Army discharges gay soldiers

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Thanks for approving of me. That means I can't be outcasted for my CHOICES.

So let's try to pretend that the law, religion, and morality do not intersect in most societies:

Based on the law, homosexuality is not against the law but certain "manifestations??" of homosexuality are against the law. That could translate to homosexuality as a form of deviance.

But what manifestations of homosexuality are against the law? I can't think of any off the top of my head that would specifically apply to homosexuals.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

But what manifestations of homosexuality are against the law? I can't think of any off the top of my head that would specifically apply to homosexuals.

Would gay marriage apply? What about sodomy laws that people try to apply to homosexuals/say are in reference to homosexuality.

Please don't disapprove. *biting nails*

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Would gay marriage apply? What about sodomy laws that people try to apply to homosexuals/say are in reference to homosexuality.

I think we're defining the issue in different ways. I'm thinking specifically of instances where homosexual behavior is illegal.

I don't see gay marriage as a manifestation of homosexuality that's against the law. In those states where gay marriage is illegal, a gay couple wouldn't be able to falsify a marriage, or falsely represent that they are married. It's a measure against homosexual marraige, but not against homosexuality itself. But, I may be looking at the issue too narrowly. I also don't mean to marginalize the effect that such laws have on gay couples.

As to anti-sodomy laws, the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas invalidated all such laws in the US. So, if there are any laws like that, they're flying in the face of Supreme Court precedent.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I think we're defining the issue in different ways. I'm thinking specifically of instances where homosexual behavior is illegal.

I don't see gay marriage as a manifestation of homosexuality that's against the law. In those states where gay marriage is illegal, a gay couple wouldn't be able to falsify a marriage, or falsely represent that they are married. It's a measure against homosexual marraige, but not against homosexuality itself. But, I may be looking at the issue too narrowly. I also don't mean to marginalize the effect that such laws have on gay couples.

As to anti-sodomy laws, the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas invalidated all such laws in the US. So, if there are any laws like that, they're flying in the face of Supreme Court precedent.

Hey, you're the one who wanted to go by the law. I go by normative behavior so it is deviance regardless.

ETA: I know it's not against homosexuality, itself. As with many forms of crime and deviance, it only matters within a certain context. I was talking about certain actions, such as marriage.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Hey, you're the one who wanted to go by the law. I go by normative behavior so it is deviance regardless.

ETA: I know it's not against homosexuality, itself. As with many forms of crime and deviance, it only matters within a certain context. I was talking about certain actions, such as marriage.

Ok, fair enough - I was going from a very narrow view, and I see your point about marriage.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I think we're defining the issue in different ways. I'm thinking specifically of instances where homosexual behavior is illegal.

I don't see gay marriage as a manifestation of homosexuality that's against the law. In those states where gay marriage is illegal, a gay couple wouldn't be able to falsify a marriage, or falsely represent that they are married. It's a measure against homosexual marraige, but not against homosexuality itself. But, I may be looking at the issue too narrowly. I also don't mean to marginalize the effect that such laws have on gay couples.

As to anti-sodomy laws, the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas invalidated all such laws in the US. So, if there are any laws like that, they're flying in the face of Supreme Court precedent.

Yes, those laws may be flying the face of Supreme Court precedent, but they are still on the books and people are still being prosecuted under them.
I think it should be made clear that my statements concerning deviance are based on religion AND law. However, I always find it interesting that people argue that the two should remain separate. Most laws are based on Christian principles found in the Bible. So the two are never entirely separate.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Yes, those laws may be flying the face of Supreme Court precedent, but they are still on the books and people are still being prosecuted under them.
I think it should be made clear that my statements concerning deviance are based on religion AND law. However, I always find it interesting that people argue that the two should remain separate. Most laws are based on Christian principles found in the Bible. So the two are never entirely separate.

Where are the anti-sodomy laws still on the books?

As to the issue of deviance in terms of religion and law; there are no laws specifically against homosexuality. There are laws that prevent homosexuals from marrying, but nothing that keeps an individual from maintaining a homosexual relationship.

In saying that religion and law should remain seperate; I think people are arguing that, apart from the laws that are currently on the books, the government shouldn't be forming new laws based on religious norms.

That's not an artful way of describing it, but you get my point.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Where are the anti-sodomy laws still on the books?

As to the issue of deviance in terms of religion and law; there are no laws specifically against homosexuality. There are laws that prevent homosexuals from marrying, but nothing that keeps an individual from maintaining a homosexual relationship.

In saying that religion and law should remain seperate; I think people are arguing that, apart from the laws that are currently on the books, the government shouldn't be forming new laws based on religious norms.

That's not an artful way of describing it, but you get my point.

My home state still has laws against sodomy. Heck, there are some states that still have laws making fornication, adultery, and "shacking up" illegal. Also, you do realize that those types of laws are still in effect for acts done in public right? Lawrence only protects people in the privacy of their homes. If they commit these acts in public, all bets are off. However, my home state has still prosecuted individuals for acts of sodomy since Lawrence. The issue is that no one has challenged the prosecutions.

I would venture to say that laws concerning sodomy and gay marriage ARE two examples of laws that, while they may not prohibit homosexuality in the literal sense, the focus is to put a significant damper on activities that are of significance to the homosexual community.

As far as the government creating new laws, I dare say that even new laws are going to still be based on religious norms. I'm sure for every new law they create, you can find a basis for it in the Bible. Even laws that provide that you must follow the government's leadership have some basis in the Bible.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

My home state still has laws against sodomy. Heck, there are some states that still have laws making fornication, adultery, and "shacking up" illegal. Also, you do realize that those types of laws are still in effect for acts done in public right? Lawrence only protects people in the privacy of their homes. If they commit these acts in public, all bets are off. However, my home state has still prosecuted individuals for acts of sodomy since Lawrence. The issue is that no one has challenged the prosecutions.

I would venture to say that laws concerning sodomy and gay marriage ARE two examples of laws that, while they may not prohibit homosexuality in the literal sense, the focus is to put a significant damper on activities that are of significance to the homosexual community.

As far as the government creating new laws, I dare say that even new laws are going to still be based on religious norms. I'm sure for every new law they create, you can find a basis for it in the Bible. Even laws that provide that you must follow the government's leadership have some basis in the Bible.

Ok...I was thinking of the anti-sodomy laws purely in the private context. I'll admit that I haven't looked enough into the issue as far as public sodomy, although I'd wonder why that didn't fall under some larger public indecency act covering all public sexual acts.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I think it should be made clear that my statements concerning deviance are based on religion AND law. However, I always find it interesting that people argue that the two should remain separate. Most laws are based on Christian principles found in the Bible. So the two are never entirely separate.

Isn't this the classic "correlation does not imply causation" issue? Also contextual testing?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Isn't this the classic "correlation does not imply causation" issue? Also contextual testing?

Yes and yes.

[Thetagirl218]

I feel like I am in a room full of lawyers!