Sigh

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Monster Rain**

Why are you talking to me as if I'm the one with the problem?

You have your mind made up, good for you. I'm fine with gay people serving in the military. My point is that there's a lot of people that aren't, and I don't think that they're necessarily evil because of it.

And to your other point, no, there aren't separate showers for different sexualities because they weren't open about it until recently. Do you really not see the difference between the possibility that someone is a certain way and knowing that they are? You don't think that will change the dynamic a bit, right or wrong?

**Relapse**

dogma wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
I think painting anyone who objects to this as homophobic is pretty closed-minded too, if I'm honest. If a woman didn't want to shower with a man for the same reason and the reply was "Oh, he probably doesn't want to feth you anyway" I don't think it would be nearly as well received.

It isn't a 1-1 comparison, though. Hetero culture allows for same-sex showers without...ambiguity.

Relapse wrote:
I'm totally for letting gays serve in the military, but ridiculing people for having a concern like this is only going to make them less receptive to it.

Maybe, but there has been mileage in marginalizing people when their beliefs are....not congenial?

Why are you making things up and attributing them to me as quotes? I never said I was for gays in the military.

**LordofHats**

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Back in Truman's time, the bulk of the army came from areas with racial segregation, and those people and their parents thought that the coloreds needed to be segregated. They got over it, and they'll get over seeing gay people who don't pretend to be straight.

No one is claiming otherwise Bearer. I think your confusing people trying (and maybe failing) to articulate the complexity of the issue with being apologists for anti-gay sentiment in the military. We all know the military will get over it. The entire American society and culture will get over it.

Back in Truman's time the military was still institutionally racist even if it was no longer segregated btw. It would remain segregated until after the Korean War, and very racist as an institution until the early 1980's.

It's only an issue with chaplains who have no respect for God, and are willing to swear a false oath in his name to advance their position in this world. Any chaplain has sworn to follow the orders of the president and officers over them, and to follow regulations and the UCMJ. If they refuse to do so, they are violating an oath they took in God's name. Now, obviously there are plenty of charlatans pretending to be clergymen, but I don't think that worrying about the feelings chaplains willing to tell a lie and forswear in God's name is really imporant for us to do. Does anyone really need clergymen who's oath before God is worthless?

I don't think the spiritual advisor system will have a problem with the repeal of DADT. That system has a slew of other problems it has to deal with. Some of Jake's suggestions however I think have some relevance.

**BearersOfSalvation**

LordofHats wrote:I don't think there's anything progressive about it. I think the situation is different and not directly comparable. There's a bigger cultural background to bias against gays than bias against black people, and the bias is different itself.

In what way is the situation not comparable? You've got an irrational prejudice against a particular group. Sounds like the same thing to me. The cultural bias against gays is much more recent and shallower than bias against blacks - for example, slavery and the 3/5ths rule are in the constitution, while there is absolutely nothing in the US constitution that shows any bias against gays. This is all just scare words and ignorance of history, segregation was not just some minor thing to people back when it was around.

DADT changed nothing in the military. Prior too it no gays could serve. After it, gays could serve as long as no one knew about it. Effectively the situation didn't change (especially when gays started getting kicked out because of DADT). DADT was a compromise the military got because it meant they didn't have to deal with any of the questions or the trouble of integration.

DADT did change something in the military, it made it legal to be in the military if you were gay but kept it secret. Because of DADT, people who are gay have been serving in the military without breaking any regulations for almost two decades. And haven't needed seperate showers or whatever nonsense to manage it.

Again, I never said the argument was valid.

OK, so you're making an argument that even you don't think is valid. There doesn't seem to be much reason for me to respond to it then, since you're conceeding that the argument is worthless.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Why are you talking to me as if I'm the one with the problem?

I'm arguing with the position you're advocating. If you're defending people with 'the problem', then anyone disagreeing with you is going to end up talking to you as though you're the one with the problem.

And to your other point, no, there aren't separate showers for different sexualities because they weren't open about it until recently. Do you really not see the difference between the possibility that someone is a certain way and knowing that they are? You don't think that will change the dynamic a bit, right or wrong?

"Recently" as in what, the 70s in some big cities, 80s a bit broader, and basically everywhere by the 90s? No, I don't think it will change the dynamic at all, since if people were going to start adding gay locker rooms, they would have done it more than a decade ago. There have been openly gay people in locker rooms since at least the 90s, and I've never heard anything from anyone about making special gay showers in the US in general.

