A Sound Victory in the Gay Rights Movement (1 Viewer)

[jallman]

The Kansas Supreme Court made a unanimous ruling that underage sex participants cannot be punished more severely if the sexual misconduct involved homosexuality. The article can be found here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9773533/

I find in particular interest, the opinion written and the wording used...

“The statute inflicts immediate, continuing and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justification that may be claimed for it,” Luckert wrote. “Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest.”

 

[Stinger]

What kind of "victory" is this?

 

[jallman]

What kind of "victory" is this?

Did you bother to read the article...or did you just fail to comprehend? Prior to this ruling, the boy would have been given 17 years in prison as opposed to just 15 months...all based on the fact that homosexual conduct was involved. A blatant double standard got shot down and eliminated unanimously by a state supreme court.

Any more questions?

 

[Naughty Nurse]

That is good news. Any move towards greater equality is always, IMHO, welcome.

 

[Deegan]

It should not be any different IMHO, but 15 months, that's not enough, gay, straight, girl, or boy. YOU DON"T TOUCH CHILDREN, when are we going to get tough on these animals?

 

[Diogenes]

It should not be any different IMHO, but 15 months, that's not enough, gay, straight, girl, or boy. YOU DON"T TOUCH CHILDREN, when are we going to get tough on these animals?

Agreed completely. The reasoning “Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest” is completely off the wall however, since moral disapproval is the basis for all restrictions on individual behavior - "moral disapproval" is WHY we ban rape, murder, theft, assault, ...

 

[jallman]

Agreed completely. The reasoning “Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest” is completely off the wall however, since moral disapproval is the basis for all restrictions on individual behavior - "moral disapproval" is WHY we ban rape, murder, theft, assault, ...

That is moral disapproval of an action, which, true, is why we restrict certain behaviors. Rape, murder, theft, assault...they all have victims as a result of an unwarranted violent attack.

The judge's opinion, however, spoke to the idea of morally disapproving of a group of people, not an action. I morally disapprove of rape whether it is performed by a homosexual or a heterosexual. The same for all the other offenses listed. However, to heap on extra condemnation and penalty for a persons orientation is legally objectionable.

In the case that was cited in the article, the boys both were afflicted with developmental problems. The offending 18 year old did not function at the 18 year old level and the 14 year old was also mentally retarded. Take the gay/straight issue out of it entirely and you still have a very cloudy issue. I am just pleased to see that the court showed impartiality and did not pander to religious opinion that homosexuality makes the crime any worse than had it been an offending boy and a 14 year old girl.

 

[Deegan]

That is moral disapproval of an action, which, true, is why we restrict certain behaviors. Rape, murder, theft, assault...they all have victims as a result of an unwarranted violent attack.

The judge's opinion, however, spoke to the idea of morally disapproving of a group of people, not an action. I morally disapprove of rape whether it is performed by a homosexual or a heterosexual. The same for all the other offenses listed. However, to heap on extra condemnation and penalty for a persons orientation is legally objectionable.

In the case that was cited in the article, the boys both were afflicted with developmental problems. The offending 18 year old did not function at the 18 year old level and the 14 year old was also mentally retarded. Take the gay/straight issue out of it entirely and you still have a very cloudy issue. I am just pleased to see that the court showed impartiality and did not pander to religious opinion that homosexuality makes the crime any worse than had it been an offending boy and a 14 year old girl.

It should have never taken this long my friend, that is for certain.

 

[Stinger]

Did you bother to read the article...or did you just fail to comprehend? Prior to this ruling, the boy would have been given 17 years in prison as opposed to just 15 months...all based on the fact that homosexual conduct was involved. A blatant double standard got shot down and eliminated unanimously by a state supreme court.

Any more questions?

Yes I read it and again, this is a "victory"? How absurd. Making the penalty 17 years no matter whether homosexual or heterosexual would be a victory, this is a defeat for children who are molested especially in the more egreious homosexual assualts. It's a double assualt for a heterosexual child to be not only sexually assualted but also in a homosexual manner.

 

[Deegan]

Yes I read it and again, this is a "victory"? How absurd. Making the penalty 17 years no matter whether homosexual or heterosexual would be a victory, this is a defeat for children who are molested especially in the more egreious homosexual assualts. It's a double assualt for a heterosexual child to be not only sexually assualted but also in a homosexual manner.

How is the crime anymore "egreious"?

It's not, young kids don't know what sex is yet, so they could not possibly have anything to compare it to. I will concede that if word gets out, they might catch more flack for gay sex, then with straight, but that is an after affect, and can't be helped.

