Posted on 03/19/2003 12:48:02 AM PST by RJCogburn
Irrelevant issue. The relevant issue is that there is no "right" to threaten you with death because I don't like your sex life.
Care for one of our burgers? Tastes like chicken...
This turns out not to be the case. (The progress of science is one reason why attempts to build on Clintonian "prudentialities" rather than fixed principles cannot stand.)
Using the tax code to achieve political goals is a liberal trait. Hillary loves it.
Americans of Latino descent have higher rates of diabetes and obesity than Americans of Northern European descent.
Therefore, a law against the behavior of buying junk food could be enacted, making illegal for Hispanics to buy junk food.
Will the Supreme Court uphold such law?
Hmmmmm, so inhaling substances known to be not only toxic, but carcinogenic doesn't reprsent a danger to one's health? You're talking crazy. Smoking a cigarette may not make one sick for years, but it is never a helathy habit, and in the end taxes the system. Not evil? One could make the argument that since the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, that putting a substance known to be not only toxic but carcinogenic is also immoral.
Logical consistancy is a b!tch
If you make a few more unanswerable arguments, HV will ignore you permanently, or until tomorrow, whichever comes first.
Let try and keep the debate in reality m'kay?
That is democracy. It is not liberty. Do you consider yourself a small d democrat? Your theory defines it.
Prohibiting all actions that do not in themselves advance the public good is the ultimate in collectivism. It surpasses communism in its potential for control. A people under such a system could not truthfully claim to be free.
14th Amendment violation. That was easy.
Exactly...this is the prudential argument. Behaviors don't automatically "get a pass" simply because everyone in society believes: I Really Wanna Do It = It's My Right To Do It.
We have lost the idea that a country exists to enhance the good of the whole, not to guarantee the most radical vision of freedom to everyone. If that were the case, why in the world would we form societies in the first place?
People gave up the "state of nature" to form societies for mutual protection, cultural homogeneity and the division of labor. In so doing, the inhabitants of that society agreed to behave according to certain norms to preserve the order. If you want "pure liberty", then go live on a desert island. What libertarians want is the safety, security, and stability of society while also engaging in anti-social behaviors like drug abuse, homosexuality etc. that would get them killed very quickly in the state of nature
How long would a bunch of heroin addicts last out in the wilderness? Not long. Thus you see that they are not "free" or "autonomous" individuals, but members of a society that are acting in a completely anti-social manner and socializing the costs onto people who do not behave in such a manner. If a rich heroin addict blows through his fortune and then ends up, finally, at the county hospital with a severe OD, who do you think is going to pick up the tab for that? People who do not behave in such a manner
People do not exist in a vacuum. There is no isolated sin or blessing.
That's why this Texas sodomy law will be struck down.
A man is allowed to perform cunnilingus, but a woman is not allowed to perform cunnilingus.
Right. Lack of self-control invites government control.
Why can't the libs and libbys understand this?
___________________________________________________________
You seem to be stuck in a catch 22 -
Without morals government will have to control us so therefore we must have government enforce the moral code to save us from- er, ah, government control.
Such behavior harms the common good (and the consenting sinners). All sin does. And law should be ordered to promoting the common good.
Moreover, consent does not justify evil behavior. One person may consent to being the slave of another or to being tortured by another. But society would be entirely justified in prohibiting such agreements.
It is unenforcable and such laws breed contempt for legitimate laws.
That's a fair point. However, such a law would make it possible to "clean out" public bathrooms, etc.
The term sodomy and the behavior it describes, are open to interpretation. (Like pornography)
Many laws are. But that's not the case here. The definition is pretty straightforward:
sod·om·y n.Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.
Oral sex with your wife would be defined as sodomy and if you think that it should be criminalized you are on a different level than me.
When the act is "finished" orally, yes, it represents sodomy. Such an act is obviously opposed to the natural order.
God will deal with sinners at the judgement, he does not require your puny efforts to deal with it by violence or the threat thereof.
So God requires that we don't punish evil acts? Will I be rewarded for my opposition to the prohibition of intrinsically evil acts?
And so on.
Nonsense. The 14th Amendment doesn't create a constitutional right to commit sodomy, nor was it intended to do so.
Criminal sodomy statutes in effect in 1868: Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867). Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865). Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858). California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws, 1450, 48 (1865). Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868). Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866). Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893). Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892). Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867). Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869). Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845). Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855). Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860). Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856). Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840). Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860). Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860). Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846). Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859). Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857). Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856). Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866). Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194] Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45. New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815). New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847). New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859). North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855). Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874). Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872). South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837). Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858). Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860). Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779). Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).
No, that is a principled argument. A principled argument in the realm of politics says that certain things are simply forbidden to the State. A prudential argument says that the State can do what it can get away with doing.
We've had eight years of prudential-style government.
It is true that a society that that could pass, for instance, a Human Life Amendment would never need one in the first place.
However, I am pointing out that many of the citizens in this society are using their vote to socialize the consequences of their anti-social behavior onto those of us who do not behave in such a manner.
Tell you what: why don't all the sex perverts, flamers, whoremongers, drug addicts, etc. everyone that doesn't like the "Victorian Moral Standards" of people like yours truly find a nice plot of land, and we social conservatives will do the same. See how easy it is to keep the social order and rule of law in a place where every time you try to curtail any kind of behavior for the greater good you hear: "You can't tell ME what to do!". I can guarantee that tyranny would result in such a place very quickly.
See Republic, Weimar.
One act is ordered to pleasing one's spouse, the other is orderd to pleasing a member of the same sex. The latter is unnatural.
Fellatio:
Between man and woman is OK, but between man and man is Not OK.
See above. However, "finishing" the act orally is unnatural.
Anal Intercourse:
Between man and woman is OK, but between man and man is Not OK.
Unnatural in both cases.
Where is the “equal protection under the law?”
Homosexuality is unnatural and intrinsically disordered. Heterosexuality is natural.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.