Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Of course some people are offended by gay couples not hiding their orientation. I can appreciate that viewpoint. I just don't think it's morally wrong for those couples to live openly. And I definitely don't think there's a compelling government interest to pass laws banning those couples from doing so. (Some of the fundamentalist groups seem to advocate exactly that.)
D
dems4me
Guest
I think gay people want to be recognized as a gay couple or union or wed for other reasons - not just so its an "in-your-face" sort of thing but for other constitutional rights that they are denied. Such as two people have been together for 20 years as companions, one is in critical care or dying in a hospital and only next of kin or family can go in to visit them on their death bed sort of thing. Or a couple has been together for 15 years and can't list their s/o on their health plans, or life insurance, etc... Mariage entitiles people more than a wedding and a ring. In a lot of cases, its not the wedding and ring they would like, they would like to be recognized in a legal way for some of the reasons stated above. Its like telling someone they can't visit their partner in the hospital because his name is Jo not Sue or something. It makes no sense at all.
hwyman3
New Member
I can appreciate the fact that homosexual couples want their relationship to be officially recognized. I'm not going to dictate to anyone how they live their private lives. A legally recognized civil union satisfies this. However, we do not need to redefine marriage for homosexuals. If we change the law to allow homosexual marriage, then we must also change other laws, such as the adultry laws in Maryland. Not to get too graphic on the boards, but under current Maryland law, there cannot be homosexual adultry. Adultry, like the current definition of marriage is one man, one woman. To truely have a homosexual marriage, then the adultry laws would have to be updated so that the same standards that apply to hetrosexual couples also apply to homosexual couples.
D
dems4me
Guest
I agree with you Ken on the adultry law - the law was based on the bible and that's the bible's interpretation as far as I know of/
I'm just shocked that marriage is taken soo lightly these days -- my parents have been married 40 years, their parents were married for 60 years, etc... divorce wasn't something heard of back in the day. Now, the divorce rate is 50% or higher, which in itself makes a mockery out of the religious sanctity. In addition, there are shows like "who wants to marry a millionaire"; bachelor; bachlorette; the Brittney Spears wedding, and as Vrail pointed out all the drunken wedings in Nevada, people marrying for greencards, etc... and now that some gay couples would like to wed - not for the ring and ceromony but for legal recognition and protection and have the same rights as a spouse legally -- all of a sudden people are appauled. They can sit there and watch "who wants to marry a millionaire" but then in the same breath scream blasphamy (sp?) at a gay couple that just wants -- not fame, not money, but a simple quite recognition to have equal (not special treatment) rights.
I'm just shocked that marriage is taken soo lightly these days -- my parents have been married 40 years, their parents were married for 60 years, etc... divorce wasn't something heard of back in the day. Now, the divorce rate is 50% or higher, which in itself makes a mockery out of the religious sanctity. In addition, there are shows like "who wants to marry a millionaire"; bachelor; bachlorette; the Brittney Spears wedding, and as Vrail pointed out all the drunken wedings in Nevada, people marrying for greencards, etc... and now that some gay couples would like to wed - not for the ring and ceromony but for legal recognition and protection and have the same rights as a spouse legally -- all of a sudden people are appauled. They can sit there and watch "who wants to marry a millionaire" but then in the same breath scream blasphamy (sp?) at a gay couple that just wants -- not fame, not money, but a simple quite recognition to have equal (not special treatment) rights.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
OK. take it to the next level. A story online about a man(loosely fit term) getting 14 years for having sexual relations with a 14 year old boy, if it was a 14 year old girl he would have received less then two years. The reasoning.. a sodomy law that was on the books.. In this case this is a good thing.. personally think they should castrate him..but alas not my point..
Define sodomy.. and this is on the books and still against the law in most states. Sodomy, as defined, is basically anything other then "normal" sex.. ie the missionary position. I know for a fact the Army for one STILL prosecutes this, as in if they want to get you , and have nothing else, they go for the sodomy, adultery every time.. which brings up the definition of adultery.. It doesn't only apply to married people.. it's anyone having sex with another, that you aren't married to.. single person having sex with another consulting single adult, can be guilty of adultery, then if you do anything more then misionary, they have you for sodomy... How many of us are going to jail now?? I mean other then me.. I'm still a virgin as far as any prosecuter is involved.. and hope they don't have video to prove different!!
Define sodomy.. and this is on the books and still against the law in most states. Sodomy, as defined, is basically anything other then "normal" sex.. ie the missionary position. I know for a fact the Army for one STILL prosecutes this, as in if they want to get you , and have nothing else, they go for the sodomy, adultery every time.. which brings up the definition of adultery.. It doesn't only apply to married people.. it's anyone having sex with another, that you aren't married to.. single person having sex with another consulting single adult, can be guilty of adultery, then if you do anything more then misionary, they have you for sodomy... How many of us are going to jail now?? I mean other then me.. I'm still a virgin as far as any prosecuter is involved.. and hope they don't have video to prove different!!
D
dems4me
Guest
I thought if a man had sexual conduct with either boy or girl under the age of 18 was considered stutory rape which carries a heavier fine. Who cares what people do in there bedrooms. It is no one's business.
Well if the same act was performed against the female child as the male child wouldn’t the sodomy crime be the same?
Sodomy is defined as either copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal or noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
And yes, Maryland has sodomy laws as well as unlawful and perverted sex act laws.
As to the UCMJ the relevant Articles are 120 (Rape and Carnal Knowledge) and 125 (Sodomy) and for good measure they will probably hit you with Article 134 (General – catch all). The UCMJ doesn't address adultery as a stand alone crime, but as you can see Carnal Knowledge covers that aspect. In the military, and to the letter of the law, it is unlawful to have sex unless married and then you can only have sex with your spouse.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Ken, I don't believe that sodomy laws are legally defensible. What's the compelling public interest in making it illegal, no matter what the gender?
From a Biblical standpoint, many scholars believe that the Sodom and Gomorrah story wasn't even talking about sodomy in general. They cite sources that suggest that the townspeople raped male trespessers to punish them and drive them out of town.
From a Biblical standpoint, many scholars believe that the Sodom and Gomorrah story wasn't even talking about sodomy in general. They cite sources that suggest that the townspeople raped male trespessers to punish them and drive them out of town.
D
dems4me
Guest
This is true!!
It was about rape and unsolicited sex not the man on man sex. That is why the angles had to protect Lot from them - it was about having sex against people's will.
D
dems4me
Guest
Why do you think they needed to have angles there protecting him? From a sunburn or something???
D
dems4me
Guest
pssst... I get it now. The joke I guess was below me. thanks