Homosexuality Part II

Mention “Gay Rights” in virtually any group of people and be prepared for a “spirited” debate. In those exchanges, I am regularly “accused” of being gay since “you must be gay to support those perverts.”

Well, I’m not gay, but I know plenty of folks that are and I want them to have the same rights that I do.

The laws regarding homosexual behavior are as varied as could possibly be. Even within the United States, sodomy was illegal until very recently, 2003, and even then it was a 6-3 vote by the Supreme Court. In 1986, the Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws.

Homosexual acts are still punishable by prison sentences and even the Death Penalty in some countries. What is truly bizarre is the number of countries where male homosexual acts are illegal, but female homosexual acts are not.

The strangest of all is the law in Guyana where male homosexuality is punishable by life in prison, but female homosexuality is legal.

Go figure. They must have watched “The Hunger” one too many times.

Despite a lot of efforts, Gay Rights are still few and far between. The “Defense of Marriage Act” allows states to refuse to recognize marriages that are legal in neighboring states.  The military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy still allows otherwise patriotic and valuable soldiers to be discharged for being gay.

Even normally liberal leaning California recently voted for a constitutional ban on Gay Marriage. The Texas Republican Party 2010 platform calls for the “criminalization” of Gay Marriage and a return to the sodomy laws that were overturned by the Supreme Court. Until 2006, there was an effort in the Senate to establish a United States constitutional ban on Gay Marriage.

The thread photo captures the irrational fear of homosexuality that marks much of the anti-gay debate. If what James and Aaron do in their bedroom is a threat to national security, then our national security system is sorely lacking.

There is no doubt that the battle for equality for gays and lesbians is an uphill struggle. Changes in attitudes and biases don’t come easily.

Thoughts?

(Part III tomorrow.)


William Stephenson Clark

17 Comments

Filed under GLBT Rights

17 responses to “Homosexuality Part II

  1. The “thoughts” underlying the national security threat posed by homosexuality were based upon the following: 1) homosexuality is unlawful; 2) public disclosure of a person’s homosexuality would bring embarrassment and disgrace to him/her, in addition to criminal prosecution; 3) such a person if s/he had access to classified information was subject to being blackmailed by foreign agents, and would agree to provide such intelligence data to the foreign power’s agents in exchange for the nondisclosure; 4) thus, all homosexual individuals are a threat to national security.

    Any questions?

  2. What does it do to a young person’s psyche to color a normal biological activity with sin and a criminal action to boot? It’s hard enough to grow up without adding another potential layer of guilt.

  3. Freedomwriter

    Re: the original arguments supporting the ban on homosexuality

    {The “thoughts” underlying the national security threat posed by homosexuality were based upon the following: 1) homosexuality is unlawful; 2) public disclosure of a person’s homosexuality would bring embarrassment and disgrace to him/her, in addition to criminal prosecution; 3) such a person if s/he had access to classified information was subject to being blackmailed by foreign agents, and would agree to provide such intelligence data to the foreign power’s agents in exchange for the nondisclosure; 4) thus, all homosexual individuals are a threat to national security.}

    These same arguments can be applied to anyone’s private behaviors. If we focus on the original intent of the law, then wouldn’t legalization (insuring equal rights for all) remove such threats?

    • I understand your question, but have never yet seen an agreement on “original intent of the law.”

      If that could be achieved many courts would go out of business, wouldn’t they?

    • Private behaviors of heterosexuals can lead to “issues”, too. The Profumo scandal in England (Christine Keeler was the “call girl”, as I recall) in the 1960s raised spying issues IIRC. Goodness knows, the Brits have had their share of national security issues, whether the conduct being exploited by foreign states was homosexual or heterosexual.

  4. tosmarttobegop

    “What is truly bizarre is the number of countries where male homosexual acts are illegal, but female homosexual acts are not”

    That is not so bizarre to me, considering that two women together is about the most common male fantasy even more so then a three-some? Often since it has been a male orient governments the laws reflect a male point of view.

    We all can remember Phil Kline stating he made a difference between it is illegal for a boy to perform oral sex on a girl but legal for a girl to perform oral sex on a boy?
    Also it go back to a a bug-a-boo, in a sense males can understand better a woman turning to another woman for sexual satisfaction over a man. A Part of the whole mystic concerning sexual satisfaction.

    Though in defense of men, we are not truly as simplistic as often painted.
    There is often a real question in men’s mind as to how to satisfy a woman.
    While men tend to think of sex as more a mechanical function.

    Put hand here and that there and rotate….

    The most sensitive and powerful sexual organ on a woman is her mind.
    If that organ is not being stimulated then any other organ being stimulated is almost pointless.

    Therefore men tend to think another woman would have more understanding of what should be done. Of course that is as simplistic thinking as what often men are thought of.

    • wicked

      Though in defense of men, we are not truly as simplistic as often painted.

      Are you sure about that?

      Okay, joke over, no harm intended. 😉

      tstb, I applaud you for stating the fact about a woman’s mind. And you men wonder why women buy romances. LOL Fantasy. Pure fantasy. 🙂

      However, it isn’t reading the love scenes in the romances many women enjoy the most. It’s how the relationship plays out. It’s two people finally coming together emotionally. The HEA (happily ever after).

