TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › ACLU is at it again.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ACLU is at it again. - Page 2

post #31 of 51
1/17/08 at 12:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post

And I'm guessing nobody wants to touch the issue I raised of these laws-- and the sting that caught Senator Craig-- being used quite specifically against gay men.
I'll touch this one: you're absolutely right. They are. No question about it. And the fact that NAMBLA was mentioned in the same breath as this particular case only highlights the homophobia that drives this sort of thing.

That being said... do I think sex in a public restroom is something that ought to be protected by law? No, not really. There are other people in earshot, and honestly, I don't want to hear anyone - homo, hetero, bi, trans, unlabeled, whatever! - doing THAT business while I'm doing MY business

Although I can see where my reasoning may be flawed. There's a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom; I do concede that. I'm not sure what I think about this from a purely legal standpoint; I have trouble separating my "YUCK!" factor from the facts.

But I will say that if you're going to stand by your law, you need to apply it equally. And that is NOT what's going on.
Reply
post #32 of 51
1/17/08 at 12:54pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
See that's the point! If heterosexual sex is protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy but homosexual isn't then there is a problem! I agree, all sex in a public restroom is lewd, but the law needs to be written that way.

Pedophiles are protected under the First Amendment just like anything you say is. We don't have to LIKE what they say, but they have a right to say it. No matter how creepy, gross, morally wrong, and horrible it may be. It's just like the right the KKK has to assemble in Jena, La this weekend. They've asked all their members to bring nooses. The best thing we can do in these two situations is be the louder voice, or at the very least be the most reasonable one.
No, pedophiles are not protected as far as I'm concerned. Last I knew men having sex with little boys was against the law.
Reply
post #33 of 51
1/17/08 at 1:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
No, pedophiles are not protected as far as I'm concerned. Last I knew men having sex with little boys was against the law.
And we've had this discussion before. The ACLU wasn't defending anyone's right to have non-consensual sex, or sex with children, or any kind of sex at all. They were defending a group's right to have an opinion most of us violently disagree with.

Anyway, this thread is about consensual adults having sex in a possibly public, possibly semi-private place, and gay men being targeted by a law that seems to contradict other laws in the same state.
Reply
post #34 of 51
1/17/08 at 1:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaete View Post
I'll touch this one: you're absolutely right. They are. No question about it. And the fact that NAMBLA was mentioned in the same breath as this particular case only highlights the homophobia that drives this sort of thing.

That being said... do I think sex in a public restroom is something that ought to be protected by law? No, not really. There are other people in earshot, and honestly, I don't want to hear anyone - homo, hetero, bi, trans, unlabeled, whatever! - doing THAT business while I'm doing MY business

Although I can see where my reasoning may be flawed. There's a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom; I do concede that. I'm not sure what I think about this from a purely legal standpoint; I have trouble separating my "YUCK!" factor from the facts.

But I will say that if you're going to stand by your law, you need to apply it equally. And that is NOT what's going on.
A law can be written to exclude sexual activity from public spaces that have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hence, why having sex in a doctor's office wouldn't be advisable.
Reply
post #35 of 51
1/17/08 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
A law can be written to exclude sexual activity from public spaces that have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hence, why having sex in a doctor's office wouldn't be advisable.
Could be written, but has it been? Would it be applied equally to everyone, or be used to persecute people who are gay?

And (not in reply to your post, but the thread in general) I wonder if people understand what the ACLU is. It's a PAC, just like the NRA or the AARP or NAACP, that represents the interests of its members. Members, like me, who are quite happy with their goals and methods. Just because the people of opposing political persuasion disagree with what they do... frankly, to me that's a sign my dues and monthly pledge are well-spent.
Reply
post #36 of 51
1/17/08 at 2:32pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
And we've had this discussion before. The ACLU wasn't defending anyone's right to have non-consensual sex, or sex with children, or any kind of sex at all. They were defending a group's right to have an opinion most of us violently disagree with.

Anyway, this thread is about consensual adults having sex in a possibly public, possibly semi-private place, and gay men being targeted by a law that seems to contradict other laws in the same state.

