Montana GOP: Homosexuality is a crime

[Danno 1,228]

Just out of interest Danno, do you believe the abusive sex is worse when it is man against boy than any other abusive sex?

"Worse" as in physically, mentally morally...?

I experience to judge by but if I were to speculate, I would assume a typical 15year old boy... having to pick the lesser evil of being molested by a male teacher or female teacher would choose the female teacher.

But these crimes can take place in such a wide variety of circumstances, I doubt one could draw across the board conclusions.. so why even try?

[Peikko 1,575]

I made the same case that few people were ever sought after for simply having sodomy with their wife or even boyfriend and you dismissed it..... yet you find a reason to allow it for the prosecution of drugs.

Paraphernalia laws like sodomy laws are tools to discover or further punish more serious crimes.

This is why if you get pulled over and rolling papers are found, you will then be further searched, if nothing is found..... little or nothing is done about the rolling papers.

MC, we have had homos in this country for a long time and though people generally held an even greater disgust for such things before.... we don't have a history of persecuting these victimless crimes.... unless evidence of such behavior was thrown in the lap of the justice system.

However I do understand your position... The law its self stigmatizes those who for some reason wrap their identity around their sex life.

Just how disingenuous are you going to get Danno? Are you honestly suggesting that you are totally ignorant of the past use of sodomy law to incarcerate homosexuals for being homosexuals? Are you seriously suggesting that homosexuality has historically been a closet activity because of what? Because some people find sodomy slightly off rather than because merely being known as a homosexual would place you in an untenable situation by virtue of that fact that any sexual relationship you engaged in was specifically illegal? Next you will suggest that homosexuals would have absolutely nothing to fear if sodomy were made illegal.

Worse yet is your charge that it is those who engage in same sex relations that wrap their identity around their sex lives. I find it really quite distasteful that you can use such arguments to rationalise a position that is unashamedly discriminatory. Homosexuals do not demand to be stigmatised simply for living normal lives they would never bring it up if living a normal life was not constantly restricted by bad law.

[Peikko 1,575]

"Worse" as in physically, mentally morally...?

I experience to judge by but if I were to speculate, I would assume a typical 15year old boy... having to pick the lesser evil of being molested by a male teacher or female teacher would choose the female teacher.

But these crimes can take place in such a wide variety of circumstances, I doubt one could draw across the board conclusions.. so why even try?

I did not ask you to pick whether a boy would prefer to be molested by a male or a female, I asked you if you specifically thought that a man abusing a boy was worse than all other predatory sexual crime? Sodomy laws after all could only ever bolster a crime where sodomy took place and 9 times out of 10 that is going to be a man having sex with a boy rather a man having sex with a girl. It is never going to be woman having sex with a child of either sex.

I personally view all predatory sexual crimes as demanding the ability to sentence harshly when the circumstances demand it, and would prefer 100% to allow for harsher sentencing across the board than rely on sodomy laws that would only be applicable in the minority of cases particularly as doing so necessarily pushes homosexuals into an untenable position where any sexual relationships they engage in are illegal. I am sure most people would balk at knowing they were doing something illegal as part of normal every day life, but apparently not you. Why would you prefer to make sodomy illegal than change existing sentencing for statutory rape in order to ensure people get a proper sentence for their crimes?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

IMO, since we are a secular nation, laws should be written from an ethical standpoint and not moralistic one. Therefore homosexual acts, bestiality, and incest should not be outlawed.

Obviously animals must be protected from being physically harmed, and in terms of incest if one person is over 21 and the other is under 16 that is a consent issue.

I actually believe that using the idea of "preditory sex" is itself a slippery slope. From a purely evolutionary standpoint sex is predatory. In fact many feminist support the notion that heterosexual sex is predatory from the female perspective.

[Peikko 1,575]

IMO, since we are a secular nation, laws should be written from an ethical standpoint and not moralistic one. Therefore homosexual acts, bestiality, and incest should not be outlawed.

Obviously animals must be protected from being physically harmed, and in terms of incest if one person is over 21 and the other is under 16 that is a consent issue.

I actually believe that using the idea of "preditory sex" is itself a slippery slope. From a purely evolutionary standpoint sex is predatory. In fact many feminist support the notion that heterosexual sex is predatory from the female perspective.

Morals are a framework of ethical judgments, it is not an 'either or' situation.