 

[jallman]

Yes I read it and again, this is a "victory"? How absurd. Making the penalty 17 years no matter whether homosexual or heterosexual would be a victory, this is a defeat for children who are molested especially in the more egreious homosexual assualts. It's a double assualt for a heterosexual child to be not only sexually assualted but also in a homosexual manner.

Obviously you did not read the article or you took it upon yourself to overlook some of the key points of the case in an effort to detract from such a profound ruling. It was stated clearly that the sex was consentual. Further, neither boy was developmentally mature. Further, state law in Kansas mitigates the relations between a person under 19 and less than 4 years apart. However, prosecution was trying to add additional penalties simply on the grounds that this was a homosexual case. The court, in all impartial fairness, ruled that this was not acceptable.

Now, I will not hold you accountable for your lack of comprehension, but in the future, do take the time to think before you post.

 

[Stinger]

How is the crime anymore "egreGious"?

It's not, young kids don't know what sex is yet, so they could not possibly have anything to compare it to. I will concede that if word gets out, they might catch more flack for gay sex, then with straight, but that is an after affect, and can't be helped.

Not only is it a sexual attack on a young person physically it attacks their sexual identity it can be much more an emotional diabling attack. And what is after the fact is caused by the fact making the fact that much more egregious. But getting back to the arguement this is not a "victory" for anyone except those who would attack young people. And young people 14 years old do know what sex is.

 

[Stinger]

Obviously you did not read the article or you took it upon yourself to overlook some of the key points of the case in an effort to detract from such a profound ruling. It was stated clearly that the sex was consentual.

Well if you are going to accept the premise that 14 years can consent to sex then why is it against the law for anyone hetero or homo?

This is about statutory rape, there is no consent.

Further, neither boy was developmentally mature.

Did the 18 year know right from wrong?

Further, state law in Kansas mitigates the relations between a person under 19 and less than 4 years apart.

Well then he should have used the defense, but I bet he did and the judge ruled that did not apply else he has a good reason to appeal but my math tells me 14 from 18 is 4 years.

However, prosecution was trying to add additional penalties simply on the grounds that this was a homosexual case. The court, in all impartial fairness, ruled that this was not acceptable.

And you agree that is a victory. A victory for and the expense of a defeat for children?

Now, I will not hold you accountable for your lack of comprehension,

How gracious of you.

but in the future, do take the time to think before you post.

As long as you take time to come down off your pedestal.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Not only is it a sexual attack on a young person physically it attacks their sexual identity it can be much more an emotional diabling attack. And what is after the fact is caused by the fact making the fact that much more egregious. But getting back to the arguement this is not a "victory" for anyone except those who would attack young people. And young people 14 years old do know what sex is.

I live in Kansas. It was sexual contact between an 18 year and a 14 year old. We have an attorney general who is a text book right wing nut job. So I am sure that you would really like him. However, even in the very red state of Kansas, most people thought that there was a problem with the law as it was.

Moreover, at the age of 14, I knew what sex was (had not had it yet of course) and I knew that I liked chicks. This kid that was 14 at the time was in a relationship with that 18 year old. The kid is obviously gay. He will grow up to be gay regardless of whether or not he was in a homosexual relationship as a teen. I am not saying there there should not be some kind of punishment here, but the punishment should be the same regardless of whether its a man and a teenage girl, a teenage girl and a woman, or a man and an teenage boy. That was the problem.

 

[Stinger]

I live in Kansas. It was sexual contact between an 18 year and a 14 year old.

Which in most states is statutory rape or at the least sexual assualt on a minor.

We have an attorney general who is a text book right wing nut job.

Because he prosecutes 18 year olds who engage in sexually with 14 year olds? That a strange conclusion.

So I am sure that you would really like him.

Because he prosecutes 18 year olds who have sexual relations with 14 year olds. Yes I probably would.

However, even in the very red state of Kansas, most people thought that there was a problem with the law as it was.

Seems to me the punishment for heterosexual males who have reached the age of majority and engage in sex with 14 year olds in a heterosexual relationship is not severe enough but then I haven't read the law.

But again where is the victory and exactly what is it? Seems to me to be a defeat for children if we are lessening penalties for anyone.

Moreover, at the age of 14, I knew what sex was (had not had it yet of course) and I knew that I liked chicks. This kid that was 14 at the time was in a relationship with that 18 year old.

And 18 years know better and that it is against the law to have sexual relations with minors.

The kid is obviously gay. He will grow up to be gay regardless of whether or not he was in a homosexual relationship as a teen.