**LordofHats**

BearersOfSalvation wrote:In what way is the situation not comparable? You've got an irrational prejudice against a particular group. Sounds like the same thing to me. The cultural bias against gays is much more recent and shallower than bias against blacks - for example, slavery and the 3/5ths rule are in the constitution, while there is absolutely nothing in the US constitution that shows any bias against gays. This is all just scare words and ignorance of history, segregation was not just some minor thing to people back when it was around.

When the constitution was written the idea of anyone being openly gay was unthinkable in American culture. That should tell you plenty about what they thought about homosexuality (and is why no one wrote it into the Constitution). Homosexuality typically got punished under sodomy laws.

DADT did change something in the military, it made it legal to be in the military if you were gay but kept it secret. Because of DADT, people who are gay have been serving in the military without breaking any regulations for almost two decades. And haven't needed seperate showers or whatever nonsense to manage it.

They could have served before DADT while being gay. If you think there were no gays in the military before DADT you need to read more history. There's are entire books written on how USO shows in WWII played a huge role in the development of gay culture in the US (and drag shows) and how the military helped gays become organized to push for the civil rights.

It doesn't matter if DADT officially allowed gays to serve. It changed nothing because they still got thrown out if anyone knew which is exactly the same as it was before DADT. EDIT: Ah, no I guess that's not true. I suppose before DADT a gay soldier could be tried for sodomy, though I doubt there was much of that going on by the 90's.

OK, so you're making an argument that even you don't think is valid. There doesn't seem to be much reason for me to respond to it then, since you're conceeding that the argument is worthless.

I'm not making the argument, which you'd notice if you actually read the posts. Just because I mention a debate exists and that there is a argument for or against something, doesn't mean I support it or believe in it. I in fact don't. But the argument has people who believe in it and that presents a problem for DADT and its repeal and gays in the military. People early in the thread were asking about DADT, its purpose, and why it is there. I was attempting to explain it.

**Monster Rain**

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I'm arguing with the position you're advocating. If you're defending people with 'the problem', then anyone disagreeing with you is going to end up talking to you as though you're the one with the problem.

Ah. So much for objectivity.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Recently" as in what, the 70s in some big cities, 80s a bit broader, and basically everywhere by the 90s? No, I don't think it will change the dynamic at all, since if people were going to start adding gay locker rooms, they would have done it more than a decade ago. There have been openly gay people in locker rooms since at least the 90s, and I've never heard anything from anyone about making special gay showers in the US in general.

Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed in the 70s?

That is what we're talking about.

**dogma**

Monster Rain wrote:
This isn't going to take place on a message board or a place of pure logic and reason. There are real people with real hang-ups about this that are going need to be reached, and as I said before, ridicule and straw-man arguments don't help that. In fact, it does the opposite. Everyone who might have an issue with this isn't Fred Phelps crazy.

If logic and reason are not effective, what is left except ridicule? Well, outside physical punishment, anyway?

At some point changing policy really is about telling the minority that they need to shut up and cope; and those who favor the DADT repeal are in the minority in the military.

Monster Rain wrote:
What if we tried getting the same effect without making people resentful? Maybe educate people instead of saying "You're an backwards donkey-cave, get over it."?

Maybe I'm just feeling idealistic today.

Realistically, educating people is saying exactly that, just in a slightly less blunt fashion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
dogma wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
I think painting anyone who objects to this as homophobic is pretty closed-minded too, if I'm honest. If a woman didn't want to shower with a man for the same reason and the reply was "Oh, he probably doesn't want to feth you anyway" I don't think it would be nearly as well received.

It isn't a 1-1 comparison, though. Hetero culture allows for same-sex showers without...ambiguity.

Relapse wrote:
I'm totally for letting gays serve in the military, but ridiculing people for having a concern like this is only going to make them less receptive to it.

Maybe, but there has been mileage in marginalizing people when their beliefs are....not congenial?

Why are you making things up and attributing them to me as quotes? I never said I was for gays in the military.

I believe the term is "misquote".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
Look up recruiting stats that show zip-code maps of who enlists from around the country. You will see that the Army for example is predominantly middle class form conservative areas. Yes, there are others that enlist too, BUT since currently the types of kid most likely to raise his/her hand and volunteer to endure some really crappy things, and do it in time of war are coming form places other than the liberal parts of the country where openly gay folks are much more tolerated, recruiting once DADT is finally dead may be an issue, again, whether you think it should be or not, it is. Getting little Johny's Mom and Dad to buy off on him enlisting, well you do need to deal with THEIR feelings on the matter too.

