Kansas Court Upholds 17-Year Prison Sentence of Bisexual

[Pookie]

I first posted on this case here ...

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=5316508#post5316508


This is a new development ...

Defying U.S. Supreme Court, Kansas Court Upholds 17-Year Prison Sentence of Bisexual Teenager

January 30, 2004


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TOPEKA, KS -- The American Civil Liberties Union today deplored a Kansas appeals court ruling that it is constitutional to give a bisexual teenager a sentence 13 times longer than a straight teenager would receive for the same crime.

"The court’s opinion in this case defies comprehension, and we intend to seek an appeal," said Dick Kurtenbach, Executive Director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri. "The U.S. Supreme Court ordered Kansas to reconsider this case in light of its holding last summer that the government can’t have a different set of rules for gay people than it does for straight people. But the Kansas court’s opinion is written as if Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down same-sex-only sodomy laws, had never even happened."

The two-to-one decision from the Kansas Court of Appeals today upholds the state’s "Romeo and Juliet" law, which gives much lighter sentences to heterosexual teenagers who have sex with younger teens, but specifically excludes gay teenagers. In its decision, the Court gave three explanations for sentencing gays so much more severely: that doing so will reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, that doing so encourages "traditional sexual mores," and that doing so promotes procreation and marriage.

"The Court’s reasons for approving this law are absurd," said Tamara Lange, Limon’s attorney from the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "All young people should be entitled to protection from sexually transmitted diseases, and punishing gay kids more harshly ‘protects’ no one. The Supreme Court made it very clear that ‘traditional sexual mores’ are no longer a legitimate rationale for discriminating against gay people. To suggest that the state should give straight men a lighter sentence to encourage them to marry the 14- and 15-year-old girls they impregnate and support the children that result from their crimes is incomprehensible."

Matthew Limon is currently serving 17 years in prison, instead of the 13 to 15 months he would have faced if he were heterosexual. The Kansas law makes sexual relations with a minor a lesser crime if both people are teens, but it only applies to opposite-sex relations. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated Limon’s conviction and instructed the Kansas Court of Appeals to give it further consideration in light of the historic ruling on sexual intimacy in Lawrence v. Texas. The "Romeo and Juliet" law, like the overturned Texas sodomy law, treats the sexual conduct of lesbian and gay people differently.

Under the Kansas law, consensual oral sex between two teens is a lesser crime if the younger teenager is 14 to 16 years old, if the older teenager is under 19, if the age difference is less than four years, if there are no third parties involved, and if the two teenagers "are members of the opposite sex."



Selected Quotes from Justice Henry W. Green, Jr.’s Opinion:

Heterosexual men who have sex with 14- and 15-year-old girls deserve a lighter sentence to encourage procreation:

"Throughout history, governments have extolled the virtues of procreation as a way to furnish new workers, soldiers, and other useful members of society. The survival of society requires a continuous replenishment of its members."

Heterosexual men who have sex with 14- and 15- year-old girls deserve a lighter sentence to encourage the young men to marry the girls they have slept with and provide for their potential offspring:

"When a child is born from a relationship between a minor and a young adult, the minor is often unable to financially support the newborn child. In many cases, the minor is still a dependent. As a result, the financial burden to support the newborn child properly falls to the young adult. Obviously, the young adult cannot furnish adequate financial support for the newborn child while he or she is incarcerated. The legislature could well have concluded that incarcerating the young adult parent for a long period would be counterproductive to the requirement that a parent has a duty to provide support to his or her minor child… On the other hand, same-sex relationships do not generally lead to unwanted pregnancies. As a result, the need to release the same-sex offender from incarceration is absent."


From Justice Joseph Pierron, Jr.’s Dissent:

"Carved in stone above the pillars in front of the United States Supreme Court building are the words ‘Equal Justice Under Law.’ In bronze letters on the north interior wall of the Kansas Judicial Center we read ‘Within These Walls The Balance Of Justice Weighs Equal.’ There are reasons why we remind ourselves so graphically of the importance of equal justice. Persons in power and authority have historically been tempted to discriminate against people they do not like or understand. If these personal and political dislikes become law and exceed the bounds of constitutionality, the courts have been given the duty to be the final protectors of our ideal of equality under the law. This blatantly discriminatory sentencing provision does not live up to American standards of equal justice."

