To: Mulch
You better have a more sophisticated argument then that if you plan to defend sodomy.
Alright. The government has no right to regulate sexual acts between two consenting adults. To do otherwise is to support a "nanny-police-state".
To: Paul C. Jesup
Prostitution remains against the law - at least where I live.
25 posted on
10/24/2005 12:51:47 PM PDT by
mlc9852
To: Paul C. Jesup
Then why is sex and marraige outlawed between family members, like a brother and sister? Even if they are consenting?
28 posted on
10/24/2005 12:52:34 PM PDT by
KC_Conspirator
(This space outsourced to India)
To: Paul C. Jesup
So all incest laws should be overturned?
Brothers and/or sisters should be allowed to marry each other, if they so desire?
But why do you limit this right to unfettered and unregulated sexual acts to "two consenting adults". Shouldn't laws against polygamy also be abolished?
51 posted on
10/24/2005 1:06:05 PM PDT by
VRWCmember
(hard-core, politically angry, hyperconservative, and loaded with vitriol about everything liberal.)
To: Paul C. Jesup
Alright. The government has no right to regulate sexual acts between two consenting adults. To do otherwise is to support a "nanny-police-state". Governments do not have rights; governments have powers. But never mind that. You are saying that "government" does not have this power. I assume you mean state governments. On what do you base this opinion?
Now, if you said that government should not regulate these activities, I might agree with you. But that is a separate argument.
55 posted on
10/24/2005 1:08:25 PM PDT by
Da Bilge Troll
(Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
To: Paul C. Jesup
Shaky ground there fella. What constitutes an adult? I suppose if you have a sliding scale on what constitutes normal sex you probably have a sliding scale on what constitutes an adult.
64 posted on
10/24/2005 1:12:18 PM PDT by
Mulch
(tm)
To: Paul C. Jesup
Then, historically, America has been a "nanny-police-state" from colonial times, through the present. There have been laws against sodomy ( which the law has described and both anal intercourse and any type of oral sex ), homosexual acts, just about anything and everything that isn't the "Missionary position" coitus, and all forms of birth control and abortion and adultery and prostitution and taking someone across state lines for the purpose of sexual acts and incest and bestiality and statutory rape/sexual congress with the under aged and against necrophilia and S&M and sexual acts performed without the benefit of marriage, on the books, for the past several centuries.
Wanna try again or are you through playing?
To: Paul C. Jesup
" The government has no right to regulate sexual acts between two consenting adults."
The government claims to have a right to regulate what you can put into your own body and they will put you in jail if you put stuff on their list in there. If they can regulate weed, they can regulate buggery. Truth is, they don't REALLY have the right to regulate either, but they regulate nonetheless.
94 posted on
10/24/2005 1:28:46 PM PDT by
bk1000
(A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
To: Paul C. Jesup
The government has no right to regulate sexual acts between two consenting adults. Such as prostitution or adultery?
101 posted on
10/24/2005 1:31:44 PM PDT by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: Paul C. Jesup
The government has no right to regulate sexual acts between two consenting adults. Such as prostitution or adultery?
102 posted on
10/24/2005 1:31:45 PM PDT by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: Paul C. Jesup
The government has no right to regulate sexual acts between two consenting adults. To do otherwise is to support a "nanny-police-state".Either-Or logical fallacy.
To: Paul C. Jesup
"The government has no right to regulate sexual acts between two consenting adults. To do otherwise is to support a "nanny-police-state". Did you even read the article? You did? Well how do you feel about the guy that was killed to cover this up?
244 posted on
10/25/2005 9:50:25 AM PDT by
subterfuge
(Obama, mo mama...er Osama-La bamba, uh, bama...banana rama...URP!---Ted Kennedy)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson