[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Deviliciousss: "consensual" remember? :)
No one is condoning rape or sex with minors. In both cases we are dealing with "victims" who should be protected. No arguments there.
By the way, you have lumped "sodomy" with rape and molestation, which is slightly confusing. "Sodomy" is basically gay sex, which is the central question behind this debate. If two adult guys want to engage in sodomy with each other in the privacy of their home, Texan law says they can be prosecuted if caught by tthe police. This law has now been challanged in the Supreme Court.
By your argument it seems, you are in agreement that the government of a free and modern secular society should not legislate private consensual sexual activities between adults. Is that correct?
[/QUOTE]
Hmm, very interesting question. You’ve framed it well but are we thinking of an ideal secular society or america?
I’m no expert on the constitution but i do remember that my class on the subject really only served to feed me pro-american slogans and ingrain in my head buz words like “freedom” “separation of church and state” and “4th amendment rights” until i regurgitated them back during exams. And, although we enjoy many freedoms in America we might not otherwise have back in the countries of our origin, i feel as if that freedom is being torn from my hands. It seems as though the constitution can say whatever its interpreters want it to say. Libyans are notorious for believing in conspiracy theories but I never thought it would be constitutional for the gov’t to tap my phone, search my house without telling me before, etc all made legit through the patriot act. Somehow Ashcroft was able to find holes in this great secular state’s constitution that took away my civil liberties.
My point is although the i-love-america-rhetoric might make us believe that “bad” American laws, once challenged, will always be corrected, this is not the case. Almost any law can be supported by or deemed unconstitutional through different analysis of the constitution. What right does america have to legislate sexual activity, you ask? it doesnt but i’ll be damned if some gov’t official/lobyist/lawyer cant make one up.
Any ‘secular’ state will have problems if they try to draw these lines we’re talking about. Americans have no common moral ground to backup the lines drawn and, as was said, someone will feel unjustly oppressed.
My opinion though, is htat since America has decided to regulate “appropriate sexual behavior” and since i highly doubt the religious right will release the headlock they have on congress, instead of trying to push any religious agenda on them, people of the book who don’t necessarily agree with sodomy or prostitution, should push for a completely secular state. in other words, we should not be fighting against sodomy. the gay community was one of hte first to recognize muslims were being oppressed and victimized in recent years and I don’t think we should separate ourselves from those who support us.
and just fyi, prostitution is legal in nevada and utah i believe. (nevada for sure)
shrug what can ya do? sorry this is so long… i only meant to send a sentence or two when i began =)
Perhaps we should look at what is considered acceptable or permissible behaviour. Where sex and sexual innunendoes are considered OK. All this requires consistency.
Advertising is an example where bodies are used to sell things. Sometimes it's pretty explicit. Pornography is legal too and freely available. Are they thinking of legislating how many inches of skin can be shown in public?
I don't really think that legislation, however puritanical and whatever it tries to regulate will be able to achieve much. Once something becomes forbidden it becomes al the more desirable. And harder to control. I hope they are counting in the costs od controlling all this! (TV cameras in private homes?)
The only possible approach is one which protects the rights of the weaker sections of society and makes sure that sex is as far as possible truly consensual.
People need to follow their own conscience, that is stronger than any law.
And at the base of this there should be real education and inculcation of values and morals so that recourse to law is of necessity rare and more than that very clear.
Your point about the constantly deteriorating civil rights situation in US is very well taken. Your point about supporting gay and lesbian communities is interesting, though I can't say I agree with that line of thought. For me, whats wrong is wrong. "Since they helped us on one issue" kinda debate doesn't sound too viable to me. Also the issue is not whether the religious right will allow changing these laws in USA or not. The question is, do you think, US laws should enforce or legislate on private sexual activities between consensual adults?
My initial reading of your post suggest, that you will support scrapping all such laws (your reasons were different, as mentioned above). Is that correct?
Shirin,
Your point seems to be that legislating on such issues is more often than not, a waste of resources, and instead of developing of sound moral fibre of society is more useful. In which case are you arguing that in your opinion such laws should not be there, or that they should be there but not enforced. It is my understanding that many European countries, especially Scandanavian countries, are not so hung up on private sexual activities as US seems to be. Is that a fair assessment? Italy might be different due to its strong Catholic roots.
If consensual sex acts between heterosexual adults is allowed in privacy of their homes then I think government should give gays/lesbians this right too because to me, both ways it's wrong. Consensual sex is consensual sex and (personally I think) it is not right! However, if they do wanna ban gays/lesbians sex then they should ban heterosexual sex too, fair enough!
The truth is Faisal that you cant draw a line since you have nothing to measure this line against. If consensual sex between any two adults is allowed then there is no stopping a brother and a sister or a father and a son sharing a sexual relationship since they are both adults, they are in no way harming the society, its not being carried out without anyone's will, so why should it be stopped? Just because a lot of us would go eww at the thought of this?