Statistically, enlistees tend to be socially liberal, or at least become so after enlisting. The exceptions are the combat MOSs, which trend towards conservative populism. The argument is that being forced to deal with people you don't necessarily have anything in common with breeds a sense of pluralism. The combat MOSs are thought to buck this trend due to a highly insular set of experiences which creates a particular, and largely static, culture.

CptJake wrote:
Since there are States that do not recognize gay marriages, the dependent issue is going to be a big one. Right now when DADT goes away, there is NO provision to allow gay marriage in the military, so in fact, openly homosexual soldiers WILL BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. Don't blame the DoD, blame Congress and the Pres, one writes the laws, the other signs them.

Not really. What the military does in terms of benefits does not necessarily impact what any given state does. Little Johnny can collect benefits from his two daddies even if the state in which he is living does not recognize that they are married.

CptJake wrote:
Another issue, and this is one many of you will deny will happen, but I can point to several real world cases that convince me it will be an issue. The first time an openly gay troop gets pissed at a straight supervisor/leader, they WILL pull the discrimination card. That is going to have several effects. It will cause some leaders to hesitate to discipline a gay trooper. It will cause some good leaders to get crucified as sacrifice on the Alter of Political Correctness. Again, you can deny that this will happen, but your denial does not make your position correct.

Nor does your confidence make yours correct.

What you describe will happen, certainly, but considering the way allegations of sexual assault are handled in the military where superior officers are involved, I have a hard time believing it will be a significant issue.

CptJake wrote:
What about the many, many chaplains who cannot, according to their religion, support or advocate for gay troopers? You really cannot force someone with religious issues to just Shut Up and Deal With It.

Sure you can. The religiosity of an objection doesn't really have any bearing on the methods used to usurp it.

CptJake wrote:
Since the military seems to be the one Federal entity that Gets Stuff Done, thye will make this work. By law they have to. By nature they hate failing. I, again submit, the politicians could have done a damn better job than they did.

Politics are rough like that. Given American society this is about the best that could have been done.

**BearersOfSalvation**

Monster Rain wrote:Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed in the 70s?

That is what we're talking about.

No, we were talking about your silly attempt to equivocate between gender-segregated showers and gayness-segregated showers, in spite of the fact that segregated 'gay' and 'straight' showers don't exist in society as a whole even though there have been openly gay people using them for decades, while gender-segregated showers do. There is a huge difference between insisting that facilities should be set up with the same division used in society at large, and insisitng on a new, special division that isn't actually used in society at large. It's even worse when you consider that the 'male' and 'female' division is based on objective, easily determined physical characteristics, while the 'gay' and 'straight' is based on internal feelings and includes a lot of grey area and people who don't fit entirely into one category or the other.

Anyone and expecting more personal privacy after joining the military than they get in the civilian world is an idiot.

LordofHats wrote:They could have served before DADT while being gay. If you think there were no gays in the military before DADT you need to read more history... It changed nothing because they still got thrown out if anyone knew which is exactly the same as it was before DADT.

You seem to have difficulty with basic reading comprehension here - I never said anything to indicate that I thought there were no gays in the military before DADT, just that there were no gays LEGALLY in the military before it. DADT did change things, because it meant that it was LEGAL for gays to be in the military once it was passed. It changed who was legally allowed to be in the army, which is something. It is in fact the 'something' that we're discussing here, since we're just talking about allowing another class of people (people who are openly gay, not closeted) into the military.

There doesn't seem to be much point in discussion if you're just going to accuse me of saying things that I very clearly didn't and ignoring basic definitions of words.

I'm not making the argument,

You argue an awful lot for someone who's not making an argument. This whole "I'm going to make an argument, but if you point out the absurdities and historical innacuracies in it I'm going to say it's not my argument so pointing out problems in it doesn't count" defense that you and Monster Rain are engaging in just doesn't work.

**LordofHats**

BearersOfSalvation wrote:You seem to have difficulty with basic reading comprehension here - I never said anything to indicate that I thought there were no gays in the military before DADT, just that there were no gays LEGALLY in the military before it. DADT did change things, because it meant that it was LEGAL for gays to be in the military once it was passed. It changed who was legally allowed to be in the army, which is something. It is in fact the 'something' that we're discussing here, since we're just talking about allowing another class of people (people who are openly gay, not closeted) into the military.

