Who says we have real freedom here?

[M_Six]

These two guys were arrested IN THEIR BEDROOM after some moronic neighbor tricked the police into believing there was a disturbance.

A knot of protesters stood apart, holding signs that read ''AIDS is God's revenge,'' ''God sent the sniper'' and other messages.

God sent the sniper!?!??? WTF is wrong with people like this?

''The states of the union have historically prohibited a wide variety of extramarital sexual conduct,'' Texas authorities argued in legal papers. Nothing in that legal tradition recognizes ''a constitutionally protected liberty interest in engaging in any form of sexual conduct with whomever one chooses,'' the state argued.

In other words, "We've been forcing our Holier-Than-Thou attitude on the population for ages, why change now?"

The case began in 1998, when a neighbor tricked police with a false report of a black man ''going crazy'' in John Geddes Lawrence's apartment. Police smashed their way in and found Lawrence having anal sex with another man, Tyron Garner.

What difference does it make that the supposed troublemaker was black? Do the Texas cops react more swiftly if they have a chance to arrest a black man? More likely is the possibility that the neighbor who called in the report is a narrow-minded bigot.


Isn't this kind of state-sponsored witch hunting the very thing we're trying to free the Iraqis from?

[J-Excel]

I must be a narrow-minded bigot then. I think anal sex between two men is beyond disgusting. I wouldn’t file a false police report though. And I don't want to turn this into another gay-bashing thread. The fact of the matter is homosexuality has been outlawed in many civilizations over several thousands of years. That must mean a whole bunch of people throughout history have thought it was wrong. It's hard to change that attitude in one generation. I’m not sure if it will ever change.

I don't think this war has anyting to do with giving Iraqi men the right to have gay sex. I'd be surprised if that was on GWB's todo list.

[M_Six]

I was not condoning the act itself. Nor was I implying that this is the only right the Iraqis will enjoy when we're done there.

My point was that there are laws in place against discrimination based on things like race, religion, and sexual orientation. There are also laws against illegal search and seizure. This case violates both of those.

You may find homosexual behavior distasteful. That's fine. So do I. But the point is that we don't pass laws based on things we find distasteful. If that were the case, I would be looking for a law against Rap music. And I find that moron's sign about God sending the sniper to be VERY distasteful, yet that person has every right to be out there waving it.

The argument that you can't change attitudes in a generation is a bunch of hooey. Many, many attitudes change in a generation. And laws can be changed in even less time, narrow-minded bigots notwithstanding.

M_Six, bigots will always be there notwithstanding any laws or changes in attitude. That's the nature of the human beast. Whether this narrowmindedness has its genesis in certain religions or family values/environment or is a quirk in the brain is hard to say.

But this type of character will be there as long as there are humans. I have seen even fairly intelligent people exhibit this behavior, so its not due to lack of intelelct. Its a conscious decision people make to behave in this way.

"Sniper from God"- Jeeez, these dudes live in the 18th century.

[J-Excel]

The "God's revenge" and "Sniper" thing is a bit ignorant. HIV doesn't discriminate. Unfortunately the right to freedom of speech protects the ignorant too.

[osprey4]

My, we seem to be suffering from a memory problem here.

Before homosexuality became politically correct, which was about ten years ago, there was a consensus in this country that this behavior was illegal. There was also a consensus, before the concept of "privacy" was discovered in the constitution, that illegal activities are illegal whether done in public or in private. So before we all get on our smarter-than-those-bigots high horses, try to put yourself in the shoes of those from previous generations who were not so enlightened.

[caddmannq]

I don't condone the actions of any of the parties involved here.

The difference is that I would have just "looked the other way" regarding the two gays, unless one had been under age or had been beaten, forced, raped...whatever.

I would certainly NOT "look the other way" at the cops and the troublemaking neighbors. Their invasion of privacy is strictly illegal!

However, regarding the topic line, "Who says we have real freedom here?" I will say this:

Nobody has complete freedom anywhere. Show me a place on this earth where people have more freedom than the USA and (if such a place exists) I will show you anarchy.

[osprey4]

Good post, Cadd. There are certainly lots of people who believe "freedom" is a license to behave any way we like. That's not freedom, it's nihilism.

Freedom in this country is the ability to pursue life as one's desires dictate, but within the moral bounds set by society. And this includes, at least recently, homosexual behavior. But how far should we as a society extend this freedom to other sexual activities we currently deem immoral (and are so legislated)? Such as bestiality, incest, "man-boy" sex, etc. With a little more "enlightenment", will we decide that marriage between siblings is acceptable? Or that a man should be allowed to marry his horse?

Distinguished Member Cadd, there are a string of islands in the Pacific, loosely labeled the French Polynesia, which would conform to your definition of complete freedom, yet are without anarchy.

Indeed, one would find them rather, errrr.....uninhibited and pleasant--the kind of place one would consider visiting for a few years or indeed retiring for the good life they offer.

On a more serious note, perhaps the Good Member Cadd would consider paying a visit there to carefully evaluate and consider the hedonistic lifestyle prevalent there.

Perhaps.

[M_Six]

Nobody has complete freedom anywhere.

Ok, so I was a bit melodramatic there. I realize too much freedom doesn't work either, but you get my point. Here's a case right in the US that we would condemn another country for trying in court.

Freedom in this country is the ability to pursue life as one's desires dictate, but within the moral bounds set by society.

That should be "within the legal bounds set by society." Morality does not always influence law. There is nothing illegal about many immoral activities.