You're floundering. I've met by burden.
Fact: Sodomy laws exist.
Fact: They have been enforced.
Even if they weren't enforced, the point is that their sexual exchange is ILLEGAL. If you mean to imply with your "it's not enforced (unsupported BTW)" argument that these sodomy laws are wrong, you're making my case for me. If you mean to imply they are trivial, I don't think you get to be the judge, you've got nothing to risk, it's not trivial for others.
T
K
O
We are a nation of laws. The pledge of allegiance is to the flag and to the country for which it stands.
If you don't like the country for which it stands, feel free to not say the pledge.
One of the things about living in a pseudo-democracy is that laws get made that some people do not agree with. Yours may be sodomy laws and if that's how you roll, that's fine. For others it may be helmet laws, abortion laws, or red lights. But, you have the power to elect representatives that can change the law, but so does everyone else. If your moral code is out of synch with the majority, that becomes your cross to bear.
Doesn't change the fact that the US is still a great country worthy of our allegiance. Think of it this way, when you say the pledge, think of the things that you DO like and pledge allegiance to those things and know in your heart that you will do your best to change the things you disagree with.
I suggest maybe attending some VFW meetings and look into the many veterans eyes as they say the pledge and realize that they know what it means to say the pledge. That when you cuss at your government for making what you consider to be silly games with something as idiotic as a pledge that those men and women have sacrificed a lot for your ability to do so.
Or, maybe go to an elementary school where their parents are over seas now fighting in conflicts you morally oppose and explain to them what a rotten country their parents are serving and that when they say the pledge of allegiance in the morning, they are really just supporting a corrupt government with sodomy laws.
See how that plays out for you.
McG wrote: If you don't like the country for which it stands, feel free to not say the pledge.
How do you conservatives come up with these outrageous conclusions about others just because we don't agree with you? "If you don't like the country..." is similar to "go back where you came from." Both are voiced in ignorance and bigotry.
Have you actually read why most of us don't like the pledge?
We really don't need you to tell us "...feel free to not say the pledge."
What a putz!
Diest TKO wrote:You're floundering. I've met by burden.
Fact: Sodomy laws exist.
Fact: They have been enforced.
Even if they weren't enforced, the point is that their sexual exchange is ILLEGAL. If you mean to imply with your "it's not enforced (unsupported BTW)" argument that these sodomy laws are wrong, you're making my case for me. If you mean to imply they are trivial, I don't think you get to be the judge, you've got nothing to risk, it's not trivial for others.
T
K
O
You stated that one of the things wrong with America is that it regulates the bedroom. I asked how America regulates the bedroom. You gave the sodomy laws as an example. My response was that there may be cases where very old laws in some location are on the books because no one has spent the time to repeal them, but, in fact they aren't enforced. Oh, there may be extraordinarily rare cases where some nut tries to enforce them, but no more than that. If you wish to disagree, it would be necessary for you to show me that sodomy laws are enforced frequently in America.
Brandon9000 wrote:My response was that there may be cases where very old laws in some location are on the books because no one has spent the time to repeal them, but, in fact they aren't enforced.
You don't keep up with the news, do you?
You can read here the CNN report on the sodomy law in Texas which was struck down at the beginning of the Supreme's new term in 2003. It was particularly significant because it voided an earlier ruling from 1986 which allowed state laws which defined homosexual acts as "deviant" to punish people for engaging in those acts. When this Texas law was struck down, similar laws in 12 other states were also struck down.
It came before the Supreme Court because Texas had attempted to enforce the law. According to the CNN article, as recently as 1960, there were anti-sodomy laws in every state.
I happen to think this was a poor choice of example on the part of Diest--but his failure to provide a strong example of what he is attempting to argue is hardly countered by false claims on your part.
I just wanted to say--reading back a bit--you can like the country, but hate the idea of repeating a pledge. Carry on...
Setanta wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:My response was that there may be cases where very old laws in some location are on the books because no one has spent the time to repeal them, but, in fact they aren't enforced.
You don't keep up with the news, do you?
