption in law enforcement services, you have looting, etc. (hurricanes, riots, etc) All it takes is a small portion of society to go nuts to have the whole thing collapse, in my opinion.

 

Granted, but it's a fine line. Call me old fashioned but I just don't think we should be discussing any kind of sex in school in lew of history, math, reading, writing etc. I don't think Asian schools waste time talking about sex and they're doing pretty well.

Well said, Jeff. Couldn't agree more with this paragraph.

After reading this thread, it's nice to know that I'm not the only conservative that agrees with this decision. The overwelming majority of gay people just want to live their lives and be free to love anyone they want to....just like us straight folks. Too bad the talkradio boobs can't seem to understand that.

 

Yeah, lets see if Chuck Rosenthal gets elected next election since he is so disappointed by the decision.

 

pgabriel -- the problem is, so few people probably even know rosenthal's feelings on this...and so few will remember come election time.

and you're just not going to see many democrats elected as law and order men in harris county.

 

I can't help but notice that the administration is being very quiet about this decision.

What? No comment Mr President?

 

to be fair, did the administration make comment on other supreme court cases recently? the most recent decisions?? have they commented on those?

also...just because we haven't read them, doesn't mean they're not commenting.

 

You're right Max.

All I saw this morning was his statements about how great Thurmond was.


But I can't believe that he wasn't asked about the decision by
<i>some</i> reporter.