Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: I have addressed the original point here Skeptic. The point is that they DO NOT go after consensual private "crimes" in the same way (as in, at all) as if those same crimes happened in public so therefore all your posts in this subject and Vladamirs threats to leave the country, are, like Lawrence before it came to the Supreme Court, moot.
You haven't addressed the point at all, which is NOT whether the government actively pursues cases prosecuting private, consensual sex.

If an amendment was adopted to recriminalize private, consensual sex police would be empowered to do so. It would give those who oppose gay rights exactly the tool they want for furthering their agenda - pushing gay people so far back into the closet that they can go back to pretending we don't really exist and that our rights don't matter.

You know what? I've thoroughly had it with trying to debate you, John. You're going on my ignore list. (Though of course I can't really put you there - I will be ignoring your posts from now on.)

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: I have addressed the original point here Skeptic. The point is that they DO NOT go after consensual private "crimes" in the same way (as in, at all) as if those same crimes happened in public so therefore all your posts in this subject and Vladamirs threats to leave the country, are, like Lawrence before it came to the Supreme Court, moot.
You haven't addressed the point at all, which is NOT whether the government actively pursues cases prosecuting private, consensual sex.

If an amendment was adopted to recriminalize private, consensual sex police would be empowered to do so. It would give those who oppose gay rights exactly the tool they want for furthering their agenda - pushing gay people so far back into the closet that they can go back to pretending we don't really exist and that our rights don't matter.

You know what? I've thoroughly had it with trying to debate you, John. You're going on my ignore list. (Though of course I can't really put you there - I will be ignoring your posts from now on.)

Again, up until a few years ago, these things could happen everywhere. As the Supreme Court, those despots, illegally ruled on this issue and we aquieced to their ill-made decision, these things are no longer illegal. But, I would like to point out that aside from Lawrence there is no contemporary examples. You can't show me them. You talk as if Robespierre's terror has returned, and this time it's after homosexuals. Don't be ridiculous. Unless it happens in public it won't be prosected. Hell, make heterosexual sex illegal as well (Actually -- in many instances, it was until recently, and don't say it wasn't as sodomy of all stripes was illegal (the Texas statutue was not the norm in that it merely illegalized homosexual sodomy)). I don't care. It's only if it happens in public that it could possibly be prosecuted.