Predatory sex is not a slippery slope, extreme feminism notwithstanding. However if you do not like the terminology, use something else. However I am sure you are not arguing against the idea that those who are not in a position to make an informed decision about having sex should be protected from those who would use this uninformed state in order to demand someone have sex with them whether or not accompanied by other forms of physical abuse and all while knowing that the person they are forcing into the act is not consenting to it but submitting because they have no choice and indeed it is that very act of enforced submission that enhances the act for the predator.

Any woman who feels that is how a normal heterosexual act is undertaken clearly is not in a position to enjoy heterosexual sex and should refrain from engaging in it and she clearly has the ability to do just that AND still be able to conceive if she so desires which completely separates her from the position of those who are targeted by a sexual predator.

[Peikko 1,575]

Any argument that seeks to explain human social behaviour that starts with 'from an evolutionary standpoint' is pretty suspect. Nothing about evolution plays into social dynamics, it merely explains why social species have an advantage in certain environments, nothing more.

[Danno 1,228]

Worse yet is your charge that it is those who engage in same sex relations that wrap their identity around their sex lives. I find it really quite distasteful that you can use such arguments to rationalise a position that is unashamedly discriminatory. Homosexuals do not demand to be stigmatised simply for living normal lives they would never bring it up if living a normal life was not constantly restricted by bad law.

Seriously MC, sometimes you write stuff that is so far out of the bounds of reality ... it's hard to know how to take you.

Have you ever even been to a Gay pride event, even picked up a gay publication? People who have nothing other than their sexuality in common band together and form groups clubs, organizations and publications.

We have gay cook books, gay haircare places , Gay clothiers, gay Choruses and Gay garden clubs.

Here is a recent political Gathering.

Yes we even have **-conservatives.

[Danno 1,228]

IMO, since we are a secular nation, laws should be written from an ethical standpoint and not moralistic one. Therefore homosexual acts, bestiality, and incest should not be outlawed.

Obviously animals must be protected from being physically harmed, and in terms of incest if one person is over 21 and the other is under 16 that is a consent issue.

I actually believe that using the idea of "preditory sex" is itself a slippery slope. From a purely evolutionary standpoint sex is predatory. In fact many feminist support the notion that heterosexual sex is predatory from the female perspective.

Now there is a consistency I can respect, even if I disagree.

[Darnell 8,478]

The Republican Party in Montana still wants to make homosexuality illegal.

The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997.

...

Gay rights have been rapidly advancing nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay marriage is now allowed in five states and Washington, D.C., a federal court recently ruled the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional, and even a conservative tea party group in Montana ousted its president over an anti-gay exchange in Facebook.

But going against the grain is the Montana GOP statement, which falls under the "Crime" section of the GOP platform. It states: "We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gays_in_montana

So, now what?

let's see -

The candidates a'runnin', on the GOP ticket in Montana, from dog catcher to Judge to State Senator to US Representative -

must all support this plank in the platform? OK ! I'll buy that, for a bit.

and then?

If a majority of 'voting folk' get elected (State Reps, State Senators) that are members of the GOP - they will PUSH to have the state laws changed because they all signed off on that plank of the Montana GOP Platform ? OK ! Got It ! (US Reps, US Senators, have no impact on this, as it's state law that is to be affected)

and then what?

IMO, seems a lot of 'what ifs' and 'if/thens' there...

I guess if one truly wanted to 'make a difference', you'd get 400,000 of yer closest friends to move to Montana, become registered Democrats, and VOTE DEMOCRAT in the elections, just to keep any homosexuality laws off the books, for a few seasons, yes?

Oh wait, could that be a plan for the National GLBT Coalition? Hey ! I like that idea, much ! Should be a new glut of houses for sale in Houston, in the better parts of town, after the migration.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Darnell

[Peikko 1,575]

Seriously MC, sometimes you write stuff that is so far out of the bounds of reality ... it's hard to know how to take you.

Have you ever even been to a Gay pride event, even picked up a gay publication? People who have nothing other than their sexuality in common band together and form groups clubs, organizations and publications.

We have gay cook books, gay haircare places , Gay clothiers, gay Choruses and Gay garden clubs.

Here is a recent political Gathering.

Yes we even have **-conservatives.

Instead of getting sidetracked on all this stuff that is really totally irrelevant, try answering this point here Danno:

Why would you prefer to make sodomy illegal than change existing sentencing for statutory rape in order to ensure people get a proper sentence for their crimes?