A backgrounder on the case is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14476&c=41

The Kansas Court of Appeals decision can be read in its entirety at: http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp/2004/20040130/85898.htm

More information on how the U.S. Supreme Court sent this case back to the Kansas Court of Appeals can be read here: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=13033&c=41

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14838&c=41

Clearly, ignorance reigns supreme in the Kansas Court of Appeals.

 

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Says

Sometimes I wonder if half these people who hate gays so much arn't secretly gay and just loathing themselves (and as such everyone around them). How ignorant do you have to be, if the supreme court is telling you to 'reconsider the case' then you are obviously doing SOMETHING wrong, even if you don't nessisarily agree.

-Zergplex

 

[wishbone96]

It just goes to show that the Supremes have lost their compass and given into corporate special interests. This is all the
more reason to vote Dem next November because if Chimp boy gets reelected he is going to replace Ginsberg and another Justice(Souter?)with right wing extremists. With a strong Republican Senate and House-you can count on it. Vote Dem in '04.

 

[Ms_Lilith]

I can't even think of something to say, I'm so angry.

That is simply disgusting.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Christ on a pogo stick, why in hell would we want to PROMOTE procreation??? The world population is already 6,000,000,000 and rising fast, and we want MORE people when China asks it's citizens to voluntarily limit themselves to one child per family and Japan is using abortions to keep the population down? This is just another way that our laws need to be brought into the 21st century (and I just thought it was Internet crime laws that needed to be tweaked).

 

[Pookie]

ACLU Asks Kansas Supreme Court to Reconsider 17-Year Prison Sentence of Bisexual Teenager

March 1, 2004


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TOPEKA, KS – Arguing that an appeals court erred gravely in upholding a 17-year prison sentence for a bisexual teenager, the American Civil Liberties Union today asked the Kansas Supreme Court to rehear the case of Matthew Limon.

"Matthew Limon would be out of prison by now if he were heterosexual, yet Kansas law dictates that he must stay behind bars until he’s 35 years old," said Dick Kurtenbach, Executive Director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri. "To say one person must serve a sentence 13 times longer than another person would for the same crime because of his sexual orientation not only violates established equal protection law – it’s simply and unequivocally wrong."

In three separate opinions on January 30, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld the state’s discriminatory "Romeo and Juliet" law, which gives much lighter sentences to heterosexual teenagers who have sex with younger teens, but specifically excludes gay teenagers. In the Court of Appeals, presiding Judge Pierron recognized that the "blatantly discriminatory sentencing provision does not live up to American standards of equal justice," but he was outvoted by the other two judges on the panel.

The case had landed back before the appeals court after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered it to reconsider the matter in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down same-sex-only sodomy laws.

"The Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions make it clear that the state can’t have different sets of rules for straight people and gay people," said Tamara Lange, Limon’s attorney from the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "We’re hopeful that the Kansas Supreme Court will see this and make state law apply fairly and equally to everyone."

Under the Kansas law, consensual oral sex between two teens is a lesser crime if the younger teenager is 14 to 16 years old, if the older teenager is under 19, if the age difference is less than four years, if there are no third parties involved, and if the two teenagers "are members of the opposite sex."

A backgrounder on the case is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14476&c=41

The Kansas Court of Appeals decision can be read in its entirety at: http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp/2004/20040130/85898.htm

More information on how the U.S. Supreme Court sent this case back to the Kansas Court of Appeals can be read here: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=13033&c=41

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15142&c=41

 

[Pookie]

Kansas Supreme Court to Hear ACLU Appeal of 17-Year Prison Sentence for Gay Teenager

May 27, 2004


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TOPEKA, KS – The Kansas Supreme Court has agreed to consider the American Civil Liberties Union’s appeal on behalf of a gay teenager who was sentenced to 17 years in prison for consensual oral sex, the ACLU said today. Matthew Limon has already been in prison for four years and three months - three and a half times longer than the maximum sentence he would have received if he were heterosexual.

“The only reason Matthew Limon is still in prison today is because he’s gay,” said Tamara Lange, a staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, which represents Limon. She added, “The Kansas Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct the grave injustice that has been done to this young man and the mockery that his sentence makes of the equal protection guarantees in the Constitution.”

