NationStates Jolt Archive

A group of Republicans who actually remember what the party is *supposed* to stand for are basically being pushed out by the neo-cons that like to call themselves "compassionate."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/01/gop.gays/index.html

So, what do you think? Can a group of gay people possibly be Republicans, since they believe in the economic/defense/etc. principles that are *supposed* to be the foundation of the party? Or should the Republican party alienate the entire gay community in this country?

Republicans wouldn't want to alienate their religious base by including their gay base.
Why vote for a President whose going against your wishes? Seems like blindly following to me.


Bush has sex with a goat (this is to counter Freinds with Bill)

Here's another one:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/01/sodomy.law.ap/index.html

This kid is serving 20 years in prison basically because he is gay. Now, I'm not big on 18 year olds getting it on with 14 year olds one way or another, but to say that you are justified in making the penalties for gays and straights different is just plain idiotic.

On top of that, the judges in Kansas have apparently never heard of Constitutionality and precedence. I knew it was a backwards state (no offense to any Kansasians), but, seriously, what is wrong with these people.

Republicans wouldn't want to alienate their religious base by including their gay base.
Why vote for a President whose going against your wishes? Seems like blindly following to me.

Nobody said they were going to vote for him. As much as I think anyone who offiically affiliates themself with a party has a problem, there are more reasons than presidential candidate to do so.

Bump.

(Wow, I've never done this before) =)

Bump.

(Wow, I've never done this before) =)

Did it feel good to bump for the first time?

Did it feel good to bump for the first time?

Not really, but I was kinda hoping to get discussion on this topic.

Here's another one:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/01/sodomy.law.ap/index.html

This kid is serving 20 years in prison basically because he is gay. Now, I'm not big on 18 year olds getting it on with 14 year olds one way or another, but to say that you are justified in making the penalties for gays and straights different is just plain idiotic.

On top of that, the judges in Kansas have apparently never heard of Constitutionality and precedence. I knew it was a backwards state (no offense to any Kansasians), but, seriously, what is wrong with these people.

I could see harsher penalties for sodomy period, as if you aren't very careful you can cause some serious damage. But I don't see what difference it makes if the person is gay or straight. -__-

Not really, but I was kinda hoping to get discussion on this topic.

;) Well, in that case...

The Republican Party is getting worse all the time. They used to be the true liberals on the block, but they have come to stand for almost everything I'm against. They want to interfere in our personal lives more than ever before and bind state and religion more tightly and they will make the government bigger to do it. This lastest stuff is just a further sign of their deterioration into more fascist policies.

I think sexual orientation in these matters is irrelevant. But, since the Republicans specialize in bigotry, why should this be any different.

I could see harsher penalties for sodomy period, as if you aren't very careful you can cause some serious damage. But I don't see what difference it makes if the person is gay or straight. -__-

First, sodomy is legal, so there can be no penalties for it separate from penalties for minors having sex.
Second, this law is specifically designed to discriminate against homosexuals, and is therefore wrong.

From reading it technically it is not a law specifically dealing with gays rather sodomy

sod•om•y P Pronunciation Key (s d -m )
n.
Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.


Traditionally by law (at least in mn) as any type of sexual contact not for the specific purpose of procreation. Also usually further defined as oral /anal /other non intercourse forms of sexual contact

Don’t get me wrong I am not promoting their despicable use of an outdated law BUT don’t make it seem like the law was enacted specifically to discriminate .I have to look up the case but there was one around here in a similar case that a 20 year old female and a 13 year old boy … they couldent get her on statutory rape because of the way the laws until recently were worded (they made it clear that statutory rape could only be committed against an underage female … even if the boy is younger) though they got her on child molestation and sodomy


Anyways I am rambling

Point is the law was not originally specifically dealing with gays per se but covering a whole blanket of sexual acts that even strait people practiced (though unless they were doing something ELSE illegal such as in this case the under age thing … would never had been busted for it)
Secondary or tertiary law … (like seatbelt laws in a lot of places) you don’t get busted for it unless you get caught doing something else like speeding … then you get an increased fine in that case

They caught him doing something illegal and he got busted for both offensive

(note I don’t believe in this law and don’t find it right … but that was not my point)

I though it relatively obvious, but my comment was inferring involuntary or underage sodomy, not voluntary sodomy between two consenting adults. My apologies if that wasn't clear.

bush would have to be as dumb as most people think he is if succeeds in alienating gay republicans. one more thing, people generally don't think of homo's as repubes (republicans) and that same goes for afro-Americans aswell, so there views are largely misunderstood.