That' something' being a symbolic gesture that doesn't amount to much. They got thrown out both before and after DADT. Gays didn't need legal permission to be in military before DADT, and DADT still had them thrown out for being gay. I don't consider that to mean much. It's politicians playing political games where they pretend to do something for you so you'll feel better and vote for them while simultaneously not really doing anything to help you. Gays needed no legal permission before DADT to get into the military. DADT giving them legal permission didn't change what happened to them if anyone found out they were gay. They still had to hide. The situation for gays in the military was unchanged. If anyone found out you were gay you got thrown out. It's a very simple concept to understand and I'm hoping it might sink in with repetition.

Being given legal permission to be somewhere doesn't mean anything if you get thrown out the moment someone notices you. That's the government saying "We give you permission to be here" and then saying "What, you were gay the whole time? Bye bye."

EDIT: I could see it as a step forward for the LBGT rights movement as a whole, because it did recognize their existence at least, but for gays in the military it did nothing to alleviate their struggle.

You argue an awful lot for someone who's not making an argument. This whole "I'm going to make an argument, but if you point out the absurdities and historical inaccuracies in it I'm going to say it's not my argument so pointing out problems in it doesn't count" defense that you and Monster Rain are engaging in just doesn't work.

Real challenges with reading comprehension I see. I never ever claimed it was my argument. I mentioned in the very first post where I brought it up that it is a non-issue and people who don't like it will have to deal with it (which oddly seems to be your position so why you feel the need to spend pages fighting a position I've never held is odd to me when we seem to be in agreement on the issue). I can acknowledge that an argument exists without supporting it. It's very easy. My sister thought 2 + 2 = 22 at one point in time. You're the one spending a massive amount of time arguing against a position no one ever supported which doesn't work for progressing a discussion.

You also have yet to actually point out any historical inaccuracies. You just keep bringing up racial segregation.

**Monster Rain**

BearersOfSalvation wrote:No, we were talking about your silly attempt to equivocate between gender-segregated showers and gayness-segregated showers...

You mad? The thread's about DADT. The YMCA is off-topic, and equivocating it with the military is, to use your word, silly.

As to the shower issue, to some people it is the same. You're going to need to accept that as a fact.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:...and insisitng on a new, special division that isn't actually used in society at large...

No I didn't.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:...while the 'gay' and 'straight' is based on internal feelings and includes a lot of grey area and people who don't fit entirely into one category or the other...

Right, but if you were paying attention we're talking about people who are already identified as gay.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:You argue an awful lot for someone who's not making an argument. This whole "I'm going to make an argument, but if you point out the absurdities and historical innacuracies in it I'm going to say it's not my argument so pointing out problems in it doesn't count" defense that you and Monster Rain are engaging in just doesn't work.

I think it works just fine. It would help if you calmed down a bit and actually read what was being written.

**dogma**

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
No, we were talking about your silly attempt to equivocate between gender-segregated showers and gayness-segregated showers...

You really just used the "word" "gayness"?

LordofHats wrote:
...in spite of the fact that segregated 'gay' and 'straight' showers don't exist in society as a whole even though there have been openly gay people using them for decades, while gender-segregated showers do.

Gender segregation would imply that homosexuals are segregated from heterosexuals. Modern society facilitates sex segregation, not gender segregation.

LordofHats wrote:
You seem to have difficulty with basic reading comprehension here - I never said anything to indicate that I thought there were no gays in the military before DADT, just that there were no gays LEGALLY in the military before it. DADT...

That's blatantly wrong. One could be gay, and in the military under DADT, it simply wasn't legally possible to be openly gay in the military under DADT.

**biccat**

LordofHats wrote:Homosexuality typically got punished under sodomy laws.

Actually, that's not true. At common law, co-conspirators weren't allowed to testify against one another. Given that sodomy is often done in private, homosexuals weren't punished under sodomy laws.

Those laws were usually reserved for spousal rape, where the woman was an unwilling participant, and therefore not an accomplice.

**LordofHats**

biccat wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Homosexuality typically got punished under sodomy laws.

Actually, that's not true. At common law, co-conspirators weren't allowed to testify against one another. Given that sodomy is often done in private, homosexuals weren't punished under sodomy laws.