In February of 2000, Limon and another male teenager were both students at the same co-ed residential school for developmentally disabled youth in Miami County, Kansas. A week after Limon’s 18th birthday, he performed consensual oral sex on the other teenager, who was nearly 15 years old – three years, one month and a few days younger than Limon. Limon was convicted under Kansas’s “Romeo and Juliet” law, which gives much lighter sentences to heterosexual teenagers who have sex with younger teens, but specifically excludes gay teenagers.

“Because he had sex with another male, Matthew Limon will be in prison until he’s 35 years old,” said Dick Kurtenbach, Executive Director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri. “For Kansas to sentence a gay person 13 times more harshly than it would a heterosexual for the same offense is clearly unconstitutional, and we’re pleased the Court is willing to reconsider this young man’s sentence.”

This is the second time that his case has been sent to the Kansas Supreme Court for review. The first time, in July of 2002, the court refused to consider Limon’s case and the ACLU asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear it. The High Court sent the case back to a Kansas appeals court, ordering it to reconsider in light of its decision last summer in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down same-sex-only sodomy laws. In January, the appeals court again upheld Limon’s conviction.

The earliest that the Kansas Supreme Court is likely to hear arguments in the case will be in August.

Under the Kansas law, consensual oral sex between two teens is a lesser crime if the younger teenager is 14 to 16 years old, if the older teenager is under 19, if the age difference is less than four years, if the sex is consensual, if there are no third parties involved, and if the two teenagers “are members of the opposite sex.”

A backgrounder on the case is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14476&c=41

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15869&c=41

 

[69forever]

Justice is blind??? It would seem in this case that it is also deaf, dumb and plain fucking stupid!!!

Beam me up Scotty....there is NO intelligent life on this rock!

How in the name of all that is right, true and proper can you rule this way and look at yourself in the mirror??? *shaking head*

I am almost speechless. Angry doesn't even begin to describe how this makes me feel.

 

[LaughingWolf]

This is outrageous! Completly unfair and unjust.

*shake head*

 

[Barushko]

The sentence is harsh beyond belief

when we consider the endless list of serious crimes which destroy life and property - and yet only attract sentences of 5-10 years - the 17 year sentence becomes even more bizarre.

it is a life-ruining sentence - if he served it he would never be able to develop a life and career on the outside--presumably he hasn't even finished high school yet

yes he can become educated in prison but figure the odds

he will be raped and used and destroyed--and for what--the numbers of young males who experiment with same sex in high school are legion--in the countless millions worldwide

the Us appears to have the harshest sex laws in the world--outside totalitarian regimes - particularl those whose state relgion is Islam

the age of consent in Ontario Canada and the UK is 16

Spain and Japan - 13

I'm not recommending 13 but 16 is fairly common around the world and in those jurisddictions i have yet to see any 17 year sentences.

 

[Pookie]

Social Workers Speak Out on Behalf of Gay Teen Sentenced to 17 Years in Prison

August 9, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TOPEKA, KS – In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and its Kansas chapter are joining the American Civil Liberties Union in asking the Kansas Supreme Court to reverse the conviction of a teenager who is serving a prison sentence 13 times longer than he would have received if he were heterosexual.

“The state claims that the much harsher sentence Matthew Limon received is justified for reasons that we as social workers know aren’t valid,” said Dorthy Stucky Halley, president of the Kansas chapter of the NASW. She added, “One’s sexual orientation could never justify 16 additional years in jail.”

In its brief, the 153,000 member organization of professional social workers debunks the state’s claims that the length of Limon’s sentence is justified because young people who engage in same-sex intimacy are so impressionable that they may be swayed into becoming gay. The NASW points to social science evidence that same-sex attractions surface much earlier in life – well before puberty – and that one gay sexual experience can’t make someone “turn” gay.

“For professionals who are experts in social policy and who base their careers on human compassion to speak out on this young man’s behalf just goes to show how wrong it is for the state of Kansas to treat gay teenagers so much more harshly than their heterosexual peers,” said Dick Kurtenbach, Executive Director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri.

In February of 2000, Limon and another male teenager were both students at the same residential school for developmentally disabled youth in Miami County, Kansas. A week after Limon’s 18th birthday, he performed consensual oral sex on the other teenager, who was nearly 15 years old – three years, one month and a few days younger. Because Kansas’s so-called “Romeo and Juliet” law gives much lighter sentences to heterosexual teenagers who have sex with younger teens but specifically excludes gay teenagers, Limon was sentenced to 17 years in prison. A heterosexual teenager with the same record would serve no longer than 15 months for the same offense.

