The U.S. Constitution

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Qoheleth' date='Jun 2 2005, 10:16 PM'] While the word "heterosexual" may not have existed in the 1700s, the idea certainly did. The famous Thomas Jefferson quote, as well as the Pentateuch, all defend the idea that homosexuality was definitely perceived as something different somehow from heterosexuality. "Heterosexual" as a concept was unnecessary. Heterosexuals were simply the complement of the set of homosexuals--that is, everyone who is not a homosexual. In a society where homosexuality was so rare, this was sufficient. Today, for a similar reason, we do not have a word for non-pedophiliacs.

The idea of "sex between consenting adults" assumes that all sexual activity is the same. However, if there is an ontological difference between hetero- and homosexual sex, then there is no need for the law to treat them equally. On the Ford thread I posted an explanation of why this difference exists, and I'm sure people more learned than I have more exact reasoning. [/quote]
Actually, you're mistaken. Homosexual didn't exist either. The concept that humans are defined by their sexuality into two concrete categories is relatively new.

1000 years ago, sleeping with a man (if you were a man) didn't make you a homosexual. It made you a man with different tastes. However, it wasn't seen as a cultural identity the way it is today. Nor was it seen as effeminate (provided that you were doing the penetrating). It was still a sin of course, but these sorts of concepts of almost cultural differences based on sexual object choice didn't exist.

[Qoheleth]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:23 PM'] Actually, you're mistaken. Homosexual didn't exist either. The concept that humans are defined by their sexuality into two concrete categories is relatively new.

1000 years ago, sleeping with a man (if you were a man) didn't make you a homosexual. It made you a man with different tastes. However, it wasn't seen as a cultural identity the way it is today. Nor was it seen as effeminate (provided that you were doing the penetrating). It was still a sin of course, but these sorts of concepts of almost cultural differences based on sexual object choice didn't exist. [/quote]
I agree completely that sexuality was not in anyway associated with a subculture, but that does not mean that it was possible to make a distinction between the two groups. When a medieval writer makes reference to homosexuals using any of the terms prevalent at the time, they indicate a group within the population defined not necessarily by "lifestyle," but by a single action (which even today is the ultimate criterion for sexuality). The stereotypes attendant to sexuality are not uncommonly accurate, but they themselves are not now, and were not in ancient times, the defining factor in determining sexuality.

But whether or not homosexuals (that is, participants in homosexual activity) choose to band together as homosexuals (that is, participants in a "lifestyle"), there still exists the difference between the two types of sex. Because of this difference, hetero- and homsexual sex are not really two means of practicing the same basic act, but rather fundamentally different actions in themselves. Therefore the laws under the Constitution are entitled to treat them as different from each other.

On a sidenote, the law is currently able to make different provisions for men and women (such as mandatory maternity leave, and various other provisions). This is "unequal treatment" if men and women are seen as equal, but that is not the case. The differences between the two genders allow for different laws, a legal parallel to the case of gay marriage.

[popestpiusx]

I think you are all missing something. But this is all very interesting.

Edited June 3, 2005 by popestpiusx

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:23 PM'] Actually, you're mistaken. Homosexual didn't exist either. The concept that humans are defined by their sexuality into two concrete categories is relatively new.

1000 years ago, sleeping with a man (if you were a man) didn't make you a homosexual. It made you a man with different tastes. However, it wasn't seen as a cultural identity the way it is today. Nor was it seen as effeminate (provided that you were doing the penetrating). It was still a sin of course, but these sorts of concepts of almost cultural differences based on sexual object choice didn't exist. [/quote]
Perhaps. (Or perhaps not.) But what you could be assured of was a severe beating or execution. Social stigma? Is wasn't necessary.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 08:15 PM']
If this is your belief, then you lose. Because for it to be unconsitutional, you'd have to make the very same arguments you have denied in my case. Either it is unconstitutional in all cases to limit sex between consenting adults, or it is constitutional in all cases. There's no middle ground here thanks to the 14th amendment and the lack of the word "heterosexual" in the 18th century vocabulary, much less intention.