  5. tosmarttobegop

    I can still remember being told that the sodomy laws of Kansas made no distinction between gay sex and a married heterosexual couple. One of those incidents where they knew what they had in mind but did not make it a distinction in the law.

    Kind of like the law that stated any image of a child under the age of consent being child pornography. They knew what they had in mind but it also made any picture a parent took of their child’s first bath or playing in the pool wearing only a diaper child porn.

    It is stating the obvious, but would not striking the laws making homosexual a crime do away with the threat concerning national security? It would then be like saying I will blackmail because you breath air!

    • The only difference of which I’m aware in the criminal sodomy statutes in Kansas is one obviously designed for the heterosexual couple, namely it was a defense to the charges if the parties were married at the time of the occurrence complained of.

      And, former AG Klein was correct as to the difference under the statutes discussed.

  6. tosmarttobegop

    It was back in the eighties that I was told that while at the S.O.
    Of course it was not up to us to differentiate between A or B that is the courts job.
    I do appreciate the difficulty in trying to come up with a law that covers the subject in all occurrences without effecting other things that are not the intended subject.

    Meanwhile having it simple enough that it is understandable to people.
    Otherwise it may read like:

    If it is Sunday after 2;49 P.M. and the wind is blowing at above 25 MPH out of the east/south east then this is illegal to do this unless it is with a left handed clockwise turning meter of large digit read-out and having pearl colored numbers.

    Then only if the person is a certified member of a exclusive secret society that membership is closed and unaccountable as to the membership.

    LOL and that sir is why you get the big buck for wading through such crap to understand and explain to the rest of us what is permission-able and what is not?

  7. prairie pond

    Ya know…

    Many people here have asked me why I was so upset concerning the assassination of Dr. George Tiller.

    My answer was and is the same. It’s a short hop from assassinating doctors performing a legal medical service to killing queers just for who we are.

    Here’s a little example.

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×8826913

    • I don’t think there has ever been a mystery concerning what the right wants done with women (barefoot, pregnant, sit down, shut up or I’ll smack you-again) or gays (death). The question for me has always been this:

      Why so threatened by women and gays? What are you afraid of?

      My theory on the answer is that they are aware of their inferiority and feel the need to keep others down in order to cement their place. Same goes with any conservative-type thinker.

      • itolduso

        “My theory on the answer is that they are aware of their inferiority and feel the need to keep others down in order to cement their place. Same goes with any conservative-type thinker.”

        Sorry, wrong again. As I conservative, since you dump all conservatives in the same bucket, I resent your remark. I could use the same type of “logic” for liberals.

        I am a Christian, and a conservative. I think DADT and DOMA should be repealed. I have two daughters who I brought up to believe that they could be whatever they want to be.
        That while I disapprove in general of Homosexuality, I disapprove of the hate of Homosexuals even more, and believe that it is not an issue for the law. My wife works outside of the home, and has since our children were basically out of elementary school. We jointly made that decision. My wife handles those duties that suit her the best, including most of the paperwork. I handle those duties that suit me the best, including most of the cooking.
        If you want to debate conservative values fine, if you want to throw rocks, expect them to be picked up and thrown back.

        Have a nice day 🙂

  8. “They want to kill us…”

    It wasn’t that long ago I would have said you were exaggerating. I know better today. I see all the modern day Pharisees and their quest for control. I see that they call themselves everything good when they condemn those they’ve decided are different and unacceptable. Sometimes we know the measure of our hearts by its breaking.

    • tosmarttobegop

      Sadly I would not have said P.P. is exaggerating, too many people and like it was with lynching in the days would have thought no harm in it. When I was in High School there were those who would brag about going gay bashing. Even saying when the next time would be and inviting others to join in.

      Shoot at West there was even their own chapter of the KKK.

      Being White and over six foot I was often invited to both and told them what I thought of both.

      I was either very brave or not too smart as it was usually some linebacker doing the inviting.

      I was lucky also, it seems my rep was far worst then I was.

      I did not know it at the time, I thought I was some what a coward and weak.

  9. tosmarttobegop

    LOL wicked it comes with trying to understand the gender you all really are a mysteries to us.
    Often it is like that old saying: Every time I think I know the answer they change the questions!
    But yes it is something important that every man should know about women.

    Some times men do just want to cuddle and not always want to end up having sex.

    They also want to talk, the difficult thing about that is finding something that both genders want to talk about?

    I put in a story I wrote about that subject, it was set in a opera house built in the late eighteen hundred.

    I describe two waiting rooms one for men and the other for women.
    Foolish as it sounds in part the two rooms were in a misguided chivalry.

    To spare women of the fowl and gritty subjects of the day and the world.
    Business, war, Politics and human events all things that were not of beauty and softness within the world.

    And thought to be distasteful to women and that they would have no interested in

    But even in the thought that women would only be concerned with matters of family.

    What in that list would not have been issues that would touch any family?

    What men did not know or understand that in that other room such thing would have also be discussed!