After the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld the conviction in January, the Kansas Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on August 31. The ACLU had taken Limon’s case back to the lower court after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the court to reconsider the matter in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down all same-sex-only sodomy laws.

The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is the largest membership organization of professional social workers in the world, with 153,000 members. NASW works to enhance the professional growth and development of its members, to create and maintain professional standards, and to advance sound social policies. Learn more about NASW by visiting its website at http://socialworkers.org, and about the Kansas chapter by visiting http://knasw.com.

The American Civil Liberties Union is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. The ACLU is non-profit and non-partisan. Our membership has grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists at our founding in 1920 to an organization of more than 400,000 members and supporters, with local offices that cover every state in the nation. The Lesbian and Gay Rights Project is a special division of the ACLU that was founded in 1986. The goal of the Project is equal treatment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. That means no discrimination by government, no discrimination in employment, housing, schools and public places, and fair treatment of LGBT families and relationships.

A backgrounder on the case is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14476&c=41

More information on how the U.S. Supreme Court sent this case back to the Kansas Court of Appeals can be read here: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=13033&c=41

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16230&c=41

 

[Pookie]

Kansas Supreme Court Hears Appeal of Gay Teen Sentenced to 17 Years in Prison

August 31, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TOPEKA, KS - The American Civil Liberties Union today asked the Kansas Supreme Court to reduce the sentence of a young man who is serving 16 years more in prison than he would if he were heterosexual because of Kansas’s so-called "Romeo and Juliet" law. The law makes sexual relations with a minor a lesser crime if both people are teens, but only applies to opposite-sex relations.

"The Constitution guarantees that all citizens are supposed to be treated equally, but Matthew Limon is set to be in prison until he is 36 years old, while he would have been released before turning 20 if he were heterosexual," said Dick Kurtenbach, Executive Director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri. "We’re not saying the state shouldn’t punish those who break the law. We are only asking that the state do the right thing and treat gay teenagers the same as it does straight teenagers."

In February of 2000, Limon and another male teenager were both students at the same residential school for developmentally disabled youth in Miami County, Kansas. A week after Limon’s 18th birthday, he performed consensual oral sex on the other teenager, who was nearly 15 years old - three years, one month and a few days younger. Because Kansas’s so-called "Romeo and Juliet" law gives much lighter sentences to heterosexual teenagers who have sex with younger teens but specifically excludes gay teenagers, Limon was sentenced to 17 years in prison. A heterosexual teenager with the same record would serve no longer than 15 months for the same offense.

After the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld the conviction in January, the Kansas Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The ACLU had taken Limon’s case back to the lower court after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the court to reconsider the matter in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down all same-sex-only sodomy laws.

"The excuses that Kansas is trying to use for sentencing a gay teen to a prison term 13 times longer than a straight teen would receive for the same offense have all been proven wrong by social welfare and public health experts," said James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, who argued the appeal before the Kansas Supreme Court this afternoon. "Equal protection for all citizens means that a state has to justify treating one group of Americans so much more harshly than it does others, and there is no justification here."

In friend-of-the-court briefs filed earlier this month, several social work and public health organizations took the state to task for its attempts to justify the harsher sentences for gay teens. In one brief, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and its Kansas chapter debunked the state’s claims that the length of Limon’s sentence is justified because young people who engage in same-sex intimacy are so impressionable that they may be swayed into becoming gay. The NASW pointed to social science evidence that same-sex attractions surface much earlier in life - well before puberty - and that one gay sexual experience can’t make someone "turn" gay.

In another brief, several public health groups, including the American Public Health Association and its Kansas chapter, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, and the National Minority AIDS Council, analyzed the state’s claims that the "Romeo and Juliet" law will help prevent HIV transmission, pointing out that the law ignores the realities of HIV transmission among heterosexuals, particularly women. The public health groups also pointed out that the risk of a male acquiring HIV through unprotected oral sex with another male - precisely what Limon is being punished for - is extremely low.

A backgrounder on the case is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14476&c=41

More information on how the U.S. Supreme Court sent this case back to the Kansas Court of Appeals can be read here: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=13033&c=41

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16357&c=41

 

[Pookie]

A nice conclusion to this case ...

