Previous poll Next poll
Should the state consider repealing a law that makes gay sex illegal?
| Response | Percent | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 70% | 794 | |
| No | 27% | 311 | |
| I don’t know | 1% | 21 | |
| Total | 1126 | ||
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- New law seen as way to increase independence for those with disabilities May 29, 2012 · 6 comments
- National group seeks repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' law in Kansas May 27, 2012 · 164 comments
- Town Talk: UPDATE: Frank Male files for county commission; keep an ear open for local sales tax talk; city hires new city engineer; wholesale water district buys land near Kaw; weekly land transfers May 29, 2012 · 8 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012 · 275 comments
- U.S. military sees new appreciation May 28, 2012 · 45 comments
- Blog: Iranian Nuclear Energy: Will It Destroy Lives Or Save Them? May 29, 2012 · 3 comments
- God, marriage May 25, 2012 · 200 comments
- Tax gamble May 26, 2012 · 93 comments
- Remove politics, and redistricting map falls in line May 27, 2012 · 52 comments
- Sound Off: How much does the city’s transit system collect in fares compared with how much it costs May 27, 2012 · 136 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012
- Thread of pain ran through Jackson’s career June 28, 2009
- Friends mourn Lynn Bretz, former voice of KU May 28, 2012
- Hilltop executive director Pat Pisani stepping down May 28, 2012
- Town Talk: UPDATE: Frank Male files for county commission; keep an ear open for local sales tax talk; city hires new city engineer; wholesale water district buys land near Kaw; weekly land transfers May 29, 2012
- How to help: Guides needed for Lamplight Tour of Black Jack Battlefield and Nature Park May 27, 2012
- Library kicks off reading program May 27, 2012
- City, county mull upgrade to emergency radio system May 28, 2012
- Tax gamble May 26, 2012
- Hard-luck loss: Blue Valley West walk-off sends Lawrence High baseball home in pitchers’ duel May 26, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
All sex should be illegal unless Warren Jeffs gives us permission from his cell.
jhawkinsf (anonymous) says…
What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my business. Repeal the anti-gay laws. A politician not willing to stand up for equal rights for everyone will never get my vote. People who don't stand up for equal right will never get my respect.
oletimer (anonymous) replies…
Guess I will never get your respect then. I'm from the old school. Man and woman. End of story.
jackbinkelman (anonymous) replies…
Old, but never grew up...
Pastor_Bedtime (anonymous) replies…
And what others do in their bedrooms is of course your business to monitor, govern and sanction, right?
kawrivercrow (anonymous) replies…
@ oletimer: You and I have a lot in common. I think that old people and fat people should also be put in jail for having sex.
Granted, what they do in private doesn't hurt me one iota, but what's important is that old people and fat people, from my perspective, are inherently disgusting with their clothes off. Quite frankly, I really don't want them having any pleasure of any type, sexual or otherwise.
Given our common mentality, we can be buddies, right?
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Oletimer, you do know that repealing the law doesn't make gay sex mandatory, don't you? You still don't need to participate.
I'm sure there are things in your life I don't approve of. Should I be able to decide what you can be allowed to do legally?
Gandalf (anonymous) replies…
Like urinating on a corpse? :O)
Gandalf (anonymous) replies…
Sorry couldn't resist! :OP
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
The corpse isn't consenting, even if it is Bernie.
Gandalf (anonymous) replies…
Maybe it was implied consent. They didn't say no.
coderob (anonymous) replies…
Except the story continues with the man going for long walks in the park, eying handsome strangers and walking off together in the bushes.
Homosexuality is nothing new. It's been around longer than you have, and will be around long after.
cletus26 (anonymous) says…
well i be.....why don't we put our energy and paper to fix some other problems. spend twice the time on keeping youths in school. spend some time on catching up w/ folks that are not paying child support. i'm just tired of this issue; really. why do people really care what adults are doing sexually w/ another consenting adult. at the end of the day let folks be and get in control of your own disfunctional household.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
I would have to give an emphatic NO to the question. The state should NOT consider repealing the law that makes gay sex illegal.