Who targeted gay men? The consensus here seems to be that it is wrong for anyone to have sex in a public restroom.
Reply
post #37 of 51
1/17/08 at 2:54pm
The law did, in that you never hear about a heterosexual couple being busted for that kind of thing.
Reply
post #38 of 51
1/17/08 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Who targeted gay men? The consensus here seems to be that it is wrong for anyone to have sex in a public restroom.
The law is targeted towards gay men. In a prior case courts decided that hederosexual couples having sexual relations in a bathroom stall had a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, if Senator Craig was busted for soliciting gay sex in that bathroom the law is being enforced on an unequal level.

To break it down: It's okay for a straight couple to have sex in a public rest room (so far), but it's not okay for a gay man to do so.

Now, I think it's slighly insane that ANYONE is allowed to have sex in a public place, so if a law is written it needs to include both straight and gay people.
Reply
post #39 of 51
1/17/08 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Could be written, but has it been? Would it be applied equally to everyone, or be used to persecute people who are gay?

And (not in reply to your post, but the thread in general) I wonder if people understand what the ACLU is. It's a PAC, just like the NRA or the AARP or NAACP, that represents the interests of its members. Members, like me, who are quite happy with their goals and methods. Just because the people of opposing political persuasion disagree with what they do... frankly, to me that's a sign my dues and monthly pledge are well-spent.
Sorry, forgot to multi-quote on this one...

It can be written, I don't think it has been in the past. Mostly because the laws making specific types of sex acts illegal were recently over turned. In this case a good lawyer is going to have to look at the public decency laws in Europe to come up with the specific wording.

BTW, this law would be inforced equally.
Reply
post #40 of 51
1/17/08 at 4:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Who targeted gay men? The consensus here seems to be that it is wrong for anyone to have sex in a public restroom.
Aside from the fact that numerous people have pointed out that it targets gay men and therefore lacking consensus, that is the stated goal of many of these 'stings'. The bathroom Craig was in was known for what he was there for, and the undercover officer was there specifically to catch men soliciting anonymous sex.

This is true of nearly all such undercover operations. Police find out where gay men go, send undercover officers, and start arresting them. This is NOT people calling in complaints about a specific incident and the cops showing up, it is cops going to where they know these things happen.

And contrary to the tabloid hysteria, they're almost always the sort of parks or bathrooms you wouldn't take your kids to, and almost always after dark when the park should be closed anyway.

You see people meeting in parks to have sex all the time; typically married people on a lunch break who are having an affair. And nobody bothers them in their cars, not even when there are children around because they have no idea what's going on.
Reply
post #41 of 51
1/17/08 at 4:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
You see people meeting in parks to have sex all the time; typically married people on a lunch break who are having an affair. And nobody bothers them in their cars, not even when there are children around because they have no idea what's going on.

you do, why are you watching people having sex in the park for (kidding)
last i looked you get caught having sex in public you get busted,
does not matter who you are.(normaly they like to bust the guy)
Reply
post #42 of 51
1/17/08 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
you do, why are you watching people having sex in the park for (kidding)
last i looked you get caught having sex in public you get busted,
does not matter who you are.(normaly they like to bust the guy)
In public yes, but this case is in a bathroom stall where a previous court case said that a heterosexual couple had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Reply
post #43 of 51
1/17/08 at 5:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
In public yes, but this case is in a bathroom stall where a previous court case said that a heterosexual couple had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

they lied.
Reply
post #44 of 51
1/17/08 at 6:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Nambla has nothing to do with this thread aside from the ACLU-bashing bit of it. And, they've defended freedom of speech. You can't pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't. Sure, those pervs should be rotting in jail, but they aren't, and so they get the same rights as anyone else who is convicted of a crime. To say they shouldn't is fascist.
It deserves bashing.

The ACLU defends freedom of speech only for those who fit its extreme leftist political agenda.

