Now that Brett Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court it is only a matter of time before the Right-wing Catholic majority starts rolling back rights. This is a prospect that makes Minus FJ, a homophobic trumper, very happy.
| -FJ: Goodbye Roe. Goodbye Lawrence. :) (10/7/2018 at 12:13pm) WYD. |
Note that Minus does not say the court is going to (first/only) get rid of Obergefell v. Hodges, which would be the 2015 Supreme Court case that made same sex marriage legal. No, he wants to overturn Lawrence v. Texas, which is a 2003 case that made "same-sex sexual activity legal in every US state and territory".
This would effectively criminalize being gay. Unless you're gay and chaste. Then you might be safe. Otherwise you could get arrested. Note that anti-sodomy laws apply to hetrosexual people as well. Given that both gay and straight people do it in other holes. But I'm sure Minus does not have (nor has he ever had) either an@l or oЯal sex. He only does it missionary with a woman. As God intended.
Although he cites another reason (not God) for wanting to bring back anti-sodomy laws.
| -FJ: ...yes, I also oppose all forms of sodomy, too. STDs in the general population need to be kept to a minimum. No one has the right to spread STD recklessly. (10/8/2018 at 5:57pm) WYM. |
So, after Lawrence is struck down (followed by Obergefell), I assume the authorities will start prosecuting and imprisoning gay people? Possibly along with some deviant straight people. But obviously gay people. Because, as per Warren E. Burger (quoting William Blackstone) "homosexual sex [is] an infamous crime against nature, worse than rape".
Burger was the Chief Justice when Bowers v. Hardwick was decided via a 5–4 ruling in 1986. The old White guy majority (plus one woman) agreed that "oЯal and an@l sex in private between consenting adults" could be criminalized via state law.
Conservapedia says Sir William Blackstone, in addition to authoring "extensive Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769... that were admired and used by America's Founding Fathers", was really, really, REALLY opposed to sodomy.
My opinion is that sex between consenting adults is nobody's business. Excepting the consenting adults, of course. Obviously Minus believes it IS his business. And he wants sex between consenting adults policed. Maybe tip lines will be set up and no-knock warrants issued if there is reason to believe you are engaging in sodomy.
Which could mean that the sodomy cops could bust down your door if they suspect you're engaging in "unnatural acts". Then haul you off to jail if they find evidence you are guilty of consensual sexual activity Minus doesn't approve of. The Wikipedia entry for Lawrence notes that "legal punishments for sodomy often included heavy fines, life prison sentences, or both".
If Minus wants Lawrence struck down, then he obviously wants such laws (and their accompanying punishments) to come back. Heavy fines and prison sentences for being gay and engaging in consensual sexual activity. Which is obviously nuts and not likely to happen.
Yes, I think Roe could be overturned. Which would mean that the abortion question would be kicked back to the states. And many Red states would impose even more restrictions. Making it virtually impossible to obtain an abortion if you are a woman residing in a Red state. Minus cites 20 weeks over and over, but lawmakers in Red states have passed all kinds of legislation to try and make it so a woman can't exercise her right to choose... period.
Even with a Conservative Catholic majority, I think Lawrence being overturned probably won't happen. How they are going to attack this, I think, is via the "religious liberty" canard. If you own a business that provides goods and/or services, the court will say you don't have to sell to, or provide services to gay people.
Will Brett and the other 4 Conservative justices strike down Obergefell v. Hodges and invalidate the marriages of every gay couple in the United States? Possibly. But I think it's more likely they will only say discrimination against gay people is great, so long as the reason for discriminating is the bigot's religion.
The Bible mentions slavery too. But the court isn't going to rule it's legal (again) for Right-wing racist business owners to discriminate against African Americans (even if Randall Paul thinks they should). So why is it OK to discriminate against gay people if you play the religion card?
Catholic author (and Islam hater) Andrew Bieszad (writing for the blog "The Conservative Papers") says "The LGBT Is Complicit In The Spread Of Horrible Diseases, Sodomy Laws Need To Come Back For Public Health". Sounds like an argument Minus would absolutely agree with.
"Sodomy is the act of masturbating by means of the place where another man has bowel movements", Bieszad writes. So it's only sodomy between two men that bothers these religious nutters. Given that the place where a woman has bowel movements obviously doesn't count. As the bigot who authored the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick (Justice Byron White) wrote, the Constitution does not grant "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy".