What is there to consider? They should just ACT and repeal the antiquated law, without hesitation. No consideration is necessary.
Next!
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
Beat me to it, Bea. That was exactly what I was going to say.
thuja (anonymous) replies…
Mu!
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
I suspect that's a law you'd never have to worry about breaking.
deec (anonymous) says…
Repeal the illegal law.
superswagg56 (anonymous) says…
Why is it that right wing conservatives are so afraid of gay people? The funniest part is that they couldn't pick them out of a crowd!!
ljwhirled (anonymous) replies…
Yes they can. Sen. Craig of Idaho was able to pick them out easily.
LarryNative (anonymous) replies…
Its because repubs are in the closet and libs are marching in the gay parade.
chalice2 (anonymous) replies…
Craig was just using the gaydar gay folks are born with.
rockchalker52 (anonymous) says…
Repeal it. It opens up the dating pool. Gotta start workin' the odds at this point.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
oletimer (anonymous) replies…
Really? You are one of the reasons I enjoy reading the boring discussions.
Just to see what stupid things people have to say. You pretty much win the award.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
rockchalker52 (anonymous) says…
Liberace was fabulous!
rockchalker52 (anonymous) says…
whoa! flag much, oletimer?
autie (anonymous) says…
My previous post that has been deleted was not any violation of anything. It was my opinion and not insulting nor did I call out another poster. I declare BS. I believe certain historical figures had certain relationships. Why is that bad?
Gandalf (anonymous) replies…
Ya been talking bout Lincoln agin?
Everybody has the right to go to hell in their own way.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
Don't feel too bad autie, Your comment wasn't deleted until the same thing was pointed out about Muhammed.
milkman_dan (anonymous) says…
Just a point of reference question, since masturbation is same-sex sex, is it illegal too?
milkman_dan (anonymous) replies…
and is there a stiff penalty?
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Yes, there is a stiff penalty. You go blind.
ljwhirled (anonymous) replies…
Yes, you can be spanked.
grammaddy (anonymous) replies…
Where do I sign up?
distant_voice (anonymous) says…
Just one question. How in the world can a society say gay sex and gay marriage is legal, but polygamy is not? exactly, the same set of principles apply in both cases.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Huh? Right now a woman is allowed to marry a man. What is stopping her from then marrying three husbands (other than common sense, of course)?
Whether it is a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman, it would still mean TWO people.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
But, the reason a man and woman are allowed to marry is that it's based on some sort of religious and cultural norms.
Once we question those, there's no reason to stop at questioning whether gay men and lesbians should be allowed to marry or not.
Why not question whether marriage has to be between two people?
If the issue is what consenting adults do, then if consenting adults want to engage in polygamy or various kinds, or group marriages, why should we forbid that?
jafs (anonymous) replies…
"of" various kinds.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
The "coupling" is the cultural norm. Not "tripling" or "quadrupling." The couple just happens to be heterosexual in practice. Nobody is questioning the rights of a couple to be together, only how we define who can make a couple. (I leave out religion, because some widely practiced religions do allow for polygamy. Or did.)
The multiple partners question is a strawman argument.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
'The "coupling" is the cultural norm.'
It is the "coupling' that the sodomy law addresses.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
chuckle
jafs (anonymous) replies…
That's just one way to look at it.
"Coupling" between a man and a woman is the norm. If you only want to question the gender of the couple, that's ok.
But, once we start questioning norms, I see no reason to stop there.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Coupling between a man and a woman is the norm only in that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. It is, in a frequently used analogy, like calling left-handed folks abnormal for going against the norm of right-handed individuals who are the majority. We don't base our laws only on what the majority do. In fact, laws are frequently based on protecting the minority.
We make a regular habit of questioning norms. Happens all the time. Women wearing pants used to be against the law. Same with miscegenation. Heck, lots of things that are normal today used to be outside of the norm. Questioning the norm is part of what we do and who we are as people.
Some day, gay marriage will be a norm.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Ok.
My point is, why stop questioning at the gender?
Today, perhaps coupling is the norm, and in the future, who knows, perhaps it will not be any longer.