And unprovalble assertion he may very well be so mentally screwed up because of it he may think he is.

I am not saying there there should not be some kind of punishment here, but the punishment should be the same regardless of whether its a man and a teenage girl, a teenage girl and a woman, or a man and an teenage boy. That was the problem.

I disagree other than 15 months is too light a sentence and if a homosexual does prey upon a 14 year of the same sex yes that is more egregious. Kids at that age are beginning to understand male/female relations and they are especially vunerable at that time of their lives. They are very influnenceable.

 

[jallman]

Well if you are going to accept the premise that 14 years can consent to sex then why is it against the law for anyone hetero or homo?

This is about statutory rape, there is no consent.

I guess you should just take that one up with the judge and the state of kansas.

Did the 18 year know right from wrong?

Read the article. It did not state what his specific developmental challenges were, the article simply stated that he did not function at an 18 year old level. That would make him defendable as a minor if it were true.

Well then he should have used the defense, but I bet he did and the judge ruled that did not apply else he has a good reason to appeal but my math tells me 14 from 18 is 4 years.

Again, read the article. He did use that defense. It did stand up in court. The 4 year rule does not eliminate penalty, it only mitigates it. Since we have all seen your phenomenal lack of comprehension, mitigates means to lessen or take away from. The prosecutor tried to add EXTRA penalty due to the fact that he was homosexual and no other reason. The appeal ruling stated that no extra penalty could be added because of moral disapproval of an entire group...in other words, he had to suffer the same penalty as a heterosexual in the same position. Sweet Ba'Jesus I just spelled it all out for you. Wouldnt have had to do that if you'd actually READ THE ****IN ARTICLE.

And you agree that is a victory. A victory for and the expense of a defeat for children?

No, for the 3rd time now, article notwithstanding, the victory comes in the court stating that the same penalty applies in either case. There is that comprehension thing again. :doh

How gracious of you.

Thank you, I try.

As long as you take time to come down off your pedestal.

Agreed, so long as you take equal time to read before you post. Or at least have someone explain the point before you start wagging your fingers.

 

[JOHNYJ]

I know this is not P C but what the hell.
The diference might have been that Homosexual sex is considered Un -natural . The sex act is unnatural deserving of a harsher sentence. I know you don't hear the Natural /unnatural argument much,everyone wants to be PC. I am waiting for when all these open minded liberals who want Gay marriage .Are faced with Gay activists who want Gay sex instructions included in their childs sex education, in public school.Lets see how liberal they are than.

 

[jallman]

I know this is not P C but what the hell.
The diference might have been that Homosexual sex is considered Un -natural . The sex act is unnatural deserving of a harsher sentence. I know you don't hear the Natural /unnatural argument much,everyone wants to be PC. I am waiting for when all these open minded liberals who want Gay marriage .Are faced with Gay activists who want Gay sex instructions included in their childs sex education, in public school.Lets see how liberal they are than.

Thats a big jump...from an equal penalization ruling to gay sex education in schools...but whatever.

As for the whole unnatural argument, I dont think its un-pc at all to make that argument, no matter how bunk the argument is. If there is proof that there is a genetic disposition toward homosexuality, then one can only suppose that it is a natural occurrence. The naturalistic argument is a fallacy anyway, since all things are included in nature and homosexuality occurs in populations other than human.

I hear the naturalistic argument all the time and am well equipped to derail it if you must go down that road. You could save us both a lot of time by visiting some of the other threads about the topic in the religion/philosophy forum. However, if you wish to start by giving your reasoning for your argument, we can begin at your earliest convenience.

 

[Binary_Digit]

But again where is the victory and exactly what is it? Seems to me to be a defeat for children if we are lessening penalties for anyone.

Recall the title of the thread. "A Sound Victory in the Gay Rights Movement" You do have a point, lessening the punishment of statutory rape isn't a victory for the victims. But it is a victory for the gay rights movement. Surely you can see there are 2 separate issues here.

I know this is not P C but what the hell.
The diference might have been that Homosexual sex is considered Un -natural . The sex act is unnatural deserving of a harsher sentence. I know you don't hear the Natural /unnatural argument much,everyone wants to be PC. I am waiting for when all these open minded liberals who want Gay marriage .Are faced with Gay activists who want Gay sex instructions included in their childs sex education, in public school.Lets see how liberal they are than.

Homosexuality is not unnatural. It has been observed in the wild with dogs, cats, monkeys, and birds to name a few. Humans who try to claim it's against nature are themselves against nature.

