Should gay sodomy be illegal?

[© tweed]

..

[TheresNoMoney]

No, what business do we have with what gay people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

[Emsworth]

No, it should be legal. The state has no business regulating private consensual sex.

[afleitch]

Legal, there is no need to regulate in the bedroom between two consenting adults.  Besides sodomy (anal penetration) isn't exclusively 'gay'. You get gay couples who don't do it and straight couples who do.

[opebo]

No, it should be legal. The state has no business regulating private consensual sex.

Correct emsworth.  In fact such bans are unconstitutional, as they violate the right to privacy.

Does anyone know if they violate substantive due process?

[The Constitarian]

No, what business do we have with what gay people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

^^^ I agree 100%

[Emsworth]

Does anyone know if they violate substantive due process?

There is no such thing as "substantive due process"--that is nothing more than a figment of the Supreme Court's imagination. But if there were such a thing as substantive due process, then a ban on sodomy would indeed violate it (as the Supreme Court recently held in Lawrence v. Texas).

[nclib]

Of course it should be legal.

[opebo]

Does anyone know if they violate substantive due process?

There is no such thing as "substantive due process"--that is nothing more than a figment of the Supreme Court's imagination. But if there were such a thing as substantive due process, then a ban on sodomy would indeed violate it (as the Supreme Court recently held in Lawrence v. Texas).

No, you're merely imagining that there is no substantive due process.

[Ebowed]

Option 1.

[Everett]

If straight sodomy is legal, then gay sodomy should be, too.

[A18]

Does anyone know if they violate substantive due process?

There is no such thing as "substantive due process"--that is nothing more than a figment of the Supreme Court's imagination. But if there were such a thing as substantive due process, then a ban on sodomy would indeed violate it (as the Supreme Court recently held in Lawrence v. Texas).

No, you're merely imagining that there is no substantive due process.

"Due process of law" means "by the law of the land."

There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

[opebo]

There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

Yes there is.

[Alcon]

There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

Yes there is.

Where?

[opebo]

There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

Yes there is.

Where?

In most of the first ten amendments, Alcon, and in all of them taken together.

[Alcon]

There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

Yes there is.

Where?

In most of the first ten amendments, Alcon, and in all of them taken together.

Here.  I will make this easy.  Here are the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution:

1. Freedom of religion and expression
2. Right to bear arms
3. Quartering soldiers
4. Search and seisure
5. Rights of persons
6. Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions
7. Civil trials
8. Further guarantees in criminal cases
9. Unenmumerated rights
10. Reserved powers

Where, pray tell, does the right to privacy find itself here?  If it is as simple as you seem to imply, I'm sure you'll have no trouble in compiling this information.

[Inverted Things]

Sear

There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

Yes there is.

Where?

In most of the first ten amendments, Alcon, and in all of them taken together.

Here.  I will make this easy.  Here are the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution:

1. Freedom of religion and expression
2. Right to bear arms
3. Quartering soldiers
4. Search and seisure
5. Rights of persons
6. Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions
7. Civil trials
8. Further guarantees in criminal cases
9. Unenmumerated rights
10. Reserved powers

Where, pray tell, does the right to privacy find itself here?  If it is as simple as you seem to imply, I'm sure you'll have no trouble in compiling this information.

I'll admit to not being very constitution savvy, but it seems to me that the 4th amendment contains some elements of a right to privacy. The 9th also may cover it.

Even if the right to privacy isn't in the constitution, a government should respect people's privacy.

[A18]

A prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is a far cry from a right to privacy.

The Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction, designed to prevent the bill of rights from being taken to increase the powers of the federal government.

[opebo]

1. Freedom of religion and expression - Yes
2. Right to bear arms - Yes
3. Quartering soldiers - Yes
4. Search and seisure - Yes
5. Rights of persons - Yes
6. Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions - Yes
7. Civil trials - No
8. Further guarantees in criminal cases - Yes
9. Unenmumerated rights - Yes
10. Reserved powers  - Not sure

1-6, as well as 8 and 9 all confirm a right to privacy.  7 and 10 I'm not so sure about, but they certainly don't do anything so suggest the opposite.

[A18]

Where is the generic right to privacy?

[opebo]

Where is the generic right to privacy?

As I said in all of those amendments, since they are all based upon a presumption of a right to privacy.

[A18]

No. The very fact that they list specific rights to privacy makes it quite clear that there is no generic right to privacy anywhere enumerated.

[opebo]

No. The very fact that they list specific rights to privacy makes it quite clear that there is no generic right to privacy anywhere enumerated.

There is no need to enumerate it.  One can simply assume it from the obvious intention of the document as a whole, and these listed amendments.

[A18]

How do you identify this supposed 'obvious' intention? The fact that specific rights to privacy are enumerated would make it pretty clear by implication that there is no generic right to privacy.

[opebo]

How do you identify this supposed 'obvious' intention? The fact that specific rights to privacy are enumerated would make it pretty clear by implication that there is no generic right to privacy.

All of those rights in the Bill of Rights stem from a right to privacy, Philip.