ACLU Applauds Unanimous Kansas Supreme Court Decision Reversing Conviction of Gay Teen Unfairly Punished under “Romeo and Juliet” Law

October 21, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TOPEKA, KS – The Kansas Supreme Court today unanimously struck down part of a law that sent a gay teenager to prison for over 17 years, when a heterosexual teen would have served only 15 months for the same act. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Matthew Limon in his appeal, applauded the decision declaring that Kansas’s so-called “Romeo and Juliet” law violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

“As of today, Matthew Limon has already served four years and five months longer than a heterosexual teenager would have received for the same act. He has long since paid his debt to society, and we’re thrilled that he will be going home to his family soon,” said Lisa Brunner of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri’s LGBT Task Force. “Justice has been a long time coming in this case.”

In February of 2000, Limon and another male teenager were both students at the same residential school for developmentally disabled youth in Miami County, Kansas. A week after Limon’s 18th birthday, he performed consensual oral sex on the other teenager, who was nearly 15 years old – three years, one month and a few days younger. Because Kansas’s so-called “Romeo and Juliet” law gives much lighter sentences to heterosexual teenagers who have sex with younger teens but specifically excludes gay teenagers, Limon was sentenced to 17 years in prison. A heterosexual teenager with the same record would serve no longer than 15 months for the same offense.

Today’s decision vacates Limon’s sentence and conviction and declares the part of the “Romeo and Juliet” law that treats gay teens differently from heterosexual teens to be unconstitutional. The case has a long history. The ACLU appealed Limon’s sentence and conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Kansas Court of Appeals to reconsider the matter in light of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down all same-sex-only sodomy laws. After the Kansas Court of Appeals narrowly upheld the conviction early last year, the Kansas Supreme Court heard the case in August of 2004.

“Our Constitution demands equal protection for all citizens, and there is nothing equal about the way the state of Kansas has treated Matthew Limon until today,” said Tamara Lange, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, which handled Limon’s appeal before the Kansas Supreme Court. “This decision makes the state of Kansas a fairer place for all its citizens.”

Limon is represented by the ACLU’s Lesbian & Gay Rights Project and cooperating attorney Paige Nichols of Lawrence, Kansas.

Today’s decision is available online at: www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2005/20051021/85898.htm

A backgrounder and other information about the case are available online at: www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=17682&c=100

This article by Kansas City’s The Pitch newspaper has further background information on the case: www.pitch.com/issues/2004-01-22/feature.html/1/index.html

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=19290&c=100

 

[symbolicflame]

I live in Kansas. I hate to say it but most people think the way the judges do. They believe in no equal rights, that we are second class citizens, and are going to hell. Most of the "good ole' boys" believe the only good female with female action should be done with them involved and then go to Springer to tell about it. My girlfriend and I were evicited when the landlord found out we were a couple, but according to them we were too loud. (With no police reports on us)
I am the only CASA (court advocate) for my county that will work with gay/lesbian/trans all youth, the others refuse to, for it is against their religion, it makes me SICK!! These are kids that just need help,guidance,,support and shown that someone does care and understand them.

 

[BitterIchor]

Heh, I showed this to a friend of mine (who's gay too) and he just muttered "fucking breeders". I can't do anything but agree.

 

[Wolfman1982]

WTF ? ? ? come on ! ! !

if the oralsex was consensual it would have been perfectly legal in Denmark since heck the person was 15 and the legal age is 15. But serving seventeen years by giving a consensual blowjob ? ? ? Sorry but are politicians in THAT state in the great USA. fucked up or what ? ? ? Sorry in my opinion they are ! ! ! or the legal system is. Sorry I think some of the laws and politicians in the USA are fuckedup.

Sorry if I offend anyone, but DAMN this is crazy. Seventeen bloody years for a blowjob ? ? ?

This is just plain crazy.

Peace.

 

[Wolf of Mibu 69]

Cases involving statutory rape should not discriminate like this, however I believe that cases of violent rape should. Take a teenage boy raped by a man and a teenage girl. Both are going to be psychologically messed up by the experience, but the boy moreso. It's correct to differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual rape because you know the victims do. Anyway, that's neither here nor there, and I agree that the ruling in this case is wrong.