"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves."

First, sodomy is legal, so there can be no penalties for it separate from penalties for minors having sex.
Second, this law is specifically designed to discriminate against homosexuals, and is therefore wrong.
why because gays are more likely to enjoy young boys in their beds?
please explain.

why because gays are more likely to enjoy young boys in their beds?
please explain.

No, because sodomy laws are pretty much only ever applied to homosexuals. As soon as they can show me a single case in Kansas (or any state) where a woman was sent to jail for giving her bf a blow job, then I'll concede that they are not directly targeting homosexuals.

And UpwardThrust, if that is what the law says, and it is being applied equally (which it is not), then fine - it is not a discrimination case. Then, it will become a due process case. The Supreme Court has already held that sodomy laws are unconstitutional.

why because gays are more likely to enjoy young boys in their beds?
please explain.
Bullshit. Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality.

From reading it technically it is not a law specifically dealing with gays rather sodomy

Other than the law being unconstitutional on its face as being a violation of due process, the argument before the court was specifically that homosexuals can be treated differently in order to protect "traditional values." This argument is bs.

Other than the law being unconstitutional on its face as being a violation of due process, the argument before the court was specifically that homosexuals can be treated differently in order to protect "traditional values." This argument is bs.
yes it is, what was the norm 50 years ago could now be called rare. the world, and usa is just changing fatser then the govt can keep up.( and thats not saying they havent had plenty of time to do so.)

ooo and congrats on 911th post ;)

No, because sodomy laws are pretty much only ever applied to homosexuals. As soon as they can show me a single case in Kansas (or any state) where a woman was sent to jail for giving her bf a blow job, then I'll concede that they are not directly targeting homosexuals.

And UpwardThrust, if that is what the law says, and it is being applied equally (which it is not), then fine - it is not a discrimination case. Then, it will become a due process case. The Supreme Court has already held that sodomy laws are unconstitutional.

The definition you quoted is pretty archaic. A more modern version is:

Noun: sodomy
Anal intercourse committed by a man with a man or woman

You ask pretty much anyone what sodomy is, and they will tell you it's anal sex. Maybe 1 in 20 will say it is any 'abnormal' sex. Irregardless, unless the law makes explicit mention of any non-intercourse sexual behaviour, there is your reason.

First, sodomy is legal, so there can be no penalties for it separate from penalties for minors having sex.
Second, this law is specifically designed to discriminate against homosexuals, and is therefore wrong.


It is state by state … the sodomy law in Minnesota was just repealed last year

So not nessisarly legal everywhere


And as for the


Other than the law being unconstitutional on its face as being a violation of due process, the argument before the court was specifically that homosexuals can be treated differently in order to protect "traditional values." This argument is bs.


Sorry was arguing the other link posted (not your original) I apologize for not making that more clear

Ohhh went searching and found a very good map (must be very up to date) also has a LOT of links to sodomy laws and enforcement and such round the world


http://www.sodomylaws.org/

thanks for the link

It is state by state … the sodomy law in Minnesota was just repealed last year

So not nessisarly legal everywhere

The Supreme Court has declared sodomy laws unconstitutional. Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically repeal all existing state laws - each law will have to be challenged and appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court separately.

But you are right, there are archaic laws in some places still. Just like the law against interracial marriage in Alabama was just struck down recently.

Sorry was arguing the other link posted (not your original) I apologize for not making that more clear

So was I. The argument before the court in the second link I posted (the 18 year old in jail for 20 years) was that the state feels they can treat people differently in order to protect "traditional values." Apparently, their values think it is cute for an 18 year old boy to have sex with a 14 year old girl, but think it is abhorrent and against their values if both are boys.

I think there can be gay/lesbian Republicans, becasue Reps could deal w/gay marriage in a manner w/o violating their beliefs.

