Should gays be allowed to vote?

[BlaineTog]

That particular case was largely about whether or not the state of Texas could allow sodomy between opposite-sex couples (which it did) and not allow sodomy between same-sex couples. If a man and a woman can have anal sex, why can’t a man and a man do the same?

Because it’s icky, didn’t you get the memo?

 

[estesbob]

That particular case was largely about whether or not the state of Texas could allow sodomy between opposite-sex couples (which it did) and not allow sodomy between same-sex couples. If a man and a woman can have anal sex, why can’t a man and a man do the same?

Why can’t a Mother and Son?

 

[Annn]

Why can’t a Mother and Son?

It isn’t really my place to justify or claim unjust incest. I understand the danger of procreative acts between family members (high risk of genetic defects) and also would imagine it’s very psychologically damaging to have the mother/son role confused by sexual relationships, but to be honest I know nobody who has engaged or who is interested in engaging in incest, so I have not been party to arguments for or against.

I am merely saying that the difference between two consenting non-related adults who are male/female and two who are male/male or female/female doesn’t seem to be apparent to me in the case of oral/anal sex.

 

[Annn]

I do however imagine that even if incest were legal, there would not be hordes of mother/son pairs running off to get married.

And I doubt the fact that it’s illegal actually stops people (adults/both consenting) from engaging in these sex acts, if they want to. Incest as a form of abuse is, of course, another matter entirely.

 

[Annn]

Also, estesbob, as far as mother/son pairs, I guess this isn’t a legal argument at all, but mothers are responsible for the emotional/social well-being of their children and therefore have a lot of control over their children (I know my mom has tons of control over me, and she’s not even that strict and we don’t even live in the same state!) so it is incredibly likely that an unhealthily skewed power relationship would form. In a way, this sort of diminishes a child (even if they’re of consenting age)'s ability to consent to sex.

This is, of course, speculation because I know no one who openly practices incest.

 

[Steve40]

Now that’s government intrusion! Good grief, hanging around waiting for someone to commit a sex act is pretty nosy.

It beats the fire and brimstone of Sodom and Gomorra. The God given authority of our government use to help protect us against disrespect against the sexual act, humanity and our bodies, even the sale of contraceptive use to be illegal. When the government is doing what God wants, they have the legal and moral authority to be intrusive.

 

[Nickkname]

By “rights” I mean gay marriage, adoption, etc.

Please state your opinion on the matter.

Gays have the right to vote.

Gays do not have the right to marriage, adoption, etc.

Catholics cannot vote for candidates who promote gay marriage, adoption, etc.

• This includes gay Catholics as well.

 

[Fitswimmer]

It beats the fire and brimstone of Sodom and Gomorra. The God given authority of our government use to help protect us against disrespect against the sexual act, humanity and our bodies, even the sale of contraceptive use to be illegal. When the government is doing what God wants, they have the legal and moral authority to be intrusive.

Not according to the Constitution they don’t.

 

[Holly3278]

Yes, it is their right to vote too. Just because they’re gay doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. I could see not allowing them to vote if homosexuality was an exceptionally severe mental disorder or something but it’s not. I could also see not allowing them to vote if homosexuality was a crime but again, it’s not and shouldn’t be a crime. At least it shouldn’t be a crime to be a homosexual.

 

[Greg27]

We’re probably going to have to agree to disagree. Most of the ‘gay agenda’ (or at least the big bullet points like marriage and discrimination) relies on the interpretation of existing law, which is the courts’ job. If the ‘agenda’ included ‘every homosexual gets a Ferrari courtesy of the government’, that’d require legislative action, not interpretive.

I think this is a good point; the court as the judicial branch of government, is bound to interpret law rather than create it.

Ultimately it is up to the legislature to make laws in a democratic country, including any laws pertaining to homosexual people. I see no reason to exclude gay people from the right to vote, and also marry according to civil rights and adopt children. As for whether churches or other religions allow gay people to celebrate marriage according to their rites, that is something to be decided by the church or religious organisation rather than secular law, save where secular law must prevail.