So, is it just "homosexual sodomy" or all "all forms of sodomy" that you oppose, Minus? I ask because it seems that your fellow bigots don't care when a man boinks a woman in the butt. It's only sex between two consenting men that grosses them out. Either way, clearly Minus thinks anti-sodomy laws "need to come back for public health" reasons. Which I would say is idiotic, given that STDs can be (and are) spread by men and women having vaginal sex without protection.
According to Minus, he lives by the motto meden agan or "nothing in excess". Yet he supports going excessively farther Right than even the Conservative Catholics on the court are likely to go. Which would make Minus a Moderate? As Minus likes to frequently type (VERY frequently)... LOL.
Additional Information
Andrew Bieszad is actually a "critic" of Islam who opposes "Islamo-correctness". Also an Islamic Studies scholar with a specialty in Christian-Muslim relations. Although (in the Bieszad article I quote above) he bashes gay people and justifies it via Christian-Conservative-based homophobia. (See How a critic of Islam ended up in the check-out aisle by Barbara Kay. The National Post, 8/7/2013).
I oppose all forms of sodomy, of course! I've got nothing against homosexuals, specifically. If they wish to break the law, that's their business. We'll try not to make examples of them anymore than we do the hetero offenders.
ReplyDeleteAnd I've never claimed to be a moderate.
"Nothing in excess" certainly sounds like a moderate credo to me.
DeleteIt only means that there can be "exceptional circumstances". When population on Earth reached that of Gideon (Star Trek, The Mark of Gideon), I might begin to make exceptions for Sodomy. But until then...
DeleteIn other words, when the population of Earth *or in this case, the USA) NEEDS reducing...
DeleteDeporting trumpers to Russia could be a solution that works. I think you'd like it there. "Homosexuals are viewed with contempt by most Russians" (source). Also "#MeToo skipped Russia" (source).
DeleteAnd, as per the article I link to above, a "new [Russian] law recategorized the crime of violence against family members: Abuse that does not result in broken bones, and does not occur more than once a year, is no longer punishable by long prison sentences"... and that is if the court sides with the woman, which the article says it rarely does.
So... you think women are going to report domestic violence if the only outcome is a slap on the wrist? Franco, who wrote on his blog "We men have GOT to reassert ourselves and start slapping women around again", would LOVE Russia.
Perhaps the #MeToo #LyingWhores should move to Neverland and play mermaids to Peter's lost boys... or better, chop off a boob and form a new Amazon tribe where therew are no men to molest them.
DeletePerhaps the offending men should treat women as equals and not sex objects. Also, take NO for an answer. Seems quite simple to me. It seems to me that you think this is an impossibility.
DeleteWomen don't treat themselves as sex objects? How do makeup and lingerie companies stay in business then?
DeleteIn the West, at least, we are becoming massively aware of the extent of coercion and exploitation in sexual relations. However, we should also bear in mind the (no less massive) fact that millions of people on a daily basis flirt, play the game of seduction, with the clear aim to get a partner for making love. The result of the modern Western culture is that both sexes are expected to play an active role in this game. When women dress provocatively to attract a male gaze, when they “objectify” themselves to seduce them, they don’t do it offering themselves as passive objects: they are the active agents of their own “objectification,” manipulating men, playing ambiguous games, including the full right to step out of the game at any moment even if, to the male gaze, this appears in contradiction with previous “signals.” This active role of women is their freedom, which bothers so much all kind of fundamentalists—from Muslims who have recently prohibited women touching and playing with bananas and other fruit which resemble a penis to our own ordinary male chauvinist who explodes in violence against a woman who first “provokes” him and then rejects his advances. Feminine sexual liberation is not just a puritan withdrawal from being “objectivized” (as a sexual object for men) but the right to actively play with self-objectivization, offering herself and withdrawing at will. Will it be still possible to proclaim these simple facts in the near future, or will the Politically Correct pressure compel us to accompany all these games with some formal-legal proclamation (of consensuality, etc.)?. - Slavoj Zizek, "Sex, Contracts and..."
DeleteLike I said before, sign a marriage contract or get busted for sexual assualt (men) or prostitution(women).
