Jump to content
CrazyBoards.org

Pentagon memo: Homosexuality a disorder


Recommended Posts

i don't want to point a finger guys, but holy shit. your government is utterly fucked.

grouse.

ps. but not sodomized. noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

or, well, whatever all the exciting things that lesbians get up to together.

just good old fashioned sex that george bush beats off to.

oh god.

i think i've just created the worst mental image ever.

crap.

sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't want to point a finger guys, but holy shit. your government is utterly fucked.

grouse.

ps. but not sodomized. noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

or, well, whatever all the exciting things that lesbians get up to together.

uh, lmao.

For the record, most of the sodomy laws we used to have were regarding several behaviors, all of which COULD be done by a straight couple and which were technically also illegal for straight couples. I'm pretty sure they don't exist in any states any more? I know the most recent supreme court decision said they were unconstitutional. But...yeah. This is what we deal with. And this is what we've BEEN dealing with; I don't know if DOMA pisses me off more, or don't-ask-don't-tell. Both care of Clinton. (Honestly, having read first-hand sources from people who worked with him, the politics behind dont-ask made it almost understandable, but I was and am REALLY frickin' pissed about doma).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't want to point a finger guys, but holy shit. your government is utterly fucked.

grouse.

ps. but not sodomized. noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

or, well, whatever all the exciting things that lesbians get up to together.

uh, lmao.

For the record, most of the sodomy laws we used to have were regarding several behaviors, all of which COULD be done by a straight couple and which were technically also illegal for straight couples. I'm pretty sure they don't exist in any states any more? I know the most recent supreme court decision said they were unconstitutional. But...yeah. This is what we deal with. And this is what we've BEEN dealing with; I don't know if DOMA pisses me off more, or don't-ask-don't-tell. Both care of Clinton. (Honestly, having read first-hand sources from people who worked with him, the politics behind dont-ask made it almost understandable, but I was and am REALLY frickin' pissed about doma).

Yes, but the laws were not applied to straight couples. The laws hypothetically could be applied to straight couples, but the laws were intended to criminilize homosexual behavior, not heterosexual behavior.

If you read the supreme court decision in Lawrence v. Texas where the court overturned their decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, the majority decision was based upon the Due Process Clause, stating of the sodomy laws "Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals." (This overturns all sodomy laws as it is saying that the state can not legislate sexual behavior because such behavior is private and protected under the Constitution.)

But, if you read O'Conners concurring opinion, you see that the law just as easily could have been overturned based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment which gives people equal protection under the law. "A State can of course assign certain consequences to a violation of its criminal law. But the State cannot single out one identifiable class of citizens for punishment that does not apply to everyone else, with moral disapproval as the only asserted state interest for the law." She thought the law should have been held unconstitutional because it was designed to punish homosexuals as a class of people.

The specific Texas law overturned made it a crime when a person "engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." So that law clearly was not talking about a behavior.

But you said "most."

Constitutionally, the application of a law matters. The laws that did not specifically state that it was homosexual sodomy that was being targeted were not used against heterosexual sodomy. This is also a violation of Due Process because that is not equal application of the law. It doesn't matter if the language did not say OMG TEH GAYS, the intent and the application of such laws was to make homosexual sodomy a crime. As the Equal Protection Clause does require equal applcation of the law, O'Connor stated: "I am confident, however, that so long as the Equal Protection Clause requires a sodomy law to apply equally to the private consensual conduct of homosexuals and hetero-sexuals alike, such a law would not long stand in our democratic society." She then goes on to quote Justice Jackson, who stated "The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority be imposed generally."

So, no.

Just because the laws could apply based on their language to heteosexual conduct does not mean that all they legislated was a "behavior."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I got my computer I always relied on Psych books for reference about mental health and meds..

So its only been about a year since I stopped buying books and having read them, (all were American)

They considered Lesbianism and homosexuality as A gender identity disorder. These were written by PHd.s

Boy The U S still has a long way to go . Canada is really different that way.. Am I wrong in being told that

Elton John got married over here??? Frosty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I got my computer I always relied on Psych books for reference about mental health and meds..

