No. And certainly, the obsession on this issue lies almost entirely on the side of those who believe our Republic will fall if we do not immediately embrace butt-pumping as a major factor underlying Truth, Justice and the American Way.
You say 'no', then show your obsession with "butt pumping" in the next line. Weird.
Oh, so if I mention homosexual activity i'm obsessed with it?
Taken in context, your own remarks say you are.
Why don't you try answering my real point, which was that the Freepers who are really obsessed with sodomy are the ones who believe any opposition to such behavior is tantamount to Iranian-style theocracy?
Ah yesss, your real point is to claim constitutionalist freepers are 'obsessed'.
If anti-sodomy and other such laws violate the sanctitiy of the home that the Founders placed in the Bill of Rights, why didn't they do away with such laws?
Many state laws violate our BOR's.
They are not done away with until changed by 'we the people', or until successfully challenged in the courts.
- IE, -- CA's gun prohibition was unsuccessfully challenged last week. The USSC refused to "do away" with it.
Does this refusal justify state gun bans, in your view?
--- you ignored my question completely. If you answer my question, I'll answer yours.
No, - I answered your question on 'doing away with laws', - directly.
I suspect you cannot answer my question because you approve of a 'states right' to enact prohibitive type 'laws', -- even anti-gun laws.
*Sigh*
ob·sess
v. ob·sessed, ob·sess·ing, ob·sess·es
To preoccupy the mind of excessively.
My mind isn't, and one post mentioning the subject (in any context) certainly doesn't even indicate that, nuch less prove it. If you really believe it does, you are operating on the bigoted assumption that "people who disagree with tpaine on this issue are homophobes" or some variation on that theme.
No, - I answered your question on 'doing away with laws', - directly.
No, you dodged it. Here it is again, and I'll even reword it and include some supplemental info so that you can't mistake my question:
If anti-sodomy and other such laws violate the sanctitiy of the home that the Founders placed in the Bill of Rights, why didn't the Founders do away with anti-sodomy laws when they established the new nation or when they wrote the Constitution? It wouldn't have been all that radical a change; they had gone from...
King decides who has guns to everybody has a right to own a gun
No protection against unreasonable search and seizure to full protection
Government can establish a church and infringe free exercise to government cannot do so
...you get the idea. So why not just say, "Under this new search and seizure thing, we don't care what you do in your home, even if it's that jigginess that dares not speak it's name."
Simple enough?
I suspect you cannot answer my question because you approve of a 'states right' to enact prohibitive type 'laws', -- even anti-gun laws.
BZZZZZZZZTTTTT!!! Wrong answer! Thanks for playing, now take your Lee Press-On Nails and have a nice trip home. You will notice that anti-gun provisions are specifically ruled out in Amendment Two, therefore I would never side with any entity that implements or upholds such a provision. You will also note that there is no similar prohibition against anti-sodomy laws, and I've asked you to explain why there isn't one if sodomy is one of the core American rights.
Also, please note that the reason I oppose the SCOTUS pro-sodomy decision is not because I supported the Texas law. If I was one of the Supremes, I would have voted to strike it down solely on the basis that it wasn't being enforced and hadn't been in many years, so the People had made a de facto decision to drop the matter. What the Court did was take a away a right that the Founders left in the People's hands by declaring that anything goes between two consenting adults. This will eventually lead to same-sex marriage, which the People did not choose. One approach would have implemented the will of the People, the other approach implemented the will of GLAAD, et al and a few black-robed oligarchs.