3 ms·

> Would you have the same reaction if a state had outlawed heterosexual sex? Yes, I would equally question the logic of a population who thought that was a goo

> Would you have the same reaction if a state had outlawed heterosexual sex? Yes, I would equally question the logic of a population who thought that was a good idea. > Most constitutional democracies recognise, one way or another, that there are limits to what can be legislated circumscribed by people's fundamental rights. Sure, it is not unusual for a population to instil safeguards to protect themselves should they become too focused on a particular issue without considering the bigger picture. Of course, the very same population can throw it all away at will. But we're still talking about a population who, even if they have forgotten the bigger picture, have enacted and maintain desire to retain laws around sodomy. What is going on there?

foldr 2y ago
Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex. I will not argue with you about the validity of that position as it's a tangent. The point here is that the US and most other democracies don't work like that. Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional. You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds. But I suspect that you hold this position largely because it enables you to give a cute "yes" answer to my rhetorical question :) It's also a bit unclear what you're actually calling for here. Are you really in favor of anti-sodomy laws being enforced unless and until they are repealed? This isn't an academic question. Real people's lives would be destroyed were this to happen.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives I could, but why would I? Then I'd be among the very people I'm questioning, which would then question why I would need to question myself? You've not thought this through, have you? > and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex Yes, technically a democracy can pass whatever arbitrary laws it wants. Laws are not some magical force, just agreements people have made. > Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional. Only if the people are willing to uphold the constitution. It too is not some magical force, just another agreement people have made. > You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds. Under a democracy, the law is to the will of the people. Why do the people of the USA want sodomy laws in the first place? You might be right that that the USA is well on its way to having a dictator who can become the lone voice who controls all, without concern for what the public wants, but that is not the current state of affairs and that individual most certainly won't be me.
  - StackRanker3000 2y ago
    > Under a democracy, the law is to the will of the people. Why do the people of the USA want sodomy laws in the first place? They don’t, generally. They did a long time ago, when those laws were enacted. Since then sentiments have changed, the laws have been found unconstitutional and are no longer enforced, but some remain on the books because it takes time, money and effort to remove them. I agree with you that it would be neater if they were all repealed, and it would remove the (relatively minor) threat from more extreme factions who do want to enforce them again, but at some point you also need to be pragmatic.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > but some remain on the books because it takes time, money and effort to remove them. If it takes appreciable amount of time, money, and effort to no longer agree to something everyone already agrees that they no longer want to agree to, the people really need to step back and think about they they are making it so hard on themselves for no reason. Granted, we're talking about people who did agree to outlaw sodomy, so perhaps not the sharpest tools in the shed. But, still, how did the tools end up so dull?
  - foldr 2y ago
    >> Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives >I could, but why would I? Hmm, I do not understand your position then. To me, if you are saying that anti-sodomy laws should be enforced on democratic grounds (which I think is what you are saying, even though you obviously don't agree with such laws yourself), then you are taking the position that people have no fundamental right to enjoy their sexual and romantic lives and that this area is fair game for arbitrary legislation. Perhaps you could clarify whether you actually do think that the US should start enforcing these laws. >Yes, technically a democracy can pass whatever arbitrary laws it wants And technically the Supreme Court can rule any law unconstitutional...
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > Hmm, I do not understand your position then. You don't say... What I don't understand how you ended up writing so many words without taking the time to understand. How does one end up there? > then you are taking the position that people have no fundamental right to enjoy their sexual and romantic lives and that this area is fair game for arbitrary legislation. If I said the sky is blue, do you think I am taking the position that nighthawks don't deserve to stay up late to see the dark night sky? I don't exactly follow your logic. Perhaps you could explain it for us? Frankly, I'm not sure why I would take a "position" in the first place. That seems like a pointless waste of time.

foldr 2y ago

Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex. I will not argue with you about the validity of that position as it's a tangent. The point here is that the US and most other democracies don't work like that. Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional. You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds. But I suspect that you hold this position largely because it enables you to give a cute "yes" answer to my rhetorical question :) It's also a bit unclear what you're actually calling for here. Are you really in favor of anti-sodomy laws being enforced unless and until they are repealed? This isn't an academic question. Real people's lives would be destroyed were this to happen.

randomdata 2y ago
> Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives I could, but why would I? Then I'd be among the very people I'm questioning, which would then question why I would need to question myself? You've not thought this through, have you? > and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex Yes, technically a democracy can pass whatever arbitrary laws it wants. Laws are not some magical force, just agreements people have made. > Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional. Only if the people are willing to uphold the constitution. It too is not some magical force, just another agreement people have made. > You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds. Under a democracy, the law is to the will of the people. Why do the people of the USA want sodomy laws in the first place? You might be right that that the USA is well on its way to having a dictator who can become the lone voice who controls all, without concern for what the public wants, but that is not the current state of affairs and that individual most certainly won't be me.
- StackRanker3000 2y ago
  > Under a democracy, the law is to the will of the people. Why do the people of the USA want sodomy laws in the first place? They don’t, generally. They did a long time ago, when those laws were enacted. Since then sentiments have changed, the laws have been found unconstitutional and are no longer enforced, but some remain on the books because it takes time, money and effort to remove them. I agree with you that it would be neater if they were all repealed, and it would remove the (relatively minor) threat from more extreme factions who do want to enforce them again, but at some point you also need to be pragmatic.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > but some remain on the books because it takes time, money and effort to remove them. If it takes appreciable amount of time, money, and effort to no longer agree to something everyone already agrees that they no longer want to agree to, the people really need to step back and think about they they are making it so hard on themselves for no reason. Granted, we're talking about people who did agree to outlaw sodomy, so perhaps not the sharpest tools in the shed. But, still, how did the tools end up so dull?
- foldr 2y ago
  >> Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives >I could, but why would I? Hmm, I do not understand your position then. To me, if you are saying that anti-sodomy laws should be enforced on democratic grounds (which I think is what you are saying, even though you obviously don't agree with such laws yourself), then you are taking the position that people have no fundamental right to enjoy their sexual and romantic lives and that this area is fair game for arbitrary legislation. Perhaps you could clarify whether you actually do think that the US should start enforcing these laws. >Yes, technically a democracy can pass whatever arbitrary laws it wants And technically the Supreme Court can rule any law unconstitutional...
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > Hmm, I do not understand your position then. You don't say... What I don't understand how you ended up writing so many words without taking the time to understand. How does one end up there? > then you are taking the position that people have no fundamental right to enjoy their sexual and romantic lives and that this area is fair game for arbitrary legislation. If I said the sky is blue, do you think I am taking the position that nighthawks don't deserve to stay up late to see the dark night sky? I don't exactly follow your logic. Perhaps you could explain it for us? Frankly, I'm not sure why I would take a "position" in the first place. That seems like a pointless waste of time.