DeleteMen and women don't have consensual sex outside of marriage? If they do they should be hit with bogus charges? I'm thinking a very small percentage of the population would go for that. But, I think it has already been established that you hate democracy... and yearn for theocracy.
DeleteSo you'd just "believe the women". I'll take my theocracy, thanks.
DeleteI prefer defying authority over always obeying it. I'm not a Zizekian post-modern father.
ReplyDeleteps - I'm also for punishing sex OUTSIDE of marriage. Take THAT for what its' worth, boys and girls. :)
ReplyDeleteAt least with my laws, safe and unsafe sexual behaviors will be CRYSTAL clear to everyone.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the point of a law if there are no enforcement mechanisms? Have the US Surgeon General issue guidelines. You could call them "the Christian Conservative bigot's guide to safe sex". We don't need laws or the overturning of a prior SCOTUS decision.
DeleteThe point is to maintain a "public" standard for the "Commons". What is done in privacy Ob Skene is of little importance to the Authorities. It is only important to punish offenders if their activities become public or are carried out as an act of defiance.
DeleteYou simply choose NOT to "normalize" it. STDs are most dangerous when promiscuity is normalized.
DeleteMonogamous gay couples spread no STDs. Therefore normalizing marriage equality sounds like a good idea to me.
DeleteProvided it's done through the State Legislature (as in Maryland) and NOT the Judiciary (as in Massachusetts), I've no problem with it.
Delete...but I catch you on your knees in a public restroom with a stranger, I'm throwing the book at you.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteIf the person isn't a stranger, sex in a public place is OK? Who knew? Also vaginal sex between a man and a woman in a public place, even if strangers, is apparently ok too. Under a Minus dictatorship, at least.
DeleteJust when you were ahead Dervish, you ripped another stinker and shot yourself in the foot. OH BOY!
DeleteMystere stupidity deleted. I might have let it stand. But I checked to see if you published the comment I submitted to your blog... and you have not (and obviously are not going to)... so why shouldn't I delete you?
DeleteHmm… We the blog team (Mystere, Donkey's Revenge and I) looked for your comment, but found nothing. But we did find traces of a hacker messing around with our blog sites on Blogger. Which blog did you comment on?
Deletepps - Gays can still marry each other, they'll just have to pretend to wish to remain"chaste". Just like nuns who marry the Church. :)
ReplyDeleteNuns who marry the church... this group of women must make up the majority of the non-lying whores.
DeleteNo, they're lying whores, too. Humanity's key survival trait comes from its' ability to lie to itself, and to others (Nietzsche).
Delete:)
DeleteObviously you don't know what the word "whore" means.
DeleteTo sell one's sexuality for some other's use, for money? Nun's don't do that?
DeleteIsn't THAT what marriage contracts are really about (even to the Church)?
Delete:P
DeleteWhore, definition: 1. a person who engages in promiscuous sex for money; prostitute. 2. a person who is sexually promiscuous.
DeleteNuns who practice abstinence = not whores.
Good for you Dervish! For once in a long blue moon, I agree with you. You deserve an attaboy for defining what a whore is. Nuns are not whores for sure. I respect nuns. They do plenty of good things.
DeleteIf I pay a call girl to talk to me, but not have sex, she's not a whore? Who knew?
DeleteSomebody better tell those "chastity" device freaks.
DeleteIf you're calling phone sex lines and asking to talk to a nun... she isn't an actual nun. Also not a "girl" but a woman. An underage phone sex operator would be a law violation for sure.
DeleteThe nun sells herself for three hots and a cot.
DeleteThe only difference is the the value placed on the service.
DeleteBy your definition everyone is a whore. Everyone needs "three hots and a cot" aka food and shelter. Although you forgot clothing.
DeleteWhore's or wage slaves, whatever floats your boat.
Delete;p
ReplyDeleteEvery ideology has written and unwritten rules. To belong, one needs to know which rules can be violated, and which unwritten rules must be followed (as for pitchers hitting batters in baseball).
ReplyDeleteBad link above...
DeleteRe unwritten rules... the political unwritten rules (or norms) are being violated by tRump every day. You must really be regretting your vote - for this reason alone.
Deletelol! Knowing which rules that can be broken and which to break is also part of the game. Weren't you paying attention?
Deleteps - That's why there are provisions in the Constitution for impeaching the President (or judge).