 

[none2_none2]

Cases involving statutory rape should not discriminate like this, however I believe that cases of violent rape should. Take a teenage boy raped by a man and a teenage girl. Both are going to be psychologically messed up by the experience, but the boy moreso. It's correct to differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual rape because you know the victims do. Anyway, that's neither here nor there, and I agree that the ruling in this case is wrong.

So for example you are saying that if two brothers rape two teens -- one a boy and one a girl, the perpetrator who raped the girl should get the lesser sentence because women are built for straight sex and also can mentally handle rape much better?

I hope you don't have any daughters. That is a very sexist attitude. Rape is rape.

I suppose you also justify the murder of Matthew Shepard because his perpetrators claimed he was coming on to them. Or for that matter the guy who killed a gay man because he was embarrased that he was invited on a national talk show about "secret crushes" and found out the person who had a secret crush on him was another guy?

 

[killallhippies]

Sometimes I wonder if half these people who hate gays so much arn't secretly gay and just loathing themselves (and as such everyone around them). How ignorant do you have to be, if the supreme court is telling you to 'reconsider the case' then you are obviously doing SOMETHING wrong, even if you don't nessisarily agree.

-Zergplex

word. repressed homosexuals leading double lifes ae some fucked up people. see senator mccarthy and j. edgar hoover for perfect examples. some people have issues and instead of dealing with them themselves they lash out against society in any way they can.

 

[Wolf of Mibu 69]

So for example you are saying that if two brothers rape two teens -- one a boy and one a girl, the perpetrator who raped the girl should get the lesser sentence because women are built for straight sex and also can mentally handle rape much better?

I hope you don't have any daughters. That is a very sexist attitude. Rape is rape.

I suppose you also justify the murder of Matthew Shepard because his perpetrators claimed he was coming on to them. Or for that matter the guy who killed a gay man because he was embarrased that he was invited on a national talk show about "secret crushes" and found out the person who had a secret crush on him was another guy?

I'm saying a straight person who is raped by a member of the same sex will suffer a greater trauma. It will be harder for them to come to terms with and recover from.

As for the rest, kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, especially when they're as stupid as the ones you chose.

 

[none2_none2]

I'm saying a straight person who is raped by a member of the same sex will suffer a greater trauma. It will be harder for them to come to terms with and recover from.

As for the rest, kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, especially when they're as stupid as the ones you chose.

Your nothing but a bigot. How dare you diminish the affect of rape of a woman by a man. Who are you to measure the trauma that a woman can experience. Get over yourself and your precious straighthood.

 

[Wolf of Mibu 69]

I never said I hated gay people. I'm against murder no matter who it is (including unborn babies, but you're almost certainly for that). I never intended to make gender-specific claims, although I can see how you might've thought that. I'm making a purely pyschological claim that is non-specific to gender. I think it would be harder for someone to get over being raped by someone who was outside their sexual orientation. Whether it be a straight woman raped by a woman, a lesbian raped by a man, a gay man raped by a woman, or a straight man raped by a man. The wheel goes both ways.

All I ask is that you stop hating on me. Stop putting words in my mouth. Stop calling me names. Stop with your appeals to pathos.

 

[Wolfman1982]

I never said I hated gay people. I'm against murder no matter who it is (including unborn babies, but you're almost certainly for that). I never intended to make gender-specific claims, although I can see how you might've thought that. I'm making a purely pyschological claim that is non-specific to gender. I think it would be harder for someone to get over being raped by someone who was outside their sexual orientation. Whether it be a straight woman raped by a woman, a lesbian raped by a man, a gay man raped by a woman, or a straight man raped by a man. The wheel goes both ways.

All I ask is that you stop hating on me. Stop putting words in my mouth. Stop calling me names. Stop with your appeals to pathos.

to put it in better words . you say if a boy was raped/sexually abused by a woman would be more harmfull if he was gay ?

Sorry that is still utter bullshit. Sorry for cursing. Of what I have read it damages the same what ever orientation you are .

And would have been better if i was violently abused by a hot sexy female teacher than a fucking inbred son of a bitch from Jutland when I was 13 ?

That doesn´t matter . And I would have reacted the same way if it was a female teacher who were violent against me than a man that it was.

And the sickest thing is he could practice his teaching after I said stop and all other shit. Untill he was fired some years later at another place.

