Posted on 03/19/2003 12:48:02 AM PST by RJCogburn
Yeah. BTW, for any social conservatives lurking this thread, the socialization argument is an extremely fruitful one. There's no answer the "if I'm not hurting anyone, it's my business" crowd can give to it, because no act happens in isolation.
Cunnilingus:Where is the “equal protection under the law?”
Between man and woman is OK, but between woman and woman is Not OK.Fellatio:
Between man and woman is OK, but between man and man is Not OK.Anal Intercourse:
Between man and woman is OK, but between man and man is Not OK.
I predict that the Supreme Court will strike down this law.
Well said.
I think they missed the part about it not infringing on others' rights, which is the only legitimate reason to criminalize anything.
Here's my point. Let's take a "Jamestown Colony" situation, i.e. people having to survive in a state of nature, or harsh conditions.
Heterosexuals can do it because they can have children to (eventually) share the workload and care for the previous generation. The heterosexual "means" of sex is what the human body is designed for, thus there aren't the horrendous diseases and health problems that homosexuals have etc. Heterosexuals are also far more emotionally mature to deal with such a situation, and would construct social and moral structures (nuclear marriage, standards of moral behavior, helping out neighbors, etc.) that would engender survival. Homosexuals, being naturally self-destructive, immature and selfish, could not bring themselves these things.
In short, if you took a group of 200 heterosexuals and put them in a state of nature, and then came back a year later to see how they were faring, some would have died but most likely could hang on. Take a group of 200 homosexuals in the same situation and you'd come back a year later to find 200 skeletons and a bunch of fat buzzards. Homosexuals are far too immature, selfish, and self-destructive to survive in a situation like that.
They can only survive in the context of a heterosexual society. Thus, we can live without them, and they can't live without us. Thus we can regulate their behavior, and because their behavior is uniformly negative and destructive to society (higher health costs, child molestation, etc.) we should.
If HV's arguments are typical of "the jr. high level", then education in this country has swirled even further down the bowl that I'd thought.
Homosexuals are the progeny of heterosexuals. For instance, if my daughter turns out to be a lesbian, she will be as capable as any other woman to contribute to any society, large or small.
Furthermore, homosexuals do marry and have children, especially when that’s necessary for the survival of their society. In poor societies where children are considered to be their “social security” and “medicare” wrapped into one, most homosexuals marry and procreate
The basis of totalitarian philosophy is the notion that the limits of state power are set by no principles, but only by the political prudentials of the moment.
But of course you're being redundant, since your position is that nobody has any right to speak freely, to keep and bear arms, to be secure in their property, etc.
Nonsense. People voluntarily choose not to grow old every single day.
Aging is most certainly voluntary. Fire a .45 hollowpoint into your brain pan and you won't age another day.
Just damn.
Marilyn Monroe did not grow old.
In all her pictures, she looks like fox.
Depends on what God you worship, doesn't it?
The God you and I believe in is perfectly capable of looking out for Himself. The one worshipped by Mohammad Atta and some FReepers is a weak sort who needs minions.
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.