You can read here the CNN report on the sodomy law in Texas which was struck down at the beginning of the Supreme's new term in 2003. It was particularly significant because it voided an earlier ruling from 1986 which allowed state laws which defined homosexual acts as "deviant" to punish people for engaging in those acts. When this Texas law was struck down, similar laws in 12 other states were also struck down.
It came before the Supreme Court because Texas had attempted to enforce the law. According to the CNN article, as recently as 1960, there were anti-sodomy laws in every state.
I happen to think this was a poor choice of example on the part of Diest--but his failure to provide a strong example of what he is attempting to argue is hardly countered by false claims on your part.
I've never denied that it happens, but when TKO asserted that one of the things wrong with America is that it regulates the bedroom, he was, in effect, asserting that there is frequent enforcement of the sodomy laws here. This is what I dispute. I have never known of anyone in any place I have lived being arrested for private sexual behavior between consenting adults. I have never read about it in a local newspaper. I have almost never read about it in a national newspaper. My assertion is that enforcement of this isn't common. I could also point out that your example shows that these laws have now been ruled unconstitutional, so that even the rare previous enforcement is now much less likely.
Brandon9000 wrote:Setanta wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:My response was that there may be cases where very old laws in some location are on the books because no one has spent the time to repeal them, but, in fact they aren't enforced.
You don't keep up with the news, do you?
You can read here the CNN report on the sodomy law in Texas which was struck down at the beginning of the Supreme's new term in 2003. It was particularly significant because it voided an earlier ruling from 1986 which allowed state laws which defined homosexual acts as "deviant" to punish people for engaging in those acts. When this Texas law was struck down, similar laws in 12 other states were also struck down.
It came before the Supreme Court because Texas had attempted to enforce the law. According to the CNN article, as recently as 1960, there were anti-sodomy laws in every state.
I happen to think this was a poor choice of example on the part of Diest--but his failure to provide a strong example of what he is attempting to argue is hardly countered by false claims on your part.
I've never denied that it happens, but when TKO asserted that one of the things wrong with America is that it regulates the bedroom, he was, in effect, asserting that there is frequent enforcement of the sodomy laws here. This is what I dispute. I have never known of anyone in any place I have lived being arrested for private sexual behavior between consenting adults. I have never read about it in a local newspaper. I have almost never read about it in a national newspaper. My assertion is that enforcement of this isn't common. I could also point out that your example shows that these laws have now been ruled unconstitutional, so that even the rare previous enforcement is now much less likely.
Except in Nevada, most states have laws against prostitution. Two "consenting" adults doesn't even come close.
cicerone imposter wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Setanta wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:My response was that there may be cases where very old laws in some location are on the books because no one has spent the time to repeal them, but, in fact they aren't enforced.
You don't keep up with the news, do you?
You can read here the CNN report on the sodomy law in Texas which was struck down at the beginning of the Supreme's new term in 2003. It was particularly significant because it voided an earlier ruling from 1986 which allowed state laws which defined homosexual acts as "deviant" to punish people for engaging in those acts. When this Texas law was struck down, similar laws in 12 other states were also struck down.
It came before the Supreme Court because Texas had attempted to enforce the law. According to the CNN article, as recently as 1960, there were anti-sodomy laws in every state.
I happen to think this was a poor choice of example on the part of Diest--but his failure to provide a strong example of what he is attempting to argue is hardly countered by false claims on your part.
I've never denied that it happens, but when TKO asserted that one of the things wrong with America is that it regulates the bedroom, he was, in effect, asserting that there is frequent enforcement of the sodomy laws here. This is what I dispute. I have never known of anyone in any place I have lived being arrested for private sexual behavior between consenting adults. I have never read about it in a local newspaper. I have almost never read about it in a national newspaper. My assertion is that enforcement of this isn't common. I could also point out that your example shows that these laws have now been ruled unconstitutional, so that even the rare previous enforcement is now much less likely.
Except in Nevada, most states have laws against prostitution. Two "consenting" adults doesn't even come close.
I would hardly think that laws against prostitution amount to proof that America is lagging the world in liberty and justice.
Brandon9000 wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Setanta wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:My response was that there may be cases where very old laws in some location are on the books because no one has spent the time to repeal them, but, in fact they aren't enforced.
You don't keep up with the news, do you?
