Skip to comments.
Santorum is Right, and You Should Be Supporting Him: An Explanation of Lawrence v. Texas
Serious Vanity
| 4-26
| TOH
Posted on 04/26/2003 12:28:27 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500, 501-520, 521-540 ... 701-708 next last
To: The Old Hoosier
There are two issues in this case:
1) Is there a constitutional right for any two adults to engage in any kind of consensual sex, as long as it's behind closed doors? The petitioners say yes, there is, and are asking the court to agree.
2) Does it violate the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection to outlaw homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy, as the Texas law does? In other words, should sexual orientation become a specially protected category under the 14th amendment--along with race? Again, the petitioners say yes.
Seems pretty clear to me, adult Americans can decide for themselves what they choose to do in their own homes.
L,L, and TPoH
501
posted on
04/27/2003 9:21:03 PM PDT
by
WhiteGuy
(MY VOTE IS FOR SALE)
To: Luis Gonzalez
I think I recall he was next door or somewhere else at home in the same complex.
502
posted on
04/27/2003 9:21:08 PM PDT
by
weegee
(NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS: CNN let human beings be tortured and killed to keep their Baghdad bureau open)
To: Luis Gonzalez
I am in favor of such a "conspiracy" if such occurred. Some of these legal relics need to be dusted off, and subjected to the light of day. In any event, it is totally American to deliberately break a law deemed unjust or unconstitutional in good conscience, accept the consequences, and let the fur fly. That is one reason I so love this nation.
503
posted on
04/27/2003 9:21:25 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: weegee
There is no inconsistency there, other than the age opf consent.
It is still rape is there is no consent, and an individual has to be of legal age to consent.
It uniformly says that all people engaged in sexual acts have to be of legal age to consent.
Texas law says draws a class distinction and condones the commission of deviant sexual intercourse to some people, while criminalizing it for others.
What's incredibly weird about Texas, is that it allows homosexuals to adopt children, but objects to their having homosexual sex on moral grounds.
504
posted on
04/27/2003 9:28:49 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(When the elephants are stampeding, don't worry about the pissants.)
I had never seen the name of the man who made the fraudulent call before my searches tonight.
we'll never to be able to fully get his view on this as he has been dead now for several years.
Houston Police Online
Date: October 17, 2000
Subject: Incident at 3942 Faulkner A man assaulted in the 3900 block of Faulkner on October 10 has died from his injuries.
Robert Royce Eubanks, 42, suffered severe head wounds and was pronounced dead last Saturday (Oct. 14) at Memorial Hermann Hospital.
Eubanks had left a residence on Faulkner, where he had been visiting a friend, and was seen walking in the 3900 block of Faulkner. Someone from the residence on Faulkner contacted 911 and Eubanks was transported to the hospital.
There is no known motive or suspect in this case at this time.
Anyone with information in this incident is urged to contact the Houston Police Homicide Division at 713-308-3600 or Crime Stoppers at 713-222-TIPS.
The case was assigned to Officer L.D. Garretson of the HPD Homicide Division.
505
posted on
04/27/2003 9:29:14 PM PDT
by
weegee
(NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS: CNN let human beings be tortured and killed to keep their Baghdad bureau open)
To: weegee
Did he know whether or not his housemates were home? Or rather, were his housemates not supposed to be home at the time he made the call?
506
posted on
04/27/2003 9:30:30 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(When the elephants are stampeding, don't worry about the pissants.)
To: Torie
Well, that's true.
507
posted on
04/27/2003 9:31:35 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(When the elephants are stampeding, don't worry about the pissants.)
To: Luis Gonzalez
Ahem. If they have reached the age of consent for sex then yes they can "consent" to have sex with an adult. This is why it is referred to as age of consent. Sheesh.
Age of consent is below 18 in some states.
508
posted on
04/27/2003 9:32:10 PM PDT
by
weegee
(NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS: CNN let human beings be tortured and killed to keep their Baghdad bureau open)
To: Luis Gonzalez
Neither one is allowed to consent. Which one is guilty of rape?
