Posted on 03/19/2003 12:48:02 AM PST by RJCogburn
For instance, the people in posts of government authority agreed that they could not simply pander to the will of the mob, but rather must excersize only those powers explicitly available to them within the bounds of the protections of personal privacy and liberty set forth in the law.
There, was that so difficult to comprehend?
I missed that part. How do you justify that idea?
You may have identified why it will be struck down, but not whether or not it should be struck down.
I have no problem with that kind of duality. Can you marry your dog? Why not? It's your dog! "It's not fair that people get to only marry the opposite sex, but I can't marry Sparky..."
Sure I would. Humor me with an example, if you could.
Libertarians believe people are naturally good
No I don't. I believe people are a mixed sort, some good, some bad.
"Why shouldn't everyone have a right to have a nuclear bomb?
Oh, that old canard. It's been dispelled on this forum ad infinitum, but I'll have another go at it.
You have a right to own a weapon, but not to initiate force with it. For example, you can own a gun, but you can't point it at anyone. Even if you don't pull the trigger, by pointing it you have threatened initial force against another , and that is a violation of rights.
A nuke, by its very existence is akin to a pointed gun. Everyone within its range is subject to the threatened initial force similar to a pointed gun. As such, one has no right to a nuke.
Next.....?
Nice try, but what I said was control yourself or be controlled. It's that simple. Those of you that don't want to control your sexual urges are begging for government help.
For instance, Florida sodomy laws make cunnilungus illegal for both men and women. Therefore, no 14th Amendment violation.
In contrast, Texas sodomy laws make cunnilingus illegal for women only.
Florida sodomy law is constitutional, Texas sodomy law is not.
Nonsense. If an act is opposed to the natural order of the universe, then attempts to perform that act will simply fail. For instance, it is contrary to the natural order of the universe for me to jump out the window and fly like Superman, and if I attempt it I will instead fall to the ground.
That's true, but what does this statement have to do with the discussion?
The old same sex marriage argument. Liberal and Libertarians really are in bed together.
That's a key idea behind the US Constitution. All states would decide those things for themselves. People would vote with their feet according to the results obtained.
But that's not the case anymore. States and communities can no longer decide those matters for themselves. A central authority has usurped local control by force. Which do you prefer, the central model or the local model?
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Libertarians believe people are naturally good
Nonsense. Statists believe that people are naturally good (or, to return to a point you never did get around to answering, that the "people" in government positions are really space aliens or something). Libertarians believe that people cannot be trusted with anything beyond a bare minimum of political power.
That's your opinion, not the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, I would suggest to you that many Christians consider cunnilingus between married people "unnatural."
Therefore, your opinion that cunnilingus is not unnatural under certain conditions differ from the Christian position through centuries.
Therefore, a law against the behavior of buying junk food could be enacted, making illegal for Hispanics to buy junk food.
Of course not. Latinos cannot help that they were born Latinos. Homosexuals can help that they engage in homosexual behavior. The law is about behavior.
The first part is nonsense, "common good" is a matter of opinion. The second part is none of your business.
All sin does. And law should be ordered to promoting the common good.
I think the "common good" would be served if you were not allowed to speak. See how that works?
I have never attempted to justify so called evil behavior. Straw man.
However, such a law would make it possible to "clean out" public bathrooms, etc.
There are laws against certain sexual behavior public, homo and hetro. No sodomy laws are needed for this.
Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.
Define abnormal so everyone agrees about what it is. Your interpretation is different than mine.
When the act is "finished" orally, yes, it represents sodomy. Such an act is obviously opposed to the natural order.
So you are in favor of laws prohibition oral sex between man and wife. Good luck.
So God requires that we don't punish evil acts?
Bizzare leap. Strawman. Define evil.
To which you replied:
When the act is "finished" orally, yes, it represents sodomy. Such an act is obviously opposed to the natural order.
But when the act is "started" orally, is it then natural? This would seem to me to be splitting hairs, as it were. Either it is natural or it is not. If the act is unnatural, no rearrangement will change it. What does it matter in what order natural acts are completed? What business is it of yours if my wife ends up on top? Where is the compelling state interest to keep her below me in my own home?
Before long, these scholastical distinctions are going to end in the conclusion that the use of clockwise tongue strokes is acceptable, but that the use of anticlockwise tongue strokes is unnatural (or vice versa in the Southern Hemisphere).
George, how many heterosexuals engage in sex acts in public places? Not many. Homos do it all the time. Prudentially, we can say that homosexual behavior leads to public homosexual behavior, which leads to disease etc. Thus it can be regulated.
You spend a lot of time thinking about what people do in bed. HMMMMM,,,
That's true, but what does this statement have to do with the discussion?
Since you have repeatedly insisted that the only grounds upon which government power is to be limited are grounds of political prudentiality, I should think that the relevance of the statement is painfully obvious.
ROTFLMAO, you need to get out of the house more. Just about the only sex act I haven't seen taking place in public is homosexual sex.
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.