should gay sex be a crime? why or why not?
359411
Saturday :: November 08, 2003\nCourt: Gay Sex is Not Adultery\n\nThe New Hampshire Supreme Court has decided that gay sex is not adultery. An interesting decision, and a correct one in our view, holding that judges should not be the arbiter of what is or is not an intimate act. The opinion is here. [link via How Appealing.]\n\n    Part of the problem in New Hampshire is that adultery is not defined in the state's divorce laws. So the court looked up "adultery" in Webster's dictionary and found that it mentions intercourse. And it found an 1878 case that referred to adultery as "intercourse from which spurious issue may arise." \n\n    But the majority did not want the New Hampshire courts to step onto the slippery slope of defining which sex acts outside of intercourse might amount to adultery. "This standard would permit a hundred different judges ... to decide just what individual acts are so sexually intimate as to meet the definition," the court said.\n\n\n\nSex Offender Registry is offensive\nHundreds of gays convicted of having sex with other men have to register with their local police\nby John Ward\n\nEffective October 1, 1996, sex offenders who reside in Massachusetts and who are not in jail are required to go their local police station and register. Failure to do so is a crime punishable by imprisonment. Your reactions to this might be, "Well, that sounds a bit Orwellian, but we have to do something about the sexual predators who are living undetected in our midst."\n\nIt's not quite that simple. Besides being a dreadful measure that will do little or nothing to make anyone safer, the law has serious, and probably unintended consequences for a large number of gay and bisexual men who would never dream of having anything other than consensual sex with other adults. Here is why. Under the new law, a sex offender is defined as anyone who has been convicted of certain specified crimes any time after January 1, 1981. This includes "Open and Gross Lewdness" and indecent assault and battery. The intent probably was to snare people who have been convicted of exposing their genitals to children and to persons who perpetrate forcible sexual attacks. However, these same statutes have been used over the years to prosecute adult males who have consensual sex with other adult men in the woods, as well as those who appear to linger too long at the urinals at men's rooms, such as Back Bay Stations, and those who are entrapped by undercover police officers who engage them in conversations and then arrest them if the conversation leads to physical contact. By the most conservative estimate, there are hundreds of men who have pleaded guilty to these offenses to save themselves embarrassment or because they did not think they could get a fair trial, even though the police reports used to convict them often included outright lies. Under the registration statute, which is now in effect, these men, if they were convicted after 1981, now have to register as sex offenders, even though they were convicted of victimless crimes, or face further prosecution. Once one has registered as a sex offender, virtually anyone over the age of 18 can go to the police station and be informed whether any named individual is a sex offender or be provided with a list of all sex offenders who live within a mile of any specific address.\n\nGay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) has brought a law suit on behalf of a man who was entrapped in the woods by an attractive young plainclothed officer who engaged in "suggestive" conversation with him, allowed the man to touch him, and then arrested him for indecent assault. The man comes from a small community, and, when he came to see us, was literally suicidal over the effect that exposure would have on him, his wife, his children, and grandchildren.\n\nWhatever the result of GLAD's suit, there is no doubt that now is the time for u
1144778
yes it should be legal, the people that are afriad i twill affect their relationshiops don't have strong relations and fear losing their loved one. RIGHT TO PRESUE HAPPYNESS. Marriage is about love not religon creed or sexual orentition, if you really wanan look at it religously I'd guess that jesus would have hung out wiht the gay guy or girl or the bisexual just like he hung out with the prostitute and blind guy and the guy with lepracy, if theres anyone  who he wouldnt hang with its the guy saying no these arnt people and that they cant live happily and love who they want  to. I'm not even religous I just like to give what i think even catholics and cristians can think cuse I used to be one till I decide I was bisexual ... and I think the only thing needed for marriage is LOVE.
537124
I am just Wilde about it Oscar. Let me put down my beer stein, Gertrude, and my Alice B. Toklas brownies so I can answer your question. Isn't it queer you should ask? I know nothing of this. I don't believe one's sexuality should include anyone or exclude anyone as far as historical significance is concerned. I don't think gays should be villified or glorified. The only thing that gives me pause is that it raises homophobia to the same level as racism. One cannot choose one's skin color, except for George Hamilton and Michael Jackson.
603471
Any person, male or female, who knowingly helps hide crime done by  religious clergy (regardless of gender here also and regardless of which religion it is) should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  By law they are aiding and abetting a criminal.  It is morally and ethically wrong no matter the religious background involved.\n\nBy hiding wrongdoings, these people foster a culture in which ethics have no place.  They thereby encourage the behavior because they do not show their own how wrong the behavior is.  Hiding wrongdoings makes occurrences more frequent and more has to be hidden creating a vicious cycle.\n\nThe people who knowingly hide these acts are just as responsible as the ones committing them and deserve the same retributions for their acts.