509
posted on
04/27/2003 9:32:37 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Luis Gonzalez
I don't have the details on his conviction. The court case for the fraud call should have those details if you choose to investigate further.
He was convicted and sentenced to jail as punishment. One article claimed that police have said that the 2 men had a history of making false police calls against each other.
510
posted on
04/27/2003 9:34:11 PM PDT
by
weegee
(NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS: CNN let human beings be tortured and killed to keep their Baghdad bureau open)
To: Roscoe
It's only statutory rape when someone over the age of consent has sex with someone who is not.
Two minors having sex means that two kids consented to doing something that they had no right to consent to.
Rape is sex without consent.
511
posted on
04/27/2003 9:45:15 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(When the elephants are stampeding, don't worry about the pissants.)
To: Luis Gonzalez
It's only statutory rape when someone over the age of consent has sex with someone who is not. And in Texas, it's only criminal sodomy when someone of one sex has sex with someone of the same sex.
Are statutory rape laws unconstitutional?
512
posted on
04/27/2003 9:59:11 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
How can the states legislate at what age an adult can diddle a minor? < /sarcasm >
After all, someone has to step in to enforce this law that says in Maryland an adult can legally have sex with a 16 year old where as another state says that minor has to be 17.
Keep the legislature out of the bedrooms < /sarcasm >
513
posted on
04/27/2003 10:10:25 PM PDT
by
weegee
(NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS: CNN let human beings be tortured and killed to keep their Baghdad bureau open)
To: The Old Hoosier
Tell them to refuse to accept a Supreme Court ruling that elevates disgusting acts of sodomy above real constitutional rights such as gun ownership and freedom of religion.Um...I predict that this strategy will not work. In fact, it could very well backfire like you wouldn't believe.
514
posted on
04/27/2003 10:47:35 PM PDT
by
lurky
To: tpaine
damn, you're good.
515
posted on
04/27/2003 11:10:09 PM PDT
by
lurky
To: weegee; tpaine; Luis Gonzalez; sinkspur
Round and round and round and round. It's the same tired voices making the same tired arguments. Yeah, and it's always the same people making absolute concrete sound sense and giving rational debate a good name. (You know who are, bravo.)
516
posted on
04/27/2003 11:17:36 PM PDT
by
lurky
To: jwalsh07; Roscoe
Perhaps roscoe, you could explain how states came to have a Constitutional right to prohibit guns & sin?
States don't have Constitutional rights
Tell it to roscoe.
nor is there a Constitutional right to sodomy, polygamy or incest, irrespective of the degrees of seperation. This is a tenth amendment issue if ever there was one. The writers of the Constitution clearly endorsed laws outlawing sodomy.
Bull.. Not in the constitution, they didn't.
If you want the Constitution to protect those things, you'll have to amend it. The 14th Amendment doesn't do it.
Yes, it did do it.
Prohibitive 'sin' type laws violate due process.
It is not a sin to possess automatic weapons, drink booze or close your bedroom door. - And clowns that think it is are flat out weird.
517
posted on
04/27/2003 11:20:37 PM PDT
by
tpaine
(Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
To: lurky
Reading over your posts you still don't get it that men and women may both engage in acts of sodomy. There is no "unequal protection". Mem and women are prohibited from committing acts of sodomy with members of the same sex. And this applies equally to men and women.
If you wanted to challenge it under "freedom of association" you might stand more of a chance, but not over "equal protection". And as it is discussed on this and other threads, some states which permit homosexual sodomy still make a distinction over the the age of consent for adults and minors to have sex.
Some states permit heterosexuals to engage in intercourse, sodomy, what have you at say age 16 (and that includes a partner of age 18+) while holding homosexuals in violation of statutory rape laws for engaging in homosexual sodomy below the age of 18. A "back door" way to throw out the disparity in the age of consent laws, eh