That is not the issue. Again as you accused me of, you are weaseling. Morality is a difficult thing to legislate. I asked you to draft a law that prohibits male sodomy yet does not violate the constitutional rights of that group. I would think you could do it in a few sentences. You can explain how after 100 thousand years of homosexual conduct, we are in great danger today because, although their numbers have not grown and they are still less than 2 percent of the population, what they do in the privacy of their own homes poses a great danger to this Republic.
Quit acting like a child. What's your next question -- why is sex with a 17-year-old legal but not one who is 16 1/2? Why is 55MPH legal but not 56MPH? Huh? Huh? Huh??
Child? Don't leave yourself open like that....
Sex with a 17 year old is illegal for everyone unless she is married in those states permitting such marriages. She is considered not to have the capacity to make an adult decision and is therefore at a disadvantage. No court would rule otherwise. But the law doesn't care whether the perp is gay or straight. Do you see the difference? It's called equal protection of the law. As for your silly speeding analogy, if certain classes of people were not allowed to go 56 mph, but others were, then you have a constitutional issue requiring the state to explain. But since everyone is required to obey the speed laws, there is no violation. And that wisdom from a child.....
Certain behaviors are not acceptable to our society. Homosexual sodomy is one. You may get some court to accept it, but that's a hollow victory and you know it.
Oh, I don't know. As I asked before, are you even aware of such laws? If not, then apparently society has either awaken to the Constitution, or is not as homophobic as some here....or both.
Beging the question of the existence of the supposed constitutional right. Around and around and around.
... because there are people today who want to change the laws that have existed for 100 thousand years.
"If not, then apparently society has either awaken to the Constitution, or is not as homophobic as some here....or both."
Dream on. Just because some liberal namby-pambys in black robes imposed their federal opinions on state laws doesn't mean the people in the state had some divine awakening.
I would think you would be against such federal intervention into state business, yes?