DeleteYou want laws, not unwritten rules/norms to prohibit sodomy. And tRump SHOULD be impeached. Too many complicit republicans might make that more unlikely that it should be, unfortunately. tRump has broken laws, not just norms. He shouldn't be only impeached, but prosecuted and sent to prison.
DeleteWhat law did he break?
DeleteWe've been over this before. Trump almost certainly violated the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-570).
DeleteThe NYT: Consider... The financially rickety Trump Organization, shunned by most mainstream banks, long relied on less scrupulous Russian investors. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets", Donald Trump Jr. said a decade ago. "We have all the funding we need out of Russia", Eric Trump reportedly said in 2013. And what was the rare major bank to work with Trump? Deutsche Bank, which has a history of illegal Russian money laundering.
Trump also had a habit of selling real estate to Russians in all-cash deals. Money launderers like such deals, because they can turn illegally earned cash into a legitimate asset, usually at an inflated price that rewards the seller for the risk. One especially dubious deal was Trump's $95 million sale of a Palm Beach house to a Russian magnate in 2008 - during the housing bust, only four years after Trump had bought the house for $41 million. (The Urgent Question of Trump and Money Laundering by David Leonhardt. 9/9/2018).
As per the Business Insider, Mueller's team consists of lawyers who "possess a vast array of experience investigating financial fraud, corruption, money laundering, foreign bribery, organized crime, and more". (Meet the all-star team of lawyers Robert Mueller has working on the Trump-Russia investigation by Michelle Mark. 5/17/2018).
So where are the legal charges? Is Mueller saving them as an insurance policy for the day he gets fired?
DeleteAllegations are cheap. Every #LyingWhore has one.
DeleteI'm guessing you are aware that the DJO says "The indictment or cnminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions"... and you think (along with tRump's addition of the sycophantic blackout Brett to the SCOTUS) that is going to allow tRump to get away with his crimes?
DeleteBTW, I cut and pasted the above from https://www.justice.gov and yes, "cnminal" is misspelled. Also, while the DOJ memo uses the words "unconstitutionally" and "constitutionally" to explain why a sitting president can't be indicted, the Constitution does not actually state this.
If tRump were to indicted, surely a count of Conspiracy against the United States would be among the numerous charges.
FYI, "under Justice Department regulations written for future special counsels in 1999, Mueller could ask acting attorney general Rod Rosenstein for the authority to indict Trump". Although you're probably looking forward to Rosenstein and Mueller being fired following the midterms. Probably Jeff Sessions too.
Perhaps this is why the ancient Greeks delayed the prosecution of their current leaders until after they left office.
DeleteWe know that Brett thinks his "buttboi" tRump is above the law. Although he "changed his mind" from when he worked for Ken Starr and was going after Bill Clinton.
Delete-FJ...I prefer defying authority rather than always obeying it.
ReplyDeleteSo do millions of others. Which is why millions prefer to defy the Great Orange Turd and HIS GOOPER ADMINISTRATION.
...and will suffer for it.
DeleteWe will all suffer when the tRump recession arrives. Excepting the ultra wealthy. They are able to ride out such dowturns. Then scoop up assets for pennies on the dollar when things hit rock bottom. As per the Orange Turd, "That's called business". A possible explanation for his moronic economic policies (at least in part).
DeleteRe your video, Stanley... voting while on probation was not what RN was referring to. BTW that White guy certainly seemed happy about a Black woman getting 5 years for voting.
Delete"By Any Means" biting you?
DeleteSo, you're for rules when it comes to sex between consenting adults, but no rules when it comes to voting? Or, rules that only apply to people voting Democrat, apparently.
DeleteRules like needing to be a citizen? lol!
DeleteOnly in your imagination does the Left oppose that rule.
DeleteNot only in Minus's imagination Dervish. It exists in tRump's and and the GOP's as well.
DeleteYes, of course. BTW, I have no vision problems, so BOLD for emphasis should be the rule and not used for entire comments.
DeleteOkey Dokey Dervish. I only do that for the benefit of (or irritation of) the rightwing wingnut. I thought it might help them see through the fog many of them dwell in constantly.
DeleteGuess which one's RN...
Delete...Answer
Delete:P
Delete:P
ReplyDelete