 

[none2_none2]

I never said I hated gay people. I'm against murder no matter who it is (including unborn babies, but you're almost certainly for that). I never intended to make gender-specific claims, although I can see how you might've thought that. I'm making a purely pyschological claim that is non-specific to gender. I think it would be harder for someone to get over being raped by someone who was outside their sexual orientation. Whether it be a straight woman raped by a woman, a lesbian raped by a man, a gay man raped by a woman, or a straight man raped by a man. The wheel goes both ways.

All I ask is that you stop hating on me. Stop putting words in my mouth. Stop calling me names. Stop with your appeals to pathos.

1) I don't hate you. I just find everything your saying utterly repulsive.
2) I don't need to put words into your mouth. What you say is still biased.
3) As someone who pondered the morality of sterilizing my pets, I'd hardly put myself in the pro-abortion camp.

You just don't get it do you? What you propose is biased, unthinkable, and morally bigoted. Why do you think they put a picture of justice as a lady BLINDFOLDED holding scales. Its because it is supposed to stand for EQUAL justice for ALL.

Lets take some of your ideas just for grins.

1) Let's say you got raped by a guy. Do you want his lawer to try to prove that your really gay, and therfore liked it? Do you want to have to go on the stand and try to PROVE that you are straight to get justice?

2) Let's say some girl that you had sex with hates your guts, and says you raped her. If she says she is really a lesbian, should she be able to really get a tougher sentence for you?

3) Lets say a woman you got kinky with has you tied up. She wants to use a strap-on, you don't want something up your ass. She brings in her friend you you despise and find unattractive. If she has her friend use the strap-on on you, its ok cause you'll get over it soon since you'd do anything with any woman since your straight?

4) Lets say I'm not sexually into interracial sex, people I consider too old for me, people I consider overweight, or people I just find unattractive. Can I ask the judge for a harsher sentence for an unattractive, overweight, elderly person of color because I never ever would have had consentual sex with that person in a million years? (I think I would either be laughed out of the courtroom or accused of being a racist. It was those kinds of biases that caused some black men to be lenched just for being accused of raping a white woman.)

Why do you think that in rape cases they aren't supposed to put the sex life of the victim on trial? Its because rape victims aren't limited to virgins. Rape is about violence -- not sex. You don't say: "Well he raped me, but I thought he was kind of cute."

No one has the right to rape someone regardless of the orientation of the victim. I have never raped anybody, and I would never rape anybody. It is unthinkable.

Do you really think because I prefer guys, that I can deal with rape better than you? How do you know me so well that you can say how it will affect me, or how long it will take to get over it, and that some how it will most definately take me less time than you? FYI, I'm also not attracted to penises. I like asses. I don't like bottoming, and I never did. Its been 21 years and I don't miss it one bit. Can I ask for a stiffer penality (no pun intended) if I'm raped?

How about bisexuals. Do they have to settle for their perpetrator getting a lighter sentence since they like both genders?

You said you don't hate gay people. I never said you did, but you definately don't respect us with such attitudes. You say you don't condone murder. Yet think of what you wrote. You are saying that its much harder for a staight man to deal with rape from another man. Then if that is the case take that idea to its ultimate conclusion: Wouldn't it be justified that such an act would be so repulsive, so discusting, so reprehensible, so unthinkable to his very nature, that he would take more extreme measures to make sure under no circumstances that it happen? If you think that is far fetched, it isn't. That is the kind of logic that is used in the courts by straight men when they kill a gay guy.

If you want people to be nice to you, you need to think about some of your ideas. Put yourself in other's shoes before you propose a system of justice where the statue of justice takes off her blindfold judges one group of people one way, and another group another.

 

[pantyhose fun]

wishbone96: This is all the more reason to vote Dem next November...

Actually, I gotta disagree. First and foremost - I suggest you vote LIBERTARIAN or "independent".

That being said, how many G/L/B/Ts are fiscally prudent but socially liberal?? MANY, but the democrats have the G/L/B/T vote wrapped up because of perceptions. How many G/L/B/Ts are members of The Log Cabin Republicans ??

Moreover, the next time some "newbie" candidate is being grilled by the G/L/B/T group in, oh lets say FLORIDA, don't get hung up on the "CHOICE" question. If you are a G/L/B/T - you ain't gonna be needing to worry about having an abortion because your redneck loser boyfriend knocked you up!!!!

AND - if you are G/L/B/T and choose to have an offspring, then you aren't looking for an abortion anyway - right??!!!