Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Three's the charm for the Supreme Court

I too have mixed feelings about this.

First, I want to say that just because I don't agree with a particular lifestyle choice, doesn't make me intolerant, bigoted, etc. Those words are often thrown around, but it is how you actually treat people that make you those things.

I don't have to agree with your views, nor do you have to agree with my views to like me.

However, with that said, this ruling in some respects alarms me.

For one, I could care less what you do in your bedroom, and I know that many states and/or communities have laws against sexual acts that people gay and straight participate in.

I also, don't see how such laws can be enforced, unless, like in the case in Texas, the police stumble into a situation, or by the "stacking" of charges to make sure something sticks when the law is going after someone.

Ok, with that said, does this ruling now make prostitution legal? Many view this ruling as saying anything goes between two consenting adults in their bedroom. So hypothetically, if I bring a prostitute home, isn't it none of the laws business what's going on?

This is where the health concern issue is. I believe prostititution ordinances are a combination of

-- Concern About Health
-- Concern About Public Safety (you know pimp slapped Biatches)
-- Concern About Morals
-- Concern About an Underground Economy

The above are not presented in any particular order.

I really wish the Supremes would have said, it is a local issue. We are a mobile society, and if a community or state want to make laws against oral sex, sodomy or prostitution, then let them. Those who want to practice those behaviors (and notice I've chosen to address actions that are sexual preference neutral, BTW as both gays and straights can choose these acts.)

I think each community should be allowed to decide for themselves. This really has NOTHING to do with being treated as equals, that is a wholly different issue.

I think communities can set standards of behavior as long as they are enforced in an equal fashion.

I also think and believe this is different than segregation based on race. People choose to engage in these acts (again both gays and straights) but people don't choose their skin color or gender (well there are a few exceptions to both of those as well, as many choose to alter their appearance, LOL)

So why is it ok to have activities, clubs, social gatherings, etc that invite, encourage gays to participate, but it is wrong when hetero's do the same thing?

I believe if you tell me it is ok for a group of gay folks to establish a community where gay's are the target potential members the community wishes to attract, where say gay pride is a key founding priciple, then you have to also agree that those who are hetero have the same rights to set up a community that focuses on attracting hetero's and where hetero relationships are a key founding principle.

I have no problem with gay folks designing a community, a legal union, etc.

I do have a problem when they tell me that everyone must accept their behavoir as normal.

Why it is as normal to me as for them to sleep with someone of the opposite sex. (Since we are trying to understand each other.) In other words, my behavoir isn't normal to them and theirs isn't normal to me.

Again, I have no problem with what you do in the privacy of your bedroom. But I draw the line at you teaching my kids that the behavoir is "normal".

I agree that my kids should not judge folks based on sexual orientation, but by the content of their character. So since I'm teaching that to my kids. (And let me tell you it is really hard to convince my 13yo that there is much more to a person than whether they are "cool" or not.)

But then I ask those who share an opposing view to do the same thing, don't judge me a bad person because I disagree with a decision or POV. Don't lump everyone in the ignorant right-wing extremist camp and throw their views in dumpster of debate.

Because if you do that, you are just as closed minded as those you attempt to label as close minded bigots.

Be enough about personal attacks. I don't expect all to share my beliefs, and I think NATIONALLY, there should be no law against sexual acts.

However, I do believe states and/or communities should be allowed to set the standards for behavior, as long as those laws are applied without consideration of race, gender or economic status.

TB

Oh,

And I do believe there should be some sort of standing between partners that should have the same legal weight as marriage. Some sort of life partner pledge or what ever.

However, it must be registered in the same fashion as marriage, and it must be dissolved in the same fashion as well.

None of this, we'll claim we are partners if it is to our benefit.

If you want the same benefits, you must enter into a comittment as legally binding as marriage.

Fair is fair, right?

In fact, I'd go as far as to say, that I believe marriage should be something done in accordance with religous beliefs between one man and one woman (but I know this opens a can of worms.)

If you are a man and woman who don't want to take vows according to your religious beliefs, or you want a same sex union, the other union is available as well.

Of course, I realize there will still be some stigma attached to each of those types of unions by those who believe otherwise.

However, I don't think any legislation will ever rid our society of that.

TB

Gay people should be banned. Don't let them post on my straight message board.

Lesbians, too.

What if you live in a community where the ratio is closely matched? Either way someone loses.

Tie goes to the straights.