You can read here the CNN report on the sodomy law in Texas which was struck down at the beginning of the Supreme's new term in 2003. It was particularly significant because it voided an earlier ruling from 1986 which allowed state laws which defined homosexual acts as "deviant" to punish people for engaging in those acts. When this Texas law was struck down, similar laws in 12 other states were also struck down.
It came before the Supreme Court because Texas had attempted to enforce the law. According to the CNN article, as recently as 1960, there were anti-sodomy laws in every state.
I happen to think this was a poor choice of example on the part of Diest--but his failure to provide a strong example of what he is attempting to argue is hardly countered by false claims on your part.
I've never denied that it happens, but when TKO asserted that one of the things wrong with America is that it regulates the bedroom, he was, in effect, asserting that there is frequent enforcement of the sodomy laws here. This is what I dispute. I have never known of anyone in any place I have lived being arrested for private sexual behavior between consenting adults. I have never read about it in a local newspaper. I have almost never read about it in a national newspaper. My assertion is that enforcement of this isn't common. I could also point out that your example shows that these laws have now been ruled unconstitutional, so that even the rare previous enforcement is now much less likely.
Except in Nevada, most states have laws against prostitution. Two "consenting" adults doesn't even come close.
I would hardly think that laws against prostitution amount to proof that America is lagging the world in liberty and justice.
Since when did this discussion change to "proof that America is lagging the world in liberty and justice?"
Most states have repealed sodomy laws, but even those states with sodomy laws are rarely and "selectively" enforced - whatever that means.
From Wiki: Penalties and Enforcement
The penalty for violating a sodomy law varies very widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The most harsh penalties are in the state of Idaho, where sodomy can theoretically earn a life sentence. Massachusetts follows with a possible 20 year sentence, followed by Michigan with 15 years.
In most US states the laws are no longer enforced, or are very selectively enforced. This has been very helpful to those trying to overturn the laws, as selective enforcement is illegal under US law.
All I say is that saying a pledge should mean something and that you should know what you are pledging to.
Go ahead and pledge your support if that's how you feel you can contribute. Some of us feel there is a greater way to contribute.
T
K
O
cicerone imposter wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Setanta wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:My response was that there may be cases where very old laws in some location are on the books because no one has spent the time to repeal them, but, in fact they aren't enforced.
You don't keep up with the news, do you?
You can read here the CNN report on the sodomy law in Texas which was struck down at the beginning of the Supreme's new term in 2003. It was particularly significant because it voided an earlier ruling from 1986 which allowed state laws which defined homosexual acts as "deviant" to punish people for engaging in those acts. When this Texas law was struck down, similar laws in 12 other states were also struck down.
It came before the Supreme Court because Texas had attempted to enforce the law. According to the CNN article, as recently as 1960, there were anti-sodomy laws in every state.
I happen to think this was a poor choice of example on the part of Diest--but his failure to provide a strong example of what he is attempting to argue is hardly countered by false claims on your part.
I've never denied that it happens, but when TKO asserted that one of the things wrong with America is that it regulates the bedroom, he was, in effect, asserting that there is frequent enforcement of the sodomy laws here. This is what I dispute. I have never known of anyone in any place I have lived being arrested for private sexual behavior between consenting adults. I have never read about it in a local newspaper. I have almost never read about it in a national newspaper. My assertion is that enforcement of this isn't common. I could also point out that your example shows that these laws have now been ruled unconstitutional, so that even the rare previous enforcement is now much less likely.
Except in Nevada, most states have laws against prostitution. Two "consenting" adults doesn't even come close.
I would hardly think that laws against prostitution amount to proof that America is lagging the world in liberty and justice.
Since when did this discussion change to "proof that America is lagging the world in liberty and justice?"
That was what I was debating with TKO, and then, briefly, Setanta.
Diest TKO wrote:All I say is that saying a pledge should mean something and that you should know what you are pledging to.
Go ahead and pledge your support if that's how you feel you can contribute. Some of us feel there is a greater way to contribute.