Those laws were usually reserved for spousal rape, where the woman was an unwilling participant, and therefore not an accomplice.

Then why are sodomy laws always referenced as punishing homosexuals

(legitimate question, most books, as in like all two that I've read on the subject, mention it)

**biccat**

LordofHats wrote:
biccat wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Homosexuality typically got punished under sodomy laws.

Actually, that's not true. At common law, co-conspirators weren't allowed to testify against one another. Given that sodomy is often done in private, homosexuals weren't punished under sodomy laws.

Those laws were usually reserved for spousal rape, where the woman was an unwilling participant, and therefore not an accomplice.

Then why are sodomy laws always referenced as punishing homosexuals (legitimate question, most books, as in like all two that I've read on the subject, mention it)

Depends on what you mean by "punishing." Do you mean criminalizing their private behavior? Or do you mean systemic prosecutions of homosexuals for private conduct?

I'm pretty sure the second never happened. Sodomy cases are few and far between.

**LordofHats**

biccat wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
biccat wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Homosexuality typically got punished under sodomy laws.

Actually, that's not true. At common law, co-conspirators weren't allowed to testify against one another. Given that sodomy is often done in private, homosexuals weren't punished under sodomy laws.

Those laws were usually reserved for spousal rape, where the woman was an unwilling participant, and therefore not an accomplice.

Then why are sodomy laws always referenced as punishing homosexuals (legitimate question, most books, as in like all two that I've read on the subject, mention it)

Depends on what you mean by "punishing." Do you mean criminalizing their private behavior? Or do you mean systemic prosecutions of homosexuals for private conduct?

I'm pretty sure the second never happened. Sodomy cases are few and far between.

I meant criminalizing behavior (punishing was bad wording on my part). I have no idea if anyone ever actually got prosecuted for in reality. I was under the impression it was a possibility and that homosexuality was covered by sodomy laws.

**Melissia**

Relapse: So if you're wanting to kick homosexuals out of the military because they might potentially be dangerous to straight men, why not kick straight men out of the military because they're, by the same logic you use, provably dangerous to the women in the military?

**Kilkrazy**

LordofHats wrote:
dogma wrote:Europe seems to be doing just fine.

I think we both know the cultural differences between the US and Europe. It's not a straight thing. The US has this issue more, complicated, than Europe because the US held on to a strong Christian cultural identity much longer than the Europeans did. As a general rule, I think the US could be said to lag behind Europe in terms of its political culture by about twenty to thirty years. We tend to follow a lot of the same trends but with a time delay. EDIT: The US appears more change resistant than Europe at large is.

I think you may be right about that. If so, then perhaps enough time has passed to allow the US military to adapt to the changes in society.

DADT will have been a part of that process. It may have been a messy compromise -- perhaps it was the "least bad" thing to do at the time.

**biccat**

LordofHats wrote:Depends on what you mean by "punishing." Do you mean criminalizing their private behavior? Or do you mean systemic prosecutions of homosexuals for private conduct?

I'm pretty sure the second never happened. Sodomy cases are few and far between.

I meant criminalizing behavior (punishing was bad wording on my part). I have no idea if anyone ever actually got prosecuted for in reality. I was under the impression it was a possibility and that homosexuality was covered by sodomy laws.

**Emperors Faithful**

biccat wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "punishing." Do you mean criminalizing their private behavior? Or do you mean systemic prosecutions of homosexuals for private conduct?

I'm pretty sure the second never happened. Sodomy cases are few and far between.

I meant criminalizing behavior (punishing was bad wording on my part). I have no idea if anyone ever actually got prosecuted for in reality. I was under the impression it was a possibility and that homosexuality was covered by sodomy laws.

Except for rare cases, homosexuals weren't prosecuted for their conduct. Given that there was no real injury, I'm not sure what the objection is about.

It's like the Mann Act, that punished transporting women across state lines for immoral purposes (non-marital sex mostly). On the outside, it's a problem. But the law was used to prosecute men who had sex with underage girls (arguably a problem) and others who were wanted for more serious crimes (like one of Al Capone's hitmen).

Somehow I sincerely doubt that homosexuals have not been persecuted thoughout for their conduct throughout history. The major reason why sodomy laws weren't used massively is becuase they were private, and almost impossible to prove without either one participant making a complaint or at least eyewitnesses. Just becuase it wasn't an amazingly effective tool for hunting persecuting homosexuals doesn't mean that isn't what its purpose was.

