"Even more posts on homosexuality...i'm curious as to why?"

Catholic Family Association of America/ Free Republic ^ | 5/1/03 | Dr. Brian Kopp, Vice President, Catholic Family Association of America

[Jhoffa_]

You need to learn about logic, freedom, and the role of government. Then perhaps we can call you a conservative.

Oh, now THAT'S RICH.. Coming from the FR's own, self proclaimed posterboy for "Judicial Activism"

You really need to re-think this.. and you should apologize to JWalsh.

[brownie]

No, but I've never seen any scientific evidence (journal, etc.) that shows homosexuality to be "genetic". Therefore, I am unwilling to accept it as such and give it "approval" by government. By this I do not mean that we should outlaw homosexuality or harass homosexuals, I am just against confering status as a minority (i.e. under Title VII, EEO) or teaching it in school, or finding a right to homosexual sex in the constitution, or pandering to homosexuals by worring about "offending" them, etc.

[breakem]

If I am the poster boy for judicial activism for human rights, then you and walsh are the poster boys for big government, as he has been able to explain away. Wear your title proudly and be glad your government is trying to control your neighbor's immoral sexual behavior.

[breakem]

that would be "unable"

[breakem]

two out of three ain't bad, we agree. The right to homosexual or heterosexual is implied by the constitution. All rights are not ennumerated. If you think the government has the right to control your sexual behavior with adults, that's your problem.

[brownie]

"Contrary to your believe, if a law restricts rights which the government does not have the power to restrict, the court is the last resort of individuals to have the law tossed. If that's activism, then so be it."

-- I don't believe the Constitution provides a "right" to sexual relations with someone of the same gender. Simply because a law may be unjust, unfair, or unwise does not make it unconstitutional.

[GSWarrior]

Is it not true that those who are molested by members of the same sex as youth are also just as likely to inflict physical violence on homos (gay bashers, if you will) when they become adults.

Is it not true that a large population of the adult male prison population were molested as children? Is it not true that this is one of the main reasons that homos and effeminate men are victims of rape and assualt in prison?

[Jhoffa_]

Contrary to your believe, if a law restricts rights which the government does not have the power to restrict, the court is the last resort of individuals to have the law tossed. If that's activism, then so be it.

No. The court isn't there to write law, you're completely incorrect.

They may rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the minute they engage in "Judicial Activism" they deviate from the law as written. That's not their job and it's how we got an all powerful Federal Government to begin with.

As I said, you need to re-think this. Because those same "judicial activists" you're cheering today will be goring your ox tomorrow.

What I find amazing is how you characterize my comment, but find it perfectly acceptable for the government to regulate this behavior. What country are you posting from?

I am posting from the United States, where I live. Where are you posting from?

You claim that local government cannot regulate within the confines of a person's home? What gave you that impression?

And don't tell me it's the vagaries of the ninth.

[Polycarp]

73% of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger

Its all a matter of which words you want to emphasize, isn't it.

Which is it: 73% or 23%?

Given the fact that all the other references consistently report 73%

I think it would be a safe assumption that 23% was a typo. I'll try to track down a copy of the original.

Free clue: referring to OTHER evidence does not change the fact that the "evidence" I quoted was irrelevant to your claim.

Smuck. You took one excerpt of one post and tried to infer that all my evidence failed to support my claim, when it was obvious I was posting both evidence from mainstream homosexual publications/activists as well as objective sttistics and studies to prove my thesis.

But some (though not all) of your excerpts are indeed relevant to your claim. I'll take a look at them; you might be right---but you don't help your case by mixing relevant and irrelevant data.

How gracious of you.

Too bad you're the only one having difficulty following the points of this debate.

[breakem]

the constitution only lists some civil rights and does not intend to ennumerate all human rights. Perhaps they should have included the right to decide what to have for breakfast or is that reserced for the states? The constitution delineates the power of the federal government. So, where does it say it has the power to control sexual behavior? Corrolary: what gives the state a right to restrict human rights. Don't bother, nothing.

[brownie]

I do believe that the constitution does not provide a right to same-sex sex. I dare you to argue that the founders intended there to be a constitutional right to same gender sex. Apparently, you don't believe in the constitution as written, but believe it is a "living, breathing document" which our wise jurists, such as Ginsburg, can devine with forked sticks.

[Jhoffa_]

If I am the poster boy for judicial activism for human rights, then you and walsh are the poster boys for big government, as he has been able to explain away. Wear your title proudly and be glad your government is trying to control your neighbor's immoral sexual behavior.

You're incorrect, again.

You support Federal powers that are to be found exactly no-where in the constitution.

And you dare to call me a supporter of "big government" for supporting laws on the State and Local level? Laws which have been on the books for centuries and have been upheld repeatedly as Constitutional and within the power of the State?

LOL!

[brownie]

Unfortunately, that depends entirely on what you define as "Human rights" which is defined by each generation through going to the polls and voting. That is called federalism. The constitution only restricts government from doing those things that are specifically enumerated - "all other powers are reserved to the states"

You are reading things into the constitution that simply are not there. Homosexuality is not a human right.

[breakem]

You misunderstand. I did not say anything about the home. I said the locals can't restrict that which you have a right to do.

The court is perfectly correct to throw out a law violating human rights. Why you think that's "writing law" is a weird chacterization. I understand your need to call it activism and paint it negatively, because the implication of my being right creates a dissonance in your brain. A dissonance that is clearly based upon your willingness to allow the legislative branch to restrict your rights or the rights of your neighbors.

[MrLeRoy]

73% of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger

Its all a matter of which words you want to emphasize, isn't it.

No, the point is that since the stated age range includes non-minors, the figure gives us no way of knowing how many of that 73% had sex with minors.

Smuck.

The word you're looking for is "schmuck".

You took one excerpt of one post and tried to infer

The word you're looking for is "imply".

that all my evidence failed to support my claim

Liar---I did not imply (or even infer) anything of the sort.

[brownie]

Moreover, the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution was not originally intended to apply to the states, only to the federal government. The S.Ct. "found" that specific rights from the bill of rights limited state government through a process called reverse incorporation - during the period between 1900 and about 1970. Therefore, any historical argument for the founders intending to provide for a right to homosexual sex is simply without foundation.

[breakem]

boys and girls, thanks for the lesson on the powers of big government and using government to prohibit your neighbor from engaging in immoral sex.

I must call our little session to a close. But feel free to stay after for extra credit.

[Darksheare]

You're still saying that chickenhawking doesn't happen.
Regardless, that is what you're saying.
Now, maybe if you CLARIFIED it by saying whta you REALLY believe - Then we'd be getting somewhere!

[Darksheare]

Negative.
I pointed out your flawgic.

Now, how about responding to what was said, instead of doing a Clinton two step.

[Jhoffa_]

FACT: When the courts don't follow the law as written and they make up their own, they are engaging in "Judicial activism"

This is extra-constitutional and dangerous to the extreme.

The difference here is, in this case you don't have a problem with it..

If it were an out of control EPA, Federal Gun Laws, WOD, forehead chips or anything else you would probably be screaming your head off and asking: "but, but.. where is the federal authority to do this in the Constitution? I can't find it.."

Remember, the court that makes a law today will gore your ox tomorrow. And what will you do? Write the SC Justices and petition them? Shake the Constitution in their faces? Make non-sense arguments based on your own emotion and bias?

LOL!