How staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 24, 2005 | Joseph Farah

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Your post #123 (among other comments of yours on this thread) are tactics right out of the homo-agenda play book---

5) Homosexual agenda can succeed by “jamming” and “confusing” adversaries, so as to block or counteract the “rewarding of prejudice” (page 153);

6) “Heterosexuals dislike homosexuals on fundamentally emotional, not intellectual grounds” (page 166)

17) Jam the self-righteous pride by linking to a disreputable hate group (page 235);

25) Homosexual persecution is identical racial prejudice to Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics (inferring inborn) (page 62, 73);

44) Associate gay cause with “talk about racism, sexism, militarism, poverty, and all the conditions that oppress the unempowered.” (page 181)

[L.N. Smithee]

So you would prefer to have government in your bedroom?

If what they didn't want was "government in my bedroom," the Constitutional way to go about it is the way it was done in the state of Georgia, the state that gave us the Bowers vs. Hardwick decision that Lawrence overturned; it's sodomy statute was repealed, well before Lawrence.

Santorum was on the money regarding Lawrence, and caught hell for telling the truth before the verdict came down; this was designed for the purpose of clearing the way for a right to same-sex marriage, with potentially other outlawed forms of "marriage" (polygamy, incestuous, cross-species, even) to follow.

Is that what YOU prefer?

[Paul C. Jesup]

Is that what YOU prefer?

Freedom from tyranny. What do you prefer?

[L.N. Smithee]

Freedom from tyranny. What do you prefer?

I prefer an answer to my question that doesn't sound like it was stolen from a bumper sticker.

[Paul C. Jesup]

If only it was a bumper sticker. Anyway, you asked, I answered. Now answer your own question.

[L.N. Smithee]

Anyway, you asked, I answered.

No, you didn't. Here is what I wrote, in context:

---

Santorum was on the money regarding Lawrence, and caught hell for telling the truth before the verdict came down; this was designed for the purpose of clearing the way for a right to same-sex marriage, with potentially other outlawed forms of "marriage" (polygamy, incestuous, cross-species, even) to follow.

Is that what YOU prefer?

---

"Freedom from tyranny" is not an answer to that question.

[FOG724]

Those "rights" are made up out of whole cloth.

Silk Damask or Chintz?

[Tunehead54]

Reference bump! Yech! :-(

[Paul C. Jesup]

I thought were two different statements within a post. To answer your question. It is a trick question considering the two options you offer is either conspiracy to commit a crime, or tyranny in the bedroom.

Neither of which I support.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I thought that those were two different statements within a post. To answer your question. It is a trick question considering the two options you offer is either conspiracy to commit a crime, or tyranny in the bedroom.

Neither of which I support.

[XJarhead]

If you choose to begin with the premise that the rights expressed by the Court were manufactured from whole cloth where none previously existed then you reject the principal of constitution interpretation that emmantes from Marbury vs. Madison, 1803.

I never claimed they invented them out of "whole cloth". They simply distorted existing rights beyond all plain meaning to create new rights previously undiscovered in the Constitution. But if you think opposition to the use of emanations and penumbras to invent new rights is equivalent to opposing Marbury, then you're right. Discussion is pointless.

[dmz]

Have you ever actually met any gay people?

From your post, it would seem not.

And I still think that college students trump gays in promiscuity.

[Khepera]

Oh I see you have fallen into the trap of thinking that its it unconstitutional to pass laws against abhorrent behavior. Besides there is no homo amendment in the bill of heights nor a prostitution or polygamy amendment.

[absolootezer0]

i was more referring to the silly socialists in EU.

[highball]

Thank you for missing entirely the point of my post.

I specificially said that I would be opposed to lowering the age of majority to 12, I was saying that age of majority is age of majority, and whereever a state defines that line, that line is clear.

[highball]

Not as regards to consent; there is NOT a clear legal definition for "adult". Age of consent laws vary from state to state. 16 is common. 14 is less common but available in some states. In others it is 13.

I didn't say it was "consistent," I said age of consent is clearly defined. Each of the examples you mention is a clear definition of "adult" within those states.

That's why inserting children into this conversation is absurd. It's not about what children do, it's about what adults may do. Trying to make this about kids only plays on emotional fears and therefore makes a rational conversation all but impossible.

[highball]

Oh I see you have fallen into the trap of thinking that its it unconstitutional to pass laws against abhorrent behavior.

You're right - I actually read that troublesome 10th Amendment. Funny how that keeps getting in the way of those who want the government to enforce their own personal morality.

[VRWCmember]

Oh I see you have fallen into the trap of thinking that its it unconstitutional to pass laws against abhorrent behavior.
You're right - I actually read that troublesome 10th Amendment.

You must have missed the troublesome word "states" when you read the 10th amendment.

[highball]

And you must have missed that the 14th Amendment binds the states to the same restrictions as the federal government.

There's no Constitutional authority for a nanny state, whether that nanny state is being advocated by libs or "conservatives."

[VRWCmember]

And you must have missed that the 14th Amendment binds the states to the same restrictions as the federal government.

According to activist 20th century courts, but certainly not according to the debates when the 14th amendment was ratified and certainly not according to court decisions in the first several decades after the 14th amendment was passed.