So its only been about a year since I stopped buying books and having read them, (all were American)

They considered Lesbianism and homosexuality as A gender identity disorder. These were written by PHd.s

Boy The U S still has a long way to go . Canada is really different that way.. Am I wrong in being told that

Elton John got married over here??? Frosty

WHAO! How old were the books? Cause, we are definitely not the leaders of fairness and equality, but that is decidedly outdated information. There's actually a pinned topic in this section that mentions that pretty much all of the major organizations that are in any way related to health have come out (so to speak) in support of GLB people, stating that it is in fact NOT a disorder nor is there anything disordered about that. SOme studies which have been criticized due to method of sampling have linked GLB identities with higher prevalence of other problems, but even those stated that the expected cause for that was society's reaction. Also...PHd doesn't mean too much especially for the author of a book: you might check out what their phd was IN as well as if the study was funded by anyone else etc. Be wary of studies cited in books; look for the same in peer-reviewed journals.

For Penny, I was by NO means implying that sodomy laws weren't solely for the purpose of discrimination, nor that they should be legal or anything of the sort. Just trying to say that lesbian sex acts would probably be covered under them. ;)

And yeah...I tend to cover my ass a lot: "most".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest espressogrrl

If you read the supreme court decision in Lawrence v. Texas where the court overturned their decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, the majority decision was based upon the Due Process Clause, stating of the sodomy laws "Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals." (This overturns all sodomy laws as it is saying that the state can not legislate sexual behavior because such behavior is private and protected under the Constitution.)

Just a note from the newbie lesbian feminist....yes due process....but as defined in the 5 reproductive rights cases cited in the first 8 paragraphs of the decision. this is why reproductive rights cases affect same sex couples, just because of the way judicial precedent works, one case on top of another...

Connors took the approach she did because only a few years earlier she supported sodomy laws. she was part of the bench that made the texas law legal for so long...she was from the tex court originally.

ruling comes down on same sex marriage in jersey in the next 4 weeks!

-espresso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i do find it strange because most of the administration in the US is male. and most of the governments of other countries are male. and the US has so many country's governments bent over a barrel and are pounding them pretty hard.

so the US government's aversion to sodomy alone within its own country seems odd.

grouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note from the newbie lesbian feminist....yes due process....but as defined in the 5 reproductive rights cases cited in the first 8 paragraphs of the decision. this is why reproductive rights cases affect same sex couples, just because of the way judicial precedent works, one case on top of another...

Connors took the approach she did because only a few years earlier she supported sodomy laws. she was part of the bench that made the texas law legal for so long...she was from the tex court originally.

of course. it's not as well known as Roe v. wade, but Griswold v. Connecticut if one of the most important cases in judicial history and has had a massive impact as prescedent for cases following it. i just didn't think i needed to go into how juris prudence works, etc. when i said they decided on due process.

as for why o'conner wrote her own opinion instead of joining in the majority, i don't think it is just because she joined the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, though i've never read an interview with her on the case. the amicus briefs introduced for Lawrence contained a lot of information the court did not have when they decided Bowers... i think it's hard to know why o'conner decided how she did sometimes, unless it was a clear states rights case and then she almost always sided with the state.

ruling comes down on same sex marriage in jersey in the next 4 weeks!
oooh, i'll look out for that. i'm scared of any cases on gay rights being decided while scalia is on the bench. that fucker scares me.

i do find it strange because most of the administration in the US is male. and most of the governments of other countries are male. and the US has so many country's governments bent over a barrel and are pounding them pretty hard.

HAHAHAAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i do find it strange because most of the administration in the US is male. and most of the governments of other countries are male. and the US has so many country's governments bent over a barrel and are pounding them pretty hard.

so the US government's aversion to sodomy alone within its own country seems odd.

grouse.

It's only for show. They can't actually get it up to do anything productive.

Cerberus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...