[/quote]
I'd say the law would be constitutional, though unjust. Laws concerning marriage were always recognized as falling under jurisdiction of the state, as defined in the 10th Ammendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As I have shown repeatedly, the fact that the framers, nor anybody for centuries afterward, saw state sodomy laws as being in violation of the constitution, shows that clearly the framers did not regard the state laws as being unconstitutional.

And the Constitution says nothing specifically about sex or marriage, so legislation on such matters would fall under those powers reserved "to the States respectively, or to the people."

What the word "heterosexual" has to do with all this is beyond me.

[quote]This is a religious belief.  The United States government is set up from a position of secularism.  As such, this belief has no place in US jurisprudence.[/quote]

This is nonsense! You're arguing about whether something is constitutional here. And I'm arguing from natural law, not specifically religion. Stop arguing like an atheist. Even Jefferson recognized sodomy as an abomination. One need not be Catholic, nor even Christian, to recognize this.

Where in the Constitution does it say that moral beliefs (based on religion or no) have no palce in the law?

You're arguing from modern militant secularist/atheist propaganda, not the Constitution. This "interpretation" was never even argued until the 1950s, and has no bearing on what is constitutional.


[quote]I refuse to deal with beastiality and pedophilia because it is a disgusting non-sequitor.  You don't have to change consent laws to realize that gay sex is consensual.  An adult can choose to have sex with an adult of the same sex.  They have the mental faculties to do this.  In addition, the power dynamic, while not equal, is certainly more equal.

Beastiality is having sex with a piece of property that has the capacity for emotions and injury but not the rational thought process to consent to sexual intercourse.  An animal is never capable of consenting to sex, and the sex is not beneficial to the animal.  Therefore, if it can be shown (and I think it has been) that this sort of sexual intercourse harms an animal then it should be outlawed.  Note, I'm not saying it should be outlawed because it is morally reprehensible.  Because America seems to believe in subjective morality it would be a difficult argument to make in court.

Pedophilia: Do I really need to explain how grievously injurious these actions are to a child or the inability of a child to consent?  I don't think I do..[/quote]

People have argued that animals can consent. People push for lowering the age of consent. I can also argue that "consensual" homosexuality is indeed harmful. Remember, homosexual behavior was also once regarded as so repugnant and perverted that legal recognition of it as equal to marriage would be unthinkable!

And where is "consent" mentioned in the Constitution with regards to sex? Again, it's not there. You're dealing with state laws, which by your own logic, could easily be declared "unconstitutional."

[quote]I am intellectually honest.  I can say that the constitution addresses gay sex in the same way it addresses heterosexual sex and gay marriage in the same way it addresses heterosexual marriage.  Which is to say, the degree to which these topics come up in the constitution is debateable.  It certainly isn't spelled out but that is why documents need interpretation.[/quote]

As we have seen, the constition does not adress sex. This is a power reserved to the states or the people.

Here's the ammendment you use to declare anti-sodomy laws "unconstitutional."

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is clearly about placing limits on the government's power to unreasonably search citizen's property and person, as British soldiers had done to American colonists. It has absolutely nothing to do with sex, sodomy or marriage. How you go from prohibitions against unreasonable searches to saying this means the states must recognize homosexual "marriage" is beyond me!


[quote]What I'm saying is this: In the United States, an institution of no particular religious faith, run by the letter of the law and not morality, homosexual sex is as much or as little a protected right as heterosexual sex.[/quote]

You have not proven this. Homosexual activity has no protection under the constitution. And there is nothing in the Constitution saying that morality must be excluded from the states' legistlative decisions. In the early years of this country, there were even official state churches!

[quote]Do I believe in gay rights?  Well that depends on what you mean I suppose.  Do I believe gay people should be getting married?  No.  However, I do feel, being as intellectually honest as I can be, that such a thing is mandated by the constitution.  I don't like it, but that's the truth as I see it.

Do I think that gays should be treated with human dignity and respect regardless of whether or not they are "practicing" homosexuals?  Yes, without a doubt.  I also think they shouldn't be fired from their jobs for simply being gay, kicked out of their homes, lynched, attacked, or ridiculed.  Why?  Because that's how every human being should be treated.