T
K
O
First of all, I've stated several times now that I think the pledge should be stopped. I have said this consistently, but you have apparently not noticed. Secondly, that's not all you are saying. You made a list of condemnations of the United States, particularly the state of liberty and justice here, none of which you appear to be able to back up. I have to ask myself why someone would rail against the sins of the US, state that many other countries are more free, and then be unable to demonstrate the truth of any of it. I suspect that the answer is that you inveigh against the faults of the US because you enjoy it.
cicerone imposter wrote:Most states have repealed sodomy laws, but even those states with sodomy laws are rarely and "selectively" enforced - whatever that means.
From Wiki: Penalties and Enforcement
The penalty for violating a sodomy law varies very widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The most harsh penalties are in the state of Idaho, where sodomy can theoretically earn a life sentence. Massachusetts follows with a possible 20 year sentence, followed by Michigan with 15 years.
In most US states the laws are no longer enforced, or are very selectively enforced. This has been very helpful to those trying to overturn the laws, as selective enforcement is illegal under US law.
Mass. has allowing same sex marriage, but sodomy is punishable by 20 years in the slammer?
Brandon9000 wrote:Diest TKO wrote:All I say is that saying a pledge should mean something and that you should know what you are pledging to.
Go ahead and pledge your support if that's how you feel you can contribute. Some of us feel there is a greater way to contribute.
T
K
O
First of all, I've stated several times now that I think the pledge should be stopped. I have said this consistently, but you have apparently not noticed. Secondly, that's not all you are saying. You made a list of condemnations of the United States, particularly the state of liberty and justice here, none of which you appear to be able to back up. I have to ask myself why someone would rail against the sins of the US, state that many other countries are more free, and then be unable to demonstrate the truth of any of it. I suspect that the answer is that you inveigh against the faults of the US because you enjoy it.
I've noticed every time you've said that you think that it should not be said.
As for everything else, you keep moving the goalpost, so I'm not going to participate. I've already given concrete examples.
T
K
O
There has been anemic arguments as to why the Pledge may be a farce, but the arguments for eliminating the Pledge from public institutions doesn't even rise to that low level.
If you don't want to say the Pledge in a public setting, keep your gob zipped. You will not be arrested. If you want to tell the future Little Diest to zip his gob during the Pledge go ahead. He won't be expelled.
Why you weeny warriors want to make a grand stand against the Pledge can only be defined in unflattering terms.
Have I said that YOU can't or shouldn't say it?
Strawman, Finn.
T
K
O
Diest TKO wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Diest TKO wrote:All I say is that saying a pledge should mean something and that you should know what you are pledging to.
Go ahead and pledge your support if that's how you feel you can contribute. Some of us feel there is a greater way to contribute.
T
K
O
First of all, I've stated several times now that I think the pledge should be stopped. I have said this consistently, but you have apparently not noticed. Secondly, that's not all you are saying. You made a list of condemnations of the United States, particularly the state of liberty and justice here, none of which you appear to be able to back up. I have to ask myself why someone would rail against the sins of the US, state that many other countries are more free, and then be unable to demonstrate the truth of any of it. I suspect that the answer is that you inveigh against the faults of the US because you enjoy it.
I've noticed every time you've said that you think that it should not be said.
As for everything else, you keep moving the goalpost, so I'm not going to participate. I've already given concrete examples.
T
K
O
Yes, you sure have. You gave as an example the sodomy laws. Good example, except for the tiny problem that they're old laws which are virtually never enforced. You said that black people are sentenced to death for crimes for which white people are characteristically given life sentences, but failed to demonstrate how that indicates a problem with the system. As I pointed out, this might indicate only the prejudices of individual jurors, which would be no indication of a flaw either in the jury system or in the structure of American courts. It might also be that black people actually do commit aggravated murder more often, simply because their culture was damaged by slavery, and later by discrimination, and that it will simply take a little longer for the damage to heal. You haven't shown in any way, shape, or form that this indicates a structural flaw in the present justice system. Etc., etc.
I also brought up military service and adoption rights. Did you miss that?
You keep moving the goalpost 9000. The establishment that there are in fact sodomy laws puts an unjust power in the hands of police forces. Whether or not they enforce it is irrelevant, it's the fact that it can be held over your head, or inspire fear or mistrust in the judicial system.
T
K
O