Matsui makes an interesting point by saying that whatever the majority of the society prefers will define the right and the wrong. But then again this point is very weak since if i were to put forth the same scenario by saying that gay sex is haram in muslim nations, (since the majority of the society is against it), he would regard this as an oppression based on different sexual preferences..
Anyway the conclusion is still the same, you can not draw the line since different people will fancy different things, and if you allow something to one person, you can not prohibit another person from following out his desires.
Hmm well, you first paragraph is not what i’m saying. I didn’t say we should support them, i said we shouldn’t fight against or be especially vocal against them as i see is happening in a lot of Muslim communities. By 'not separate ourselves from them" i didn’t mean to say we should join the next gay pride parade and I’m sorry if this was how anyone took it.
With regards to your question, I don’t ‘support’ the scrapping of all such laws; not all of them are purely issues of morality. for example, laws like the banning of prostitution are around for reasons other than moral ones. There would have to be a decision made on taxing prostitution, issues of the transfer of diseases, illigitimate children and what it would mean for the lower class, how it would effect the education system, a change in the flow of money in the entertainment business, etc.
Thanks for clarifying the issue about gays-and-lesbians. However, I still feel, that whether someone vocally opposes them or not should be totally independent of whether they supported us on any issue. A lot of muslims I know are totally disgusted by the whole issue of gay rights.
Coming to the original question, you have linked prostitution to three issues: taxing them, spread of disease and illegitimate children.
Taxing them is an economic decision, which has little to do with stopping them from prostitution or any moral values. Re: spread of disease and illegitimate children, an argument can be made that how is prostitution different from compared to swinging couples or girls who are promiscous. People can have several sexual partners. Police don't prosecute them, and these people can be as much responsible for spreading disease or having illegitimate children. Point is, they make a choice to act in that way. Whether its stupid or idiotic, its their choice. Why should the state prosecute them? Whether someone pays to have sexual relations with a girl or she invites him for her own enjoyment... both of them may be spreading disease and pregnancies. Why discriminate?
Your last three points are unclear. Please elaborate, how its fits into the discussion.
Ammar, your points are well-taken. Its hard to draw a line in the sand when we are talking about man-made laws. And this is the crux of the matter.
Hmm, i don’t mean to turn this into a religious debate but gays in an Islamic state are (from my limited knowledge) discouraged from the act of course but if they were to commit haraam, they are encouraged to stay private about this sin. They as people have the same rights as any muslim if they are muslim and nonmuslim if they are nonmuslim. i haven’t read up much on this issue though so I’m not sure about what i’ve said. I’ll take some time this weekend to look things up.
good pt. but this would make it more wide spread. neither of these examples are selling a product. once it is marketed the problems of illegitimate children and spread of disease, which are present in the 2 examples, will be mainstreamed and mulitiplied many times over. this is just my vision though, i don’t have much logic to back it up other than the obvious.
The 3 points being:
“what it would mean for the lower class, how it would effect the education system, a change in the flow of money in the entertainment business”?
The first two are interlinked. I fear that rather than seeing education as a way to better themselves, some young women might turn to a fast, easy way to make money. Capable women would degrade themselves to this, neglect school, and find that they cannot support themselves later on in life creating a new community within the lower class. I wonder how big of a concern this is for countries in which prostitution is already legal.
As far as the entertainment business, what i meant was historically higher up there has always been much protest against the introduction of new forms of entertainment to the public to sort of minimize profit losses in already established corporations.
Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law
Thursday, June 26, 2003 Posted: 4:00 PM EDT (2000 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.
If this is about two consenting adults having sex in their own homes then the incest lobby might have a case. The chromosome argument doesn't really stand as they could always use condoms.
I think funguy was right on target that you don't really read before opening your mouth. Since you obviously have trouble reading, I have never said incest is out of this discussion. I said "sex with minors" is out of this discussion. Still don't get it? If you want to talk about consanguinity laws, yeah, go right ahead. Laws prohibiting incest, bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, adultry, prostitution, sodomy... all these laws legislate sexual activities between consenting adults. If they take away one, why not the others. Thats the question.
The consanguinity laws are based on religious taboos. It has nothing to do with medical evidence (or chromosomes) as you repeatedly tried to disinform. Separation of Church and State, right? ha!
Go ahead, knock yourself out. And if you don't have an answer, just sit quiet and wait for more knowledgable people to respond.
[/QUOTE]
on that note...
I think the bible also legislates laws of sexuality.
The main law I'm thinking of is.. You shall not commit adultary.
As far as accepting the fact that people do... yeah, they do, doesn't make it right.
I do think someone made a point in that..what right does government have to intrude into private sexual acts.
Answer
When the act is or might be detrimental to the health of another.
Health not only in the sense of causing disease, but in the sense of causing emotional trauma.