For some reason, states' rights are a conservative philosophy (tho I've always thought them to be libertarian) - rather than get Congress to ban or approve of gay marriage, Republicans could simply have the states decide for themselves

I think there can be gay/lesbian Republicans, becasue Reps could deal w/gay marriage in a manner w/o violating their beliefs.

For some reason, states' rights are a conservative philosophy (tho I've always thought them to be libertarian) - rather than get Congress to ban or approve of gay marriage, Republicans could simply have the states decide for themselves

Yeah, they originally said they were going to do that. Then one of the state governments decided to allow it and they freaked out and decided it was anti-Republican. ((Talk about flip-flopping))

show me one case where any sodomy law has been applied to a male on female relationship, and HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY GOING TO BE FINDIGN THIS SHIT OUT? are they doing some sodomy raids on peoples houses? this shit is illegal, stay the fuck out of it, you cant tell them they cant have anal sex, now sodomizing in general is under a completely different offense

The Supreme Court has declared sodomy laws unconstitutional. Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically repeal all existing state laws - each law will have to be challenged and appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court separately.

But you are right, there are archaic laws in some places still. Just like the law against interracial marriage in Alabama was just struck down recently.



So was I. The argument before the court in the second link I posted (the 18 year old in jail for 20 years) was that the state feels they can treat people differently in order to protect "traditional values." Apparently, their values think it is cute for an 18 year old boy to have sex with a 14 year old girl, but think it is abhorrent and against their values if both are boys.

See I think of it this way … they busted his chops on a secondary offense (the underage story)

Im not saying it is right … or the offense should really be that … an offence. But I have seen cases in the past where someone got busted for sodomy (again usually in connection with statutory cases) that was between male and female

The two I heard about were awhile ago and local so having issues locating an internet source … soon as I do the link will be up

Also not saying that they didn’t go out of their way to bust him on it (cause I have a feeling that it MIGHT have been dropped in certain situations) just saying the law as is was not really discriminatory rather its implementation was

Also not saying that they didn’t go out of their way to bust him on it (cause I have a feeling that it MIGHT have been dropped in certain situations) just saying the law as is was not really discriminatory rather its implementation was

Which is exactly what I said. The guy would not be in jail for nearly as long if his 14-year old had been a girl, even if they had anal sex every night.

However, to say the law is not discriminatory is technically true, but does not change the fact that it is an unconstitutional violation of due process. The government has no business regulating what kind of sex consenting adults have in their own homes and they have no right to make sodomy a worse offense when regulating sex that is illegal.

I think there can be gay/lesbian Republicans, becasue Reps could deal w/gay marriage in a manner w/o violating their beliefs.

For some reason, states' rights are a conservative philosophy (tho I've always thought them to be libertarian) - rather than get Congress to ban or approve of gay marriage, Republicans could simply have the states decide for themselves
Eh...Kerry is for letting states decide, but he is some how tearing down American family values...Bush is for an unconstitutional constitutional amendment...

From reading it technically it is not a law specifically dealing with gays rather sodomy

Where did you find the Kansas law you are speaking of? Having read the article again, I realized that this really had nothing to do with it. Kansas has a special "Romeo and Juliet" law that applies if the male is no older than 18 and the girl is no more than four years younger than him which allows the male to get a very short sentence (because it's "cute" I suppose). This law does not have any provision for homosexual relationships, so this kid did the exact same thing that any straight guy who had the hots for a 14 year old would've done, and got a sentence x10. I don't think there is really any argument to make that right.

If this were the Republican party of Eisenhower, then there would be fierce competition between the Republicans and Democrats for the gay vote. That party was basically fiscally conservative and socially libertarian.

But this is the Republican party of Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay and George W. Bush and John Ashcroft and to them, gays are subhuman sinners who are lucky they're protected by "liberal judges" or else they'd be locked up in prisons for the criminally insane.

All I can say for people who call themselves Log Cabin Republicans right now--not in the past and not in the future, but right now--is that they're self-loathers and selfish. Economic issues be damned--this is the party that openly humiliates you for your lifestyle and uses your civil rights as a wedge issue to excite their base, most of whom wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire. There is no reason that Goerge W. Bush should get a single vote from an openly gay person this year.

Homophobia is stupid.

I hate organized religion.