You clearly have a problem with that.  You want to beat homosexuals over the head with the catechism because they disgust you.  Then you want to hide behind claims of hating the sin and loving the sinner while you really hate both.  Then you call everyone who disagrees with you an amoral liberal just so you can feel better about yourself.[/quote]

More opinions and personal accusations (you like to accuse people who disagree with you of being motivated by hate - How's that for being "nonjudgmental")

[quote]Well, you're wrong.  I'm not a liberal, I'm Catholic.  I'm not in favor of the US government, I'm against it.  And guess what, the US government is against the Catholic Church.  It is fundamentally an un-Catholic, amoral institution and it will continue to degrade society for as long as it exists.  The US is more religious than most western nations, but I have no doubt in 20 years we will be what Europe is today - mostly socialist and allowing any kind of perversion you are capable of dishing out.

Is this wrong?  Yes.  Is this illegal?  No.[/quote]

This is a rant, not a reasoned argument - you're basically saying, "The U.S. is evil and anti-Catholic, therefore the intent of the Constitution was to promote gay rights and other immorality," regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

And if you're so much against the U.S. Constitution's supposed (and totally unproven) support of homosexuality, why do you attack anyone who is opposed to legislation promoting homosexuality?

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:06 PM'] Perhaps. (Or perhaps not.) But what you could be assured of was a severe beating or execution. Social stigma? Is wasn't necessary. [/quote]
Actually that's not the case at all. Depending on where you lived it became infamous to be certain but not always frowned upon unless you wanted to use the other person's "tastes" to your advantage. I point to the propensity for pederasty in the Byzantine empire as an example. While decried as a sin, it was largely tolerated.

Looking at medieval Islam we see lots of this sort of behavior as well despite the fact that Islam is strongly against homosexuality. In fact, as near as I can tell, rhetoric aside, homosexual tendencies were largely tolerated in medieval society.

[KizlarAgha]

Socrates - if we legislate morals we must decide on whose morals to legislate. I personally believe in an objective morality and an objective right and wrong, but many people don't. Therefore, in the absence of a unified code of morals, legal arguments most take on a logical form. (Not to say that religion is inherently illogical).

The fact is that state churches have been struck down. Hell, the ACLU is making cities take crosses out of their seals. So far, the US government has found the arguments for a separation of Church and state to be pretty solid. As such, I foresee that the divide will continue.

I don't really see a point in continuing this any further. You have seen my point, I have made my reasoning clear as day. You can agree with it, or disagree with it as you will. However, making claims that I'm intellectually dishonest, twisting words, or making things up are insulting and patently ridiculous.

The constitution is twisted by every side as each person has a unique reading of the document. This sounds very familiar - Christianity and the bible anyone? This is why we have a pope. However, there is no pope giving out the dogma of the constitution so each interpretation is as valid as the next. As such, I'm not going to waste my time here any longer.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:21 PM'] Socrates - if we legislate morals we must decide on whose morals to legislate. I personally believe in an objective morality and an objective right and wrong, but many people don't. Therefore, in the absence of a unified code of morals, legal arguments most take on a logical form. (Not to say that religion is inherently illogical).

The fact is that state churches have been struck down. Hell, the ACLU is making cities take crosses out of their seals. So far, the US government has found the arguments for a separation of Church and state to be pretty solid. As such, I foresee that the divide will continue.

I don't really see a point in continuing this any further. You have seen my point, I have made my reasoning clear as day. You can agree with it, or disagree with it as you will. However, making claims that I'm intellectually dishonest, twisting words, or making things up are insulting and patently ridiculous.

The constitution is twisted by every side as each person has a unique reading of the document. This sounds very familiar - Christianity and the bible anyone? This is why we have a pope. However, there is no pope giving out the dogma of the constitution so each interpretation is as valid as the next. As such, I'm not going to waste my time here any longer. [/quote]
I actuallyagree with most of what you say here.

However, I must strongly disagree that the Constitution logically calls for "gay rights" or "gay marriage." This is not at all "clear as day." I have made my case.

The radical militant secularism of the ACLU and other "liberals" was not oringally found in the Constitution, and does not follow the letter nor the logic of the law, but declares the law to mean whatever they want it to mean.