Remember Wiki? Only about 180 societies out of over 2,000 were monogamous.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) replies…
"If the issue is what consenting adults do, then if consenting adults want to engage in polygamy or various kinds, or group marriages, why should we forbid that?" === Perhaps. Marriage, like morals and values, is an invention, mainly of the government for tax and contract purposes. Who cares? If some fool marries three women, will it hurt your marriage if you have one?
jafs (anonymous) replies…
I agree.
That's what I've been saying all along.
blackcopter (anonymous) says…
I feel like the key to repealing this law is understanding it. What was the motivation of those who passed it? Why does anyone want to keep it on the books? It's difficult to understand why anyone would care to make this a law. Is it that many conservative law makers are conflicted closet homosexuals? There does seem to be some evidence of this, at least on the national level. Do they fear that family and friends they know and love will come out if there is not a stigma around the practice? I'm having trouble understanding the REAL reasons for the law (both historically and today), but I think that is the key to repealing it. I don't think we are going to get a straight answer from the laws supporters. I doubt they really understand why they support it.
blackcopter (anonymous) replies…
I should clarify. "It's difficult to understand why anyone would care to make this a law." was not what I meant. I meant, that it's difficult to understand why anyone would be passionate about keeping this law on the books. I can understand why it is important that it be repealed.
emily_litella (anonymous) says…
When I'm really happy I like to whistle. I guess you could call me a whistler.
coderob (anonymous) says…
Yes, because we need at least some form of birth control to be legal.
rockchalker52 (anonymous) says…
I've coupled & I've whistled, Except for a couple of times, I've not whistled whilst I coupled. The couple next door whistles constantly.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
A law is only as good as the enforcement that backs it up.
How can this law be enforced?
whats_going_on (anonymous) replies…
exactly...whoever "tattled" on the people (assuming the sex was in their home) would be considered a peeping tom anyway, and I'm pretty sure thats illegal?
coderob (anonymous) says…
It legally can't be enforced as it is now due to a Supreme Court ruling, but could gets used in some locales as a threat by homophobic authorities to drive gay people out of town, and could be enforced again should the decision ever be overturned.
The way the law came to be enforced in Texas was that police responded to a weapons call, and walked in on two men having sex in their own home. Seeking control of the situation, the police arrested the men having sex, who had to pay a fine before their case ended up in front of the Supreme Court.
So potential opportunities for enforcement were rare even before the Supreme Court decision, and only happened because a jealous former lover called to make a false report. Were this decision ever to be reversed, homophobes throughout Kansas could start calling up the police just to harass their gay neighbors.
whats_going_on (anonymous) says…
This is seriously a ridiculous question...almost as bad as "what should we ask for our question of the day?" you had a few months back.
pace (anonymous) says…
We need to be careful, the extremely radical right goes too far. If we ask them to make gay sex legal, they might go overboard and make it mandatory.
ShePrecedes (anonymous) says…
Half the GOP would be breaking the law if they did that.
ShePrecedes (anonymous) says…
And some fundementalist preachers too. Why that would knock them right out of their deviance, right?
bd (anonymous) says…
Not in Kansas!
Never will!
Tea anyone???
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Actually, someone should try to force the state to enforce the law.
A gay couple should go into a police station and each demand the other be arrested for ... you know ... stuff they did with each other. The couple could then either sue the police for not enforcing the laws or they could sue the state for violating their constitutional rights. Demand payment or the repeal of the law. Either way, it is a win - win.
Agnostick (anonymous) replies…
bea, one of us is crazy, and it's probably me... but you may be on to something.
Suppose a rape victim filed suit against the state? Claiming that had the State of Kansas been actively enforcing the law, the rape might never have happened? Or that the physical damage/mental anguish might not have been so bad?
Either a male or female rape victim could reasonably make this claim. Take it to court. If judge rules for the plaintiff, Kansas suddenly has a huge enforcement problem on its hands; if the judge rules for the state, then the constitutional standing of the law comes into question.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Should the state consider repealing a law that makes gay sex illegal... in my pants?