[Danno 1,228]

Instead of getting sidetracked on all this stuff that is really totally irrelevant, try answering this point here Danno:

Why would you prefer to make sodomy illegal than change existing sentencing for statutory rape in order to ensure people get a proper sentence for their crimes?

I would think if two young women in different parts of town were raped on the same night, the person who additionally sodomized the victim .. should get even more time.

In fact we don't even need a fictitious crime lets look at one in the news recently.

Roman Polanski sexual abuse case

On 11 March 1977, Polanski was arrested for the sexual assault of a 13-year-old, Samantha Geimer, that occurred the day before at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson.[46][56] The girl testified before a grand jury that Polanski gave her both champagne and Quaalude, a sedative drug, and despite being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and ####### sex upon her.[57][58][59][60] The grand jury returned an indictment charging him with "rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor".

[Peikko 1,575]

I would think if two young women in different parts of town were raped on the same night, the person who additionally sodomized the victim .. should get even more time.

In fact we don't even need a fictitious crime lets look at one in the news recently.

Roman Polanski sexual abuse case

On 11 March 1977, Polanski was arrested for the sexual assault of a 13-year-old, Samantha Geimer, that occurred the day before at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson.[46][56] The girl testified before a grand jury that Polanski gave her both champagne and Quaalude, a sedative drug, and despite being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and ####### sex upon her.[57][58][59][60] The grand jury returned an indictment charging him with "rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor".

Yes Danno, as if Mr Polanski will serve an acceptable level of prison time because sodomy was included in his roll call of sexual dysfunction and that's your justification? Clutching at straws to stuff a very thin argument springs to mind.

I'll ask again, why would you prefer to re-instate a law that marginalized and made illegal EVERY act of sodomy instead of improving existing law and ensuring that sentencing reflects the malice of an adult having sexual relations with a minor no matter what the preferred sexual sexual act of the predator?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Any argument that seeks to explain human social behaviour that starts with 'from an evolutionary standpoint' is pretty suspect. Nothing about evolution plays into social dynamics, it merely explains why social species have an advantage in certain environments, nothing more.

Human social behavior directly relates to the evolution of the species. You cannot separate the two, and to do so just to trample a person's opinion is below board.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Morals are a framework of ethical judgments, it is not an 'either or' situation.

Predatory sex is not a slippery slope, extreme feminism notwithstanding. However if you do not like the terminology, use something else. However I am sure you are not arguing against the idea that those who are not in a position to make an informed decision about having sex should be protected from those who would use this uninformed state in order to demand someone have sex with them whether or not accompanied by other forms of physical abuse and all while knowing that the person they are forcing into the act is not consenting to it but submitting because they have no choice and indeed it is that very act of enforced submission that enhances the act for the predator.

Any woman who feels that is how a normal heterosexual act is undertaken clearly is not in a position to enjoy heterosexual sex and should refrain from engaging in it and she clearly has the ability to do just that AND still be able to conceive if she so desires which completely separates her from the position of those who are targeted by a sexual predator.

I'm definitely not arguing the bold, but beyond using age limits its very much a grey area to determine who or what can make an "informed" decision on sex. We have already stepped over the line in my opinion when protecting young adults in the 16-18 group in the US. I think that most 16 year olds can make informed decisions about sex...obviously big brother disagrees.

Regarding your last paragraph, many women think that way. Think of the woman who dates a guy and ends up sleeping with him where he never calls again afterward. His end goal was sex. He was preying on the woman to get sex. IMO that's technically a predatory relationship. Want to throw him in prison? Is the woman not emotionally harmed? (Obviously in the 21st century this happens in reverse as well.)

Edited September 20, 2010 by Sousuke

[Ban Hammer 12,865]

I'm definitely not arguing the bold, but beyond using age limits its very much a grey area to determine who or what can make an "informed" decision on sex. We have already stepped over the line in my opinion when protecting young adults in the 16-18 group in the US. I think that most 16 year olds can make informed decisions about sex...obviously big brother disagrees.

Regarding your last paragraph, many women think that way. Think of the woman who dates a guy and ends up sleeping with him where he never calls again afterward. His end goal was sex. He was preying on the woman to get sex. IMO that's technically a predatory relationship. Want to throw him in prison? Is the woman not emotionally harmed? (Obviously in the 21st century this happens in reverse as well.)

exactly