I am not a postmodernist, and beleive the words written in the Constitution have actual meaning, and that the actual intent of the framers is indeed important in interpreting these laws. I do not beleive in taking the words of the law, and drawing from them something clearly never originally intended. As you've pointed out, people can do this with any written words, even the Bible.

What I find most disturbing is the attitude that we should just accept the twisted interpretations of the ALCU, etc., and give up the fight. If all good people take this attitude, then defeat is inevitable.

[MichaelFilo]

I think it should be noted the difference between a liberal and a conservative isn't neccessarily the role of the federal government, we can all agree what that is. However, there is good point here: the Constitution of the United States of America is quite open ended and holds no real restrictions. When we refer to it as a "living document" as it is known, we know that it can change to meet the times, and that is the point. Simply, the Constitution does not bar or promote sodomy, if taken for the words contained. However, there is something that has been referenced to and could be a bit more elaborated upon.

That something is the fact that a living document such as the Constitution must be interpreted in a way which is appropriate to the time and situation when each law was made. It would be a erronous to interpret the Constitution in any other manner (which is where the liberal and conservative part ways). We must understand what leaving certain laws to federal governments could possibly have to do with homosexuality. So, I'll basically try and rehash most of this thread right here. During the time of the Constituion anti-sodomy laws were effective everywhere the Constitution was. They were active before it was written as well. It woul dhave been pointless to add thta clause in there, everyone knew that sodomy was wrong, no one had to throw that in there, and besides the Constitution is a list of positives, not negatives, so why throw sodomy (a virtual non-issue at the time) in the Constitution? I think thats the point that should be made, there was no approval for sodomy (by extention also homosexuality) and the general understanding was that everyone agreed, so as to not clutter the Constitution with excess material, it was left out (also because it would have been rather weird to have that as part of the Constitution of the United States of America which was much more loosly connected than it is today).

So, I think thats the point. If you are going to pull a liberal judge translation, thats ok, you automatically miss the point of the Constitution by ignoring it's "living" nature. If you pull a conservative, you'll notice it's very clear that the founding fathers were not in support of sodomy or sodomizers. Neither was anyone else. The Constitution of the United States of America was against sodomy (in an unspoken consensus) and didn't feel the need to clarify that issue, because again, it was not an issue.

God bless,
Mikey

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Looking at medieval Islam we see lots of this sort of behavior as well despite the fact that Islam is strongly against homosexuality. In fact, as near as I can tell, rhetoric aside, homosexual tendencies were largely tolerated in medieval society. [/quote]
Not in the West-- Sodomy was determined by Council to be grounds for immediate excommunication of the Layman and the defrocking of Clergy. That isn't " tolerated" More than that these rules where largely enforced even perhaps sometimes unjustly( remember the Templars).

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:48 PM'] I actuallyagree with most of what you say here.

However, I must strongly disagree that the Constitution logically calls for "gay rights" or "gay marriage." This is not at all "clear as day." I have made my case.

The radical militant secularism of the ACLU and other "liberals" was not oringally found in the Constitution, and does not follow the letter nor the logic of the law, but declares the law to mean whatever they want it to mean.

I am not a postmodernist, and beleive the words written in the Constitution have actual meaning, and that the actual intent of the framers is indeed important in interpreting these laws. I do not beleive in taking the words of the law, and drawing from them something clearly never originally intended. As you've pointed out, people can do this with any written words, even the Bible.

What I find most disturbing is the attitude that we should just accept the twisted interpretations of the ALCU, etc., and give up the fight. If all good people take this attitude, then defeat is inevitable. [/quote]
I just think that sex is as close to a civil right as we get. I think from a secular post-modernist standpoint, that makes gay sex a foregone conclusion.

I feel that the religious can best express themselves by voting their consciences. But let's all remember something - Roe v. Wade is a court decision and was never brought to a vote. It still hasn't been in 30 years.

I think that arguing for sex as a civil right is far easier and less of an uphill battle than arguing the reverse. Therefore, the legality of gay sex seems to be the much clearer argument.

However, I didn't take into account the possibility that perhaps the reason outlawing heterosexual sex isn't unconstitutional is that nobody would ever think of it nor would the law ever be passed. Taken from this viewpoint, the argument for gay sex and gay marriage holds a great deal less water. But, my area of emphasis is medieval history, not constitutional law. As such, I'll allow the lawyers to deal with this.

