Libertarians Join Liberals in Challenging Sodomy Law

NYTimes ^ | March 19, 2003 | LINDA GREENHOUSE

[headsonpikes]

"...there are standards of morality that apply to everyone, everywhere..."

Unfortunately, a thorough prosecution of buggery would be greatly facilitated by a compulsory universal program of random anus-smears for Government inspectors to check out for alien DNA traces.

There are posters here who would eagerly seek jobs with with this new Agency, Administration, Bureau, Department or whatever.

That is the problem with any variant of utopianism; such near-religious belief breeds a haughty determination to succeed, despite the human cost. In foreigners, we call this disorder totalitarianism.

'@sshole Sniffers....there's a career for the WODdies and their ilk!

Hey, Roscoe! A new opening beckons. ;^)

[jimt]

But then that's my point -- a law that is unenforced should be removed. Even worse is a law that is selectively enforced -- that's tyranny.

While I agree with you, it's worse than that. It is a law in an arena in which the goobermint has no business whatsover. For that reason it should definitely be removed. Your reasons are additive, but this one is fundamental.

Do you think people should be able to smoke pot in the privacy of their own home?

Yup. Snort Drano too if they wish.

[Aquinasfan]

Using the tax code to achieve political goals is a liberal trait. Hillary loves it.

Guilt-by-association fallacy.

[Roscoe]

That is the problem with any variant of utopianism; such near-religious belief breeds a haughty determination to succeed, despite the human cost.

I wonder what the ratio of AIDs deaths to sodomy arrest are?

[E Rocc]

Homosexuals cannot survive without the broader heterosexual community around them. Their lifestyle is too destructive to survive on their own. Therefore, they are socializing the costs of their behavior on the heterosexual community. Heterosexuals can survive without homosexuals, but not vice-versa. Therefore, we have every reason to limit their "rights" as we see fit.

Celibates cannot survive without the broader non-celibate community around them. Their lifestyle is too destructive to survive on their own. Therefore, they are socializing the costs of their behavior on the non-celibate community. Non-celibates can survive without celibates, but not vice-versa. Therefore, we have every reason to limit their "rights" as we see fit.

-Eric

[Zack Nguyen]

The sodomy law will probably be struck down, clearing the way for homosexuality to be considered acceptable and taught as such in schools. That would be a tragedy. Homosexual behavior is not normative. It is hurtful both psychologically and physically and badly coarsens our culture. Those that fall into it need help desperately.

To answer your other question, marijuana usage should only be allowed in its medicinal form.

[george wythe]

Texas statute:

§ 21.06. Homosexual Conduct

(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

[Protagoras]

I merely point out that you and Hillary embrace the same policy stategies. Different goals, same strategy. It has nothing to do guilt.

[george wythe]

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

[E Rocc]

'@sshole Sniffers....there's a career for the WODdies and their ilk!

Don't give them ideas....we got the National Firearms Act and marijuana prohibition because the alcohol prohibition agents needed new functions.

-Eric

[HumanaeVitae]

If a married couple decides to have a menage a trois, for example, many things can happen among two women and a man.

If the man performs cunnilingus in the other woman, he will not be charged with sodomy.

Nevertheless, if his wife performs cunnilingus on the other woman, she will be charged with sodomy.

Therefore, you have a case where a married woman and a married man are not being given equal protection under the law.

You are conflating racial and gender differences. For instance, abortion restrictions do not apply to men, do they? If you're pro-life, or at least against partial birth abortion, then you are conceding that certain restrictions apply on the basis of gender. But even beyond the pro-life question. For instance, we prudentially observe that women should not be placed in forward combat units, i.e. the SEALS. Only men are eligible for the draft, etc. We do not discriminate on the basis of race (although there are minor physical differences between the races, i.e. African-Americans are more likely to have sickle-cell anemia), but it is impossible to not do so on the basis of gender. Therefore, your admittedly well constructed analogy ultimately fails.

Women and men are equal before the law in almost all regards, however they cannot be in reproductive issues because of the physical differences between men and women.

[Aquinasfan]

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 few cigarettes every once in a while represents a significant danger to one's health?

Smoking a cigarette may not make one sick for years,...

My point.

...but it is never a helathy habit,...

Habit means regular use.

...and in the end taxes the system.

Depends how much. Occassional cigarette use represents an insignificant health risk.

Not evil?

Not intrinsically.

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.

Yes, if used in dangerous volumes. The situation is analogous to alcohol use, which Jesus OK'd (see the wedding feast of Cana).

[Protagoras]

The sodomy law will probably be struck down, clearing the way for homosexuality to be considered acceptable and taught as such in schools.

It is already in government schools. It has nothing to do with the law concerning BJs by wives on their husbands. Or same sex relations.

Will you concider it acceptable if it isn't a law?

If there was no law, would you concider it acceptable?

[Cultural Jihad]

Gee, this is a complete surprise...

Nothing like trying to ratify a behavior that cuts male life expectancy in half, spreads AIDS and is the lifestyle of child molesters everywhere.

Typical looneytunsian fare...

Exactly. The liberaltarian loons try to claim that the law is unfair, but there is no discrimination at all. They can get married if they want to and enjoy morally-licit heterosexual relations. There are only two sexes, not four or six or eight.

[Aquinasfan]

Prohibiting all actions that do not in themselves advance the public good is the ultimate in collectivism.

Straw man.

[u-89]

Those of you that don't want to control your sexual urges are begging for government help.

"Those of you"???? Are you insinuating something personal about someone you don't know? I trust your implication was meant as a general remark or else I will have to taunt you.

[Protagoras]

Which of the ten commandments do you advocate be legislated?

[E Rocc]

Both eating junk food and cunnilingus are behaviors.

Insert Taco Bell reference here. >:)

-Eric

[Cultural Jihad]

Exactly. One cigarette never killed anyone. The same cannot be said for one act of homosexual sodomy.