Yes. Do you know what a "Right" is? I don't think you do.
Do you not believe in the ‘right to representation’ though?
Probably not the way you do.
If the people of a state believe that sodomy or incest are harmful would you deny their ‘right to representation’ on the issue?
Define "harm". I think you're confusing "harm" with "most of us don't like it."
What if the people of a State think that Jews are harmful? How about if they think steak dinners are harmful? Should they be able to criminalize eating steak? What if they think Catholocism is harmful?
Many people "think" (they don't really think it, they just believe it) that Carbon Dioxide is harmful and therefore the Government has to strictly regulate and in some cases criminalize the emmission of it. Are those people right in their thinking?
Some people "think" that the lack of having a health insurance program is harmful and that it should be criminalized. Are they right in their thinking?
Here's a hint for you. You're not really thinking. You're believing. There's a big difference.
L
Since you are trying to equate a person’s religion or race with a type of behavior I would say that you are proving that it is you who do not know what a ‘right’ is.
Also your type of thinking could easily be shown to work against you. No where does the Constitution mention many things that are currently against the law. One could easily say that murder itself is not harmful but simply a natural occurrence in line with “survival of the fittest’ (we even did have duels in early America) so by your thinking the ‘We the People’ should not have the ‘right to representation’ to decide murder as harmful either. (I do not agree of course being that it violates our ‘right to life’ but your twisted thinking could be used to say otherwise, already many libertarians and leftists already twist things to claim that abortion is not murder when it very clearly is).
At to your question of CO2 emissions I of course think that the greenies are liars and insane but if I was to say that they had no ‘right to representation’ on the issue then the same could be applied to dumping chemicals in waterways, poisonous gases into the air, etc… So of course yes there is a ‘right to representation’ on such an issue as the dangers of CO2 emissions but I being sane would vote against it.
And then you ask me to define ‘harm’ but it is you who want to have your specific definition of ‘harm’ become a dictate to the people. I simply claimed that it is ‘We the People’ who decide the definition of ‘harm’ and not some elite justices or you or your libertarian/leftist elites. There are many arguments to be made that sodomy, incest, and other types of perversions of sexuality are harmful. Let ‘We the People’ decide.
You seem to think that the Wiccan rede that you follow is written in the Constitution but it is not. You claim that we can not make laws that YOU think are not harmful. You need to take your own hint. It is YOU who are not really thinking. You’re simply believing. There is a big difference and it is obvious by your mindset.
And just to point out that this is your beliefs and not the Founders. Many of these types o laws that you believe are against the Constitution existed and were endorsed by the Founders as being left up to ‘We the People’ through our ‘right to representation’. Sodomy laws, incest laws, etc… existed and were supported by the Founders.
Actually, the intellectual content of all of your posts on this entire thread can be boiled down to these three words of yours, lurker.
The factors you blithely pretend do not exist in every iota of your demonstrated position - from the genetic degradations incest verifiable produces and what that means to the children produced (who should be represented somewhere in all this) to the coercive power of parents over their progeny are staggering.
I am somehow doubtful that advocating the legalization and legitimization of incest fits in with the rules and goal of Free Republic. However much it may be a personal desire of yours, it is not and never has been compatible with conservatism.