3 ms·

> 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 am

> 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 I agree with you that it would be neater if they were all repealed, and it would remove the (relatively minor) threat from more extreme factions who do want to enforce them again, but at some point you also need to be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
    Your initial post in this thread naturally raises the question of whether or not anti-sodomy laws in the US should be enforced. I understand that you don't agree with such laws, but your post is open to the interpretation that you think they should nonetheless be enforced. I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > Your initial post in this thread naturally raises the question of whether or not anti-sodomy laws in the US should be enforced. It did ask why the law wouldn't want to enforced? In other words, why would Americans have laws if they don't actually want them? I'm not of that country, so I am interested to learn about the culture. Amid the diatribe, I do think you eventually gave a reasonable answer to the question, for what it is worth. > I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position. Again, I am not American, so I'm not sure it would be reasonable for me to even have a position. I don't have the necessary context. I did note that in a democracy the people get to choose what they want for themselves. But that is said simply as the generally accepted definition of democracy, like the sky is generally accepted as being blue. But, even if I were American and for some reason had a position, why would I share? Let's say, for the sake of discussion, I really do believe that people shouldn't be up in the middle of the night to see the dark sky. Why would I tell you that? It would be in bad faith to subject you to it. If relevant, I might share the fact that the sky is blue, and if based on that you also come to the conclusion that people shouldn't see the dark sky, cool, but that's for you to decide based on the known state of the world, not some evangelical nonsense sputtering out of me. There is no logical place for that.

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
  Your initial post in this thread naturally raises the question of whether or not anti-sodomy laws in the US should be enforced. I understand that you don't agree with such laws, but your post is open to the interpretation that you think they should nonetheless be enforced. I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > Your initial post in this thread naturally raises the question of whether or not anti-sodomy laws in the US should be enforced. It did ask why the law wouldn't want to enforced? In other words, why would Americans have laws if they don't actually want them? I'm not of that country, so I am interested to learn about the culture. Amid the diatribe, I do think you eventually gave a reasonable answer to the question, for what it is worth. > I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position. Again, I am not American, so I'm not sure it would be reasonable for me to even have a position. I don't have the necessary context. I did note that in a democracy the people get to choose what they want for themselves. But that is said simply as the generally accepted definition of democracy, like the sky is generally accepted as being blue. But, even if I were American and for some reason had a position, why would I share? Let's say, for the sake of discussion, I really do believe that people shouldn't be up in the middle of the night to see the dark sky. Why would I tell you that? It would be in bad faith to subject you to it. If relevant, I might share the fact that the sky is blue, and if based on that you also come to the conclusion that people shouldn't see the dark sky, cool, but that's for you to decide based on the known state of the world, not some evangelical nonsense sputtering out of me. There is no logical place for that.