There is nothing American about the ACLU.
Reply
post #45 of 51
1/17/08 at 6:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
you do, why are you watching people having sex in the park for (kidding)
last i looked you get caught having sex in public you get busted,
does not matter who you are.(normaly they like to bust the guy)
Lols. You know the parks I'm thinking of, I'd be willing to bet. If a cop happens by and catches you, sure, you're busted.

But I've never heard of undercover cops sitting around to see if two people meet in the lot and then hop into a van.

If all that happened in this case was a security guard happened in for a pee, and busted the Senator having sex, then I would feel completely different about it. I'm not enthralled with sting operations anyway.
Reply
post #46 of 51
1/17/08 at 6:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
It deserves bashing.

The ACLU defends freedom of speech only for those who fit its extreme leftist political agenda.

There is nothing American about the ACLU.
False. It defends the constitutional and basic human rights of everyone. Never have they sued on behalf of someone and then tried to claim that the precedent set should only apply to liberals.

They have a liberal bent, sure. As I said before, they're a PAC, not a government institution. People on the other side hate the NRA with as much venom, yet for some reason nobody ever claims that it doesn't have a right to exist.

Maybe that's something fundamentally different about people who identify as conservative and people who identify as liberal.
Reply
post #47 of 51
1/17/08 at 6:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
It deserves bashing.

The ACLU defends freedom of speech only for those who fit its extreme leftist political agenda.

There is nothing American about the ACLU.

I've missed you KTLynn.
Reply
post #48 of 51
1/17/08 at 7:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
It deserves bashing.

The ACLU defends freedom of speech only for those who fit its extreme leftist political agenda.

There is nothing American about the ACLU.
lol ok everyone hold your breath. i am about to say something nice about the ACLU.

It was not that long ago, I think it was in KY, they did defened a group of students who wanted pray, and the school said no your not allowed..

lol ok back to the bashing the aclu please
Reply
post #49 of 51
1/17/08 at 7:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Lols. You know the parks I'm thinking of, I'd be willing to bet. If a cop happens by and catches you, sure, you're busted.

But I've never heard of undercover cops sitting around to see if two people meet in the lot and then hop into a van.

If all that happened in this case was a security guard happened in for a pee, and busted the Senator having sex, then I would feel completely different about it. I'm not enthralled with sting operations anyway.
Yea, alot of sting operations tend to net people that have nothing to do with it. (lol remind me to tell the story of the gay bar in lorain, and me sitting in the parking lot sometime )

i still have a issue with, ok so he asked for sex, who said it had to take place in the bath room? it seems to me they are busting him for what THEY THINK he was thinking.
Reply
post #50 of 51
1/18/08 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
In public yes, but this case is in a bathroom stall where a previous court case said that a heterosexual couple had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Time for that precadent to be reversed then. Like most of us, I don't think anyone should be having sex in a public restroom. It is a PUBLIC restroom!!!

Someone mentioned that most of these restrooms and parks are not a place where you would take your children anyway. Maybe they aren't places where children should be taken, but that doesn't mean they won't be taken there. Unfortunately, lots of parents drag their kids out where they shouldn't be.

Sex should take place in private. I still do not understand how a public restroom is private. The restroom in question had stalls, right? How private is that?
Reply
post #51 of 51
1/18/08 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
Time for that precadent to be reversed then. Like most of us, I don't think anyone should be having sex in a public restroom. It is a PUBLIC restroom!!!

Someone mentioned that most of these restrooms and parks are not a place where you would take your children anyway. Maybe they aren't places where children should be taken, but that doesn't mean they won't be taken there. Unfortunately, lots of parents drag their kids out where they shouldn't be.

Sex should take place in private. I still do not understand how a public restroom is private. The restroom in question had stalls, right? How private is that?
The idea is that you have a reasonable expatiation of privacy when you are using the toilet. That is, you aren't expecting to be filmed, bothered, or watched in any way.

The precedent can be reversed to exclude sexual activity, but the law needs to be written that way. Right now it isn't.

As for sexual activity in a public park, that's different. It's a public space therefor one has no expatiation of privacy. Anyone who is arrested there for sexual activity can't argue that they thought they were having a "private" moment.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › ACLU is at it again.