I am not going to defend anyone's right to engage in sex in public bathrooms. You're adults -- get a room. But this paragraph alarms me:
Jambo observes an alarming trend in the number of consevatives who are interested in other people's sex lives.
It's Peeping Tom-ism gone legit.
I suppose you wouldn't be surprised to know that I subscribe to the AFA e-mail service. They are like the gay CIA. I find it important to keep track of those gay activities to keep my family safe (and think of hot man on man sex)
Just joking. I do find the AFA fixation on the gay issue is a bit overboard, but what do you expect they are a religious organization. My view is I don't want anyone gay or straight having sex where I or my children can observe.
I think it is well established that gay men looking for sex will frequent rest stops and public parks to get it from each other or from prostitutes. Down where I come from there is a beach of the Wisconsin River called the Mazo nudie beach. I've canoed on the WI river and saw it. Very few women. Mostly gay guys looking to score. Its kind of sick.
So again, every one gay or straight needs to keep in the bedroom. Of course, this does not mean I believe homosexual sex is constitutional right as I have stated previously.
By 10:49 PM, at
Hey, look, we agree -- public sex should be regulated.
Now I have to ask, do you consider heterosexual sex a constitutional right? I've seen beaches full of straight guys looking to score, is that sick too?
There is no constitutional right to sexual contact no matter what the persuasion. Show me a law that regulates heterosexual intercourse. Its a non-issue.
I think we can agree that generally men have a stronger sex drive then women. If there is two men involved then you double the chance for debauchery in my opinion. Let me make perfectly clear that I do not believe that all gay men are perverts. What I am saying you have two men who want to get it on I think the risk for public display increases.
Let the verbal stoning begin...
By 5:38 PM, at
The Constitution doesn't say anything about sex. It does guarantee equal protection. If you can ban gay people from having sex, why not ban Hispanics, the left handed, or women? Do they have an equal protection claim that gay Americans don't?
My all time favorite dissent was in Bowers v. Hardwick which started out "This case is no more about a constitutional right to commit sodomy than Katz was about a constitutional right to place interstate bets from a phone booth." It is all about a right to be left alone which I would think would resonate with conservatives. But for some reason they just can't seem to leave people alone when it comes to sex. They want to shrink the size of government until it is just small enough to fit in your bedroom. By the way, Lawrence v. Texas, the case a couple years ago that overturned Bowers was not decided on equal protection grounds but on the much more sweeping due process grounds which says this is an area that the government shouldn't be involved in. Good for Reagan appointee Anthony who wrote the opinion.
I keep forgetting that the only person entitled to equal protection is George W. Bush.<< Home