Aside:
We had a big thing over this in Tasmania (kind of like the *insert buck-toothed, backwards American state here* of Australia). The laws against sodomy were taken to the High Court of Australia, equivalent to the US Supreme Court, and international law was used to demonstrate that the law had no business in operation as it infringed on the rights of the individual with regards to privacy.

**Melissia**

Biccat: Sodomy laws were used as tools to persecute homosexuals, which was part of their purpose without any doubt. Dunno why you're trafficking in revisionist history by claiming they didn't do this.

Yes, homosexuals were and even today still are persecuted for simply being homosexual-- even in the United States of America. The U.S. is liberal in this sense because in some countries it's punishable by death, but the U.S. is not entirely innocent.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:Biccat: Sodomy laws were used as tools to persecute homosexuals, which was part of their purpose without any doubt. Dunno why you're trafficking in revisionist history by claiming they didn't do this.

See Lawrence v. Texas. Was the Supreme Court engaging in "revisionist history" on this point? If you have some source for your belief that sodomy laws were used to persecute homosexuals, I'd love to hear it.

Laws prohibiting sodomy do not seem to have been
enforced against consenting adults acting in private. A
substantial number of sodomy prosecutions and convictions
for which there are surviving records were for predatory
acts against those who could not or did not consent, as
in the case of a minor or the victim of an assault. As to
these, one purpose for the prohibitions was to ensure there
would be no lack of coverage if a predator committed a
sexual assault that did not constitute rape as defined by
the criminal law. Thus the model sodomy indictments
presented in a 19th-century treatise, see 2 Chitty, supra,
at 49, addressed the predatory acts of an adult man
against a minor girl or minor boy. Instead of targeting
relations between consenting adults in private, 19th century
sodomy prosecutions typically involved relations
between men and minor girls or minor boys, relations
between adults involving force, relations between adults
implicating disparity in status, or relations between men
and animals.

To the extent that there were any prosecutions for the
acts in question, 19th-century evidence rules imposed a
burden that would make a conviction more difficult to
obtain even taking into account the problems always
inherent in prosecuting consensual acts committed in
private. Under then-prevailing standards, a man could
not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a
consenting partner, because the partner was considered
an accomplice. A partner's testimony, however, was admissible
if he or she had not consented to the act or was a
minor, and therefore incapable of consent. See, e.g., F.
Wharton, Criminal Law 443 (2d ed. 1852); 1 F. Wharton,
Criminal Law 512 (8th ed. 1880). The rule may explain in
part the infrequency of these prosecutions. In all events
that infrequency makes it difficult to say that society
approved of a rigorous and systematic punishment of the
consensual acts committed in private and by adults. The
longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy
upon which the Bowers decision placed such reliance is as
consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative
sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting
acts because of their homosexual character.

Melissia wrote:Yes, homosexuals were and even today still are persecuted for simply being homosexual-- even in the United States of America. The U.S. is liberal in this sense because in some countries it's punishable by death, but the U.S. is not entirely innocent.

You're, presumably, criticizing the US for the actions of its citizens, but comparing them to states that have a policy of discrimination? There is a world of difference between private action (which are disfavored by the government, see hate crime laws) and public action that is government sanctioned.

**Melissia**

biccat wrote:See Lawrence v. Texas. Was the Supreme Court engaging in "revisionist history" on this point?

The Supreme court is hardly infallible.

biccat wrote:If you have some source for your belief that sodomy laws were used to persecute homosexuals, I'd love to hear it.

Lawrence and Garner were arrested for homosexual sex, which was against the law in Texas. This was what originally led to Lawrence v. Texas in the first place. Many, many states have had similar laws.

biccat wrote:You're, presumably, criticizing the US for the actions of its citizens, but comparing them to states that have a policy of discrimination?

No.

Homosexuals are not equal under the law.

**Emperors Faithful**

biccat wrote:
To the extent that there were any prosecutions for the
acts in question, 19th-century evidence rules imposed a
burden that would make a conviction more difficult to
obtain even taking into account the problems always
inherent in prosecuting consensual acts committed in
private. Under then-prevailing standards, a man could
not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a
consenting partner, because the partner was considered
an accomplice. A partner's testimony, however, was admissible
if he or she had not consented to the act or was a
minor, and therefore incapable of consent. See, e.g., F.
Wharton, Criminal Law 443 (2d ed. 1852); 1 F. Wharton,
Criminal Law 512 (8th ed. 1880). The rule may explain in
part the infrequency of these prosecutions. In all events
that infrequency makes it difficult to say that society
approved of a rigorous and systematic punishment of the
consensual acts committed in private and by adults. The
longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy
upon which the Bowers decision placed such reliance is as
consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative
sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting
acts because of their homosexual character.