But that's a really good point about homosex-ed in public school. Personally, I think sex-ed should be taught at home, not at school. But too many parents won't put down their Bibles and teach their kids openly, so the state schools have tried to pick up the slack.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by jallman
Obviously you did not read the article or you took it upon yourself to overlook some of the key points of the case in an effort to detract from such a profound ruling. It was stated clearly that the sex was consentual.

My reply
Well if you are going to accept the premise that 14 years can consent to sex then why is it against the law for anyone hetero or homo?

I guess you should just take that one up with the judge and the state of kansas.

I'm taking it up with you, you used that as an excuse are you suggesting that indeed we just get rid of the laws entirely?

Read the article. It did not state what his specific developmental challenges were, the article simply stated that he did not function at an 18 year old level. That would make him defendable as a minor if it were true.

So he did know right from wrong and no it does not make him defendable as a minor.

Again, read the article. He did use that defense. It did stand up in court. The 4 year rule does not eliminate penalty, it only mitigates it.

I don't think that had anything to do with his sentencing, perhaps you should go and reread the article.

Since we have all seen your phenomenal lack of comprehension,

Hmmm seems you can't defend your position so you have to use personal attacks.

The prosecutor tried to add EXTRA penalty due to the fact that he was homosexual and no other reason.

The prosecutor used the law as it stood and succeeded in getting a sentence according to the law. The rapist has already served 5 years, perhaps you are having the comprehension problem not me. Plus the fact he has a history of such sexual assualts, again the comprehension problem hitting you.

The appeal ruling stated that no extra penalty could be added because of moral disapproval of an entire group...in other words, he had to suffer the same penalty as a heterosexual in the same position. Sweet Ba'Jesus I just spelled it all out for you. Wouldnt have had to do that if you'd actually READ THE ****IN ARTICLE.

You don't seem to want any debate of the matter, so why do you post it in a debating forum. The points I have been making are two

1. Victory for whom? You have yet to say who this defeat for children is a victory for. Comprehension problems?

2. A homosexual assualt on a young male is more egregious than a heterosexual attack on a young male and should be treated more harshly.

No, for the 3rd time now, article notwithstanding, the victory comes in the court stating that the same penalty applies in either case. There is that comprehension thing again.

Victory for whom and why is lessening a penalty for sexual assualt on a child a victory?

Thank you, I try.

The fact is you haven't even attempted.

Agreed, so long as you take equal time to read before you post. Or at least have someone explain the point before you start wagging your fingers.

Well now that you are down off your pedestal perhaps you can slow down and see that I am directly addressing the issues the article raises. If you don't want to debate but perfer to just report them so be it.

 

[Stinger]

Recall the title of the thread. "A Sound Victory in the Gay Rights Movement" You do have a point, lessening the punishment of statutory rape isn't a victory for the victims. But it is a victory for the gay rights movement.

Why is it a victory and do we want to grant victory to people who would molest young children?

Homosexuality is not unnatural. It has been observed in the wild with dogs, cats, monkeys, and birds to name a few. Humans who try to claim it's against nature are themselves against nature.

Yes it is, it is at exact opposite of the prime function of living beings, propagation. Those incidences claimed to prove homosexual behavior in the wild are either exagerrated or observed when the animals or under stress or captivity. In humans the anus is not designed for homosexual sex and we see the health problems related to homosexual sex. We are as a species heterosexual, the is not a debatable point. Homosexual behavior is abnormal to the species. Which is one reason this is not a victory for anyone, homosexual sexual assualt on young children can have more severe consequences on the victim.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

That is good news. Any move towards greater equality is always, IMHO, welcome.

So sodomy and perverted sexual practices are now to be considered normal in the USA?

 

[Navy Pride]

Our left wing buddy jallman is trying to make something big out of this when in reality its the right decision...................There is no victory here.......:roll:

 

[Diogenes]

Yes it is, it is at exact opposite of the prime function of living beings, propagation. Those incidences claimed to prove homosexual behavior in the wild are either exagerrated or observed when the animals or under stress or captivity. In humans the anus is not designed for homosexual sex and we see the health problems related to homosexual sex. We are as a species heterosexual, the is not a debatable point. Homosexual behavior is abnormal to the species. Which is one reason this is not a victory for anyone, homosexual sexual assualt on young children can have more severe consequences on the victim.

Good point. Robert A. Heinlein once defined moral behavior as that behavior which contributes to survival of the species (as in, women and children get first crack at the lifeboats). The corollary is obvious.

 

[Navy Pride]

So sodomy and perverted sexual practices are now to be considered normal in the USA?

It will never be considered normal but what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business.............