799707
Rape is a violant crime against another person, consultual sex among gays is consulting people  Rape is a behaviour and activity that bothers me it does more it infuriates me
258810
I think it should be legalized, and so do a lot of other smart people, including the folks at the American Psychiatric Association\nhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200785.html\n\nAnd yet another study just came out today saying same-sex marriage bans cause trauma\nhttp://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid26315.asp\n\nThe California State Legislature also agrees that gay marriage should be legalized\nhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090602076.html\n\nBut Arnold vetoed it (bastard)\nhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702020.html\nhttp://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/29/MNG4IEVVEG5.DTL\n\nOne the best articles to make the case has been reprinted in numerous journals and books, and you can find here\nhttp://www.indegayforum.org/authors/corvino/corvino59.html\n\nAs for books, I reccomend\n\nGay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America by Jonathan Rauch, 2004\n\nSame-Sex Marriage and the Constitution by Evan Gerstmann 2003\n\nWhy Marriage Matters : America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry by Evan Wolfson  2004\n\nWhat God Has Joined Together? : A Christian Case for Gay Marriage by David Meyers 2005\n\nWhy You Should Give A Damn About Gay Marriage by  Davina Kotulski 2004\n\nCabaj and Purcell, On The Road to Same-Sex Marriage (Jossey-Bass Inc., 1998)\n\nW.N. Eskridge, The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment (The Free Press, 1996).\n\nE.J. Graff, What is Marriage For? (Beacon Press, 1999).\n\nA. Sullivan, Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con, A Reader (Random House, 1997).\n\nAnd here is a shitload of websites:\n\nStart with this bibliography\nhttp://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html\n\nAnd move on down\nhttp://www.sfgate.com/samesexmarriage/\nhttp://www.allianceforsamesexmarriage.org/\nhttp://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/domestic-partners/mainpage.html\nhttp://www.ftmf.org/fof/\nhttp://www.freedomtomarry.org/\nhttp://www.glaad.org/media/resource_kit_detail.php?id=3457\nhttp://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/record?record=9\nhttp://www.marriageequality.org/main_home.php\nhttp://www.nbjcoalition.org/issues/marriage.html\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm
321743
I would tend to agree with Lisa.  It is only as victimless as it occurs but, the possible transmission of STD could create an unexpected third party who becomes becomes the unaware victim, due to the commision of the victimless crime.  Whether it should be legal, I am opposed, because, there is no realistic means of regulation and do we really want the government REGULATING that kind of activity.
649820
I cover courts in the UK. While there are strict instructions to judges, juries etc to disregard sexual status on any charge, human nature will prevail.\nIn the judiciary, there are plenty of gays who would never admit it, and therefore would, perhaps, give a more sympathetic hearing to similarly minded.\nI think, it probably evens itself out, who knows?
740757
I think gays shouldn't have the right to tell everyone about their sex life. No one knows about mine except my best friends. It's private.\n\nAs far as gays are concerned: TMI
567474
Morality is relative.  Keep in mind that it was acceptable for Roman men to have sex with young, teen boys.  Slavery used to be morally acceptable.  My point is, only you can decide if smoking weed is morally wrong.  Personally, I think if more people smoked pot, this planet would be a much better place.
937513
No. Because if a sex offender is still considered dangerous, the only rational thing to do is to change the laws to make all violent sexual assault and child molestation crimes have mandatory life sentences.\n\nEither they've paid their debt to society and are free, or they should be behind bars or 6' under.\n\nIt is the height of folly to let criminal sex offenders out of prison, then turn around and label them dangerous. What politicians need to do is make these mandatory life sentences.\n\nAm I wrong?
848929
They do that in many countries.  But I don't think that that would be the proper punishment for theft.  Now, if someone sexually molests a child, yes, their hands should be cut off.  Along with other body parts.
979620
You miss a point in that norms have changed since the time of Oscar Wilde; homosexul sex is no longer an offence, and neither is anal sex between heterosexuals.  As sexual deviancy is presumably not defined under statute - I'd love to see the draftsman try - it will be left to the man on the clapham omnibus, or as he is now referred to the reasonable person.  Given that society has shifted in its outlook, the judiciary must do the same.  \n\nFurthermore, the church, state and juduciary are necessarily kept separate so that one does not overly influence the other - look at laws which the Government has brought in, only for the Judiciary to define in its own way as soon as its given the chance.  The only person who straddles the state and juduciary is the Lord Chancellor, a political appt to the Judiciary.\n\nTo say that no - one has ever been cured of a menal heath problem is incorrect and sensationalist.  The issue here is whether sexual deviancy is a mental health issue - this depends on the sexual behaviour, and an examination of the individual to discover the reasons for that behaviour. \n\nMental health professionals take their job seriously, there is little chance of infiltration by Opus Dei, the KKK, the Keystone Cops or any other body you care to mention.  \n\nAs to your question, the norm is whatever society decides it is at the time.  Who is society?  We are - the reasonable person in the street, the imaginary person the law considers when trying a case.
657636
Definityly gay people should be protected by law. Because there is discrimination against gay people. Therefore, there must be protection. Society can not be change in one day. So, law is very important. There are many details in each country according to this subject. For example in my country, in Turkey, there isn't any law mentioning homosexualism, or punishing it. However, there isn't any law against discrimination, either. You can find the detailed current legal situation of gay people in several countries, in this site:
238228
No.  I believe some people are born with gay tendencies, but they still have a choice whether to act on them on not.  Being gay shouldn't be classified with theives and murderers though.  They aren't harming other people.  One can have their own beliefs without using harsh words or bashing.  It is against God to be gay but we are all under construction and have to find out the hard way on everything on this earth.  God said "Judge not, lest you be judged".  A gay person may be living in sin and won't admit it but they still have feelings and the right to be treated with respect just like everyone else.  How else will they open their ears to the truth?
693678
It would depend on the individual case. If the police and/or prosecution had planted evidence or hid evidence that would have proved someones innocence, then deliberately and knowingly prosecuted an innocent man, then yes, under those circumstances I feel both criminal and civil charges should be brought against the "People". But unfortunately our law system is not perfect and even when everything is done by the book, sometimes an innocent person is found guilty of a crime that they did not commit. In those cases you cannot blame the prosecution or law enforcement, and it would be unfair to penalize them.
561811
A crime is a crime.  If it is against the law then anyone that breaks the law is a criminal.  SEAL THE BORDER. Mandate English in the schools period....