That only seems to hinder your argument, if anything.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:The Supreme court is hardly infallible.

Not infallible, but well informed. Which is why I used it as a source, because it supports what I said.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Under then-prevailing standards, a man could
not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a
consenting partner, because the partner was considered
an accomplice.

That only seems to hinder your argument, if anything.

How does the bolded section hinder my argument? If the act is consensual and private, and neither party can testify about what happened, how do you propose to convict someone?

**Melissia**

biccat wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Under then-prevailing standards, a man could
not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a
consenting partner, because the partner was considered
an accomplice.

That only seems to hinder your argument, if anything.

How does the bolded section hinder my argument? If the act is consensual and private, and neither party can testify about what happened, how do you propose to convict someone?

This is incredibly dense. The reason that the consenting partner cannot testify is because they are an accomplice, not because of legal equality.

It's like if a black guy couldn't testify that his white woman lover had sex with him because that would incriminate him

**Emperors Faithful**

Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Under then-prevailing standards, a man could
not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a
consenting partner, because the partner was considered
an accomplice.

That only seems to hinder your argument, if anything.

How does the bolded section hinder my argument? If the act is consensual and private, and neither party can testify about what happened, how do you propose to convict someone?
This is incredibly dense. The reason that the consenting partner cannot testify is because they are an accomplice, not because of legal equality.

It's like if a black guy couldn't testify that his white woman lover had sex with him because that would incriminate him

Exactly. Though I don't think there was an actual law on people of different colours having sex...was there?

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Under then-prevailing standards, a man could
not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a
consenting partner, because the partner was considered
an accomplice.

That only seems to hinder your argument, if anything.

How does the bolded section hinder my argument? If the act is consensual and private, and neither party can testify about what happened, how do you propose to convict someone?
This is incredibly dense. The reason that the consenting partner cannot testify is because they are an accomplice, not because of legal equality.

It's like if a black guy couldn't testify that his white woman lover had sex with him because that would incriminate him

I never said anything about "legal equality" (whatever that means), I said that sodomy laws weren't used to prosecute homosexuals for private behavior. The fact that private homosexual behavior couldn't be prosecuted due to evidenciary issues simply reinforces this point.

**Emperors Faithful**

biccat wrote:I never said anything about "legal equality" (whatever that means), I said that sodomy laws weren't used to prosecute homosexuals for private behavior. The fact that private homosexual behavior couldn't be prosecuted due to evidenciary issues simply reinforces this point.

Actualy, no it doesn't.

In fact I don't see how evidenciary issues pardons the practice of targetting homosexuals at all. That's like saying that the Criminal Code doesn't persecute murderers becuase sometimes there's not enough evidence to get a conviction.

**biccat**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
biccat wrote:I never said anything about "legal equality" (whatever that means), I said that sodomy laws weren't used to prosecute homosexuals for private behavior. The fact that private homosexual behavior couldn't be prosecuted due to evidenciary issues simply reinforces this point.

Actualy, no it doesn't.

In fact I don't see how evidenciary issues pardons the practice of targetting homosexuals at all. That's like saying that the Criminal Code doesn't persecute murderers becuase sometimes there's not enough evidence to get a conviction.

You'll have to come up with some evidence that there was a practice of targetting homosexuals. Because like I said, and as the quote above shows, anti-sodomy laws weren't used to target, persecute, or otherwise interfere with private, consensual homosexual sodomy.

**Emperors Faithful**

biccat wrote:
You'll have to come up with some evidence that there was a practice of targetting homosexuals. Because like I said, and as the quote above shows, anti-sodomy laws weren't used to target, persecute, or otherwise interfere with private, consensual homosexual sodomy.

This is the one of the worst cases of History Revisionism I've ever seen.* If two private, consensual homoseuxal partners engaged in sodomy (which unbelieveably is not uncommon in homosexual partnerships) and there was evidence of it, such as a witness/photographs etc, then they could be prosecuted.

*And I've talked to Holocaust Denialists.