"Can you make a straightforward rebuttal, paulsen? Two bits you can't "without weaseling"."
Sure. If what you say is true, then why isn't it legal? Where's the courts? Where's the challenges? Where's the decisions?
Certainly you can find one challenge? One lower court decision? One court opinion that says that the U.S. Constitution's right of privacy protects the right to do drugs behind closed doors and to gamble behind closed doors?
You can't. You're blowing smoke. Go away and don't come back without the cites -- otherwise you're wasting my time..
Society has determined that homosexual sodomy, like drugs, prostitution and gambling, does not deserve the constitutional protection of the right to privacy.
Look, either an adult has a right to privacy to do drugs behind closed doors or they don't. What is it?
Answer the question without weaseling. It's a straightfoweard question -- give me a straightforward answer.
Yes, an adult has a right to privacy, -- to do drugs behind closed doors, to gamble behind closed doors, and to consensual sex behind closed doors; --- subject only to reasonable regulations made and enforced using due process of law as per the 14th Amendment.
Can you make a straightforward rebuttal, paulsen? Two bits you can't "without weaseling".
Sure. If what you say is true, then why isn't it legal?
Weasel-like begging of the question. -- We all know that there are many laws on the books that are not constitutionally "legal".
That is the issue; laws are being made & enforced that violate due process, and you can't straightforwardly address that issue.
Where's the courts? Where's the challenges? Where's the decisions? Certainly you can find one challenge? One lower court decision? One court opinion that says that the U.S. Constitution's right of privacy protects the right to do drugs behind closed doors and to gamble behind closed doors? You can't. You're blowing smoke.
There you go again robbie, ranting on about blowing smoke because you are unable to argue the actual issue. Pitiful display.
Go away and don't come back without the cites -- otherwise you're wasting my time..
I cited the 14th, and you can only post your opinions about concurring activist court opinions..
-- You've become FRs biggest time-wasting joke, - you can't debate your way out of a paper bag, and you show it by responses like this every day.