Libertarians Join Liberals in Challenging Sodomy Law

NYTimes ^ | March 19, 2003 | LINDA GREENHOUSE

[steve-b]

LOL! Even HV, who rejects the whole notion of "rights" to live as a free citizen, claims to support equality before the law. I predict a no-show in attempting to rebut this argument, as retreat followed by a bogus claim of victory seems to be HV's style.

[HumanaeVitae]

No, sorry for you. Homosexuals have no right to socialize the consequences of their depraved behavior on me or anyone that does not engage in a self-destructive lifestyle.

Almost 3,000 children per year die of congenital AIDS in this country. If AIDS had been contained and the bath-houses shut down in the first place, would that number of children be higher, or lower?

[HumanaeVitae]

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.

She'll also have a limited lifespan as opposed to a heterosexual woman, a greater likelihood for drug abuse, suicide, and emotional disorders.

Homosexuals cannot survive without heterosexuals. Your statement that many homosexuals do marry and have children. That's not the point. It's their behavior as homosexuals that is dangerous and destructive to society.

[realpatriot71]

I understood that. Yes, society pays for the needs of both. The difference between these cases is that aging isn't voluntary while homosexuality is.

Can we use this argument to extend to smoking? Should smoking be illegal by this criteria?

[HumanaeVitae]

I have never seen you rant about hetrosexual sin.

What, you haven't seen my posts on porno? Surprising...

[steve-b]

What, you haven't seen my posts on porno?

They quickly turn to rants about how it starts with nekkid wimmin, but escalates to depictions of [drum roll] ho-mo-sex-su-uls.

Anything you'd care to share with the group?

[breakem]

Too many freepers want the government to enforce morality. They don't believe in the concept of individual freedom and responsibility. You also see this on the drug threads where people who favor no drug laws are called druggies even though they themselves do not use.

[HumanaeVitae]

Can we use this argument to extend to smoking? Should smoking be illegal by this criteria?

That's a prudential consideration. In other words, is trying to ban smoking worse than the smoking itself?

The same question applies here to sodomy laws. Is trying to regulate sodomy worse than not trying to regulate sodomy? That's the question that should be placed before the people of Texas, and should not be decided by a bunch of robed pervert-hugging elitists in the judiciary.

If the people of Texas want to repeal that law, I can say nothing against it. But there is no "right" to sodomy. Period.

[george wythe]

behavior as homosexuals that is dangerous and destructive to society.

Do you agree that cunnilingus and fellatio should be banned, whether between man and woman, or man and man, or woman and woman?

Do you consider cunnilingus and fellatio destructive to society?

As I said, I have no problem with a state or county having sodomy laws, as long as they are applied to everyone.

[realpatriot71]

If I am more comfortable driving on the left side of the road, shouldn't we regulate my "behavior" because my "behavior" puts myself and others at risk?

One can make a "risk" argument for just about anything. The question comes into play what determines a reasonable risk to you and yours by my actions. Is it reasonable to assume that if I drive on the left side of the road that I will cause and accident, because everyone else happens to be driving on the right - yes. With two guys having sex in a private residence, you cannot show the same direct correlation for harm to you and yours.

[Roscoe]

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html

[steve-b]

That's a prudential consideration.

To some people (e.g. Clowntoon wondering what he can do today without getting caught and punished), these issues boil down to "a prudential consideration".

To principled people, they boil down to matters of principle.

[HumanaeVitae]

Why do people who want to "control" sodomy always advocate putting gays in prison with other men?

That's funny, you know.

I'd rather have homosexuals in jail than out on the streets molesting young children.

[steve-b]

I'd rather have homosexuals priests in jail than out on the streets molesting young children.

Just adding an inescapable corrolary to your position.

[Protagoras]

I have not. I also have not heard you attack hetrosexual premarital sex. Maybe you have, but many here are obsessed by same gender sex.

The subject isn't about these behaviors as much as you might like it to be. It is about laws which attempt to impose criminal restrictions on non coersive activities between consenting adults.

It's easy to be against sin, but harder to justify using violence to do what God has no need of you doing. He is capable without your guns.

[HumanaeVitae]

No, what I am saying is that there is no "right" to homosexual behavior. This law was passed by the people of Texas. If they want to repeal it, let them. I happen to think that this law is appropriate and justified. That's what I'm arguing here.

[HumanaeVitae]

Where is Caligula when you need him?