An interesting side development - I've never voted because I don't like the US government as an institution. However, I suppose voting is the only way to make the US a better institution.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Nicole8223' date='Jun 2 2005, 07:24 PM']interesting...this country was built on the foundation of the 10 commandments...no coincidence there. 
[/quote]
Wrong. Prove it.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:48 PM']I actuallyagree with most of what you say here.

However, I must strongly disagree that the Constitution logically calls for "gay rights" or "gay marriage."  This is not at all "clear as day." I have made my case.

The radical militant secularism of the ACLU and other "liberals" was not oringally found in the Constitution, and does not follow the letter nor the logic of the law, but declares the law to mean whatever they want it to mean.

I am not a postmodernist, and beleive the words written in the Constitution have actual meaning, and that the actual intent of the framers is indeed important in interpreting these laws.  I do not beleive in taking the words of the law, and drawing from them something clearly never originally intended.  As you've pointed out, people can do this with any written words, even the Bible.

What I find most disturbing is the attitude that we should just accept the twisted interpretations of the ALCU, etc., and give up the fight.  If all good people take this attitude, then defeat is inevitable.[/quote]
Socrates, your seething hatred for gays does not give you authority to twist the constitution to meet your bigotted views. You cry out that liberals have twisted the consititution because it does not meet your own personal views. There are those who say the same things about slavery. The framers most definitely did not recognize slaves to be equal, and it took many long years to repeal these evils. America stands for equality. If homosexuals could not be allowed to participate in a relationship, sexual intercourse, effectively destroying the idea of equality. Framers didn't allow women to vote, are we to blame those darn liberals again for this? Desegregation, darn the ACLU. You can cry liberal all day. Ill counter that with bigot.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Cam42]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 09:05 AM']Wrong. Prove it.[/quote]
Of all the men who might be Founding Fathers, the only two who really count are Jefferson and Madison, as the United States is founded almost entirely on the writings and beliefs of these two men. Jefferson’s Declaration is held aloft as our national ideal, and certain key phrases are quoted from it as if reciting a prayer (e.g., “all men are created equal”). Madison’s Constitution is equally revered and studied now as the ideal foundation for human law.

The Founders studied history, lived during the historical era we now call The Enlightenment, and read all of the writings being produced by the great writers of the Enlightenment era, such as Hobbes, Locke, Newton, Rousseau, Voltaire, et al. Jefferson said that Sir Isaac Newton’s scientific work Principia Mathematica was the book he loved the most, and he could read it in Newton’s original Latin if he needed to.

Here is an example of a quote from James Madison which shows conclusively that the USA is a Christian country: [b]“To preserve the Republic, it is in the hands of the people. We have staked the entire future of the American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. [i]We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the [u]Ten Commandments of God.[/u][/i]”[/b]

There is your proof....

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 3 2005, 09:33 AM'] Of all the men who might be Founding Fathers, the only two who really count are Jefferson and Madison, as the United States is founded almost entirely on the writings and beliefs of these two men. Jefferson’s Declaration is held aloft as our national ideal, and certain key phrases are quoted from it as if reciting a prayer (e.g., “all men are created equal”). Madison’s Constitution is equally revered and studied now as the ideal foundation for human law.

The Founders studied history, lived during the historical era we now call The Enlightenment, and read all of the writings being produced by the great writers of the Enlightenment era, such as Hobbes, Locke, Newton, Rousseau, Voltaire, et al. Jefferson said that Sir Isaac Newton’s scientific work Principia Mathematica was the book he loved the most, and he could read it in Newton’s original Latin if he needed to.

Here is an example of a quote from James Madison which shows conclusively that the USA is a Christian country: [b]“To preserve the Republic, it is in the hands of the people. We have staked the entire future of the American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. [i]We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the [u]Ten Commandments of God.[/u][/i]”[/b]

There is your proof.... [/quote]
Funny you mention Jefferson , who was a deist and certainly did not believe in the bible. As far as America being founded as a christian nation, you need only look to the Treaty of Tripoli ,authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

[quote]Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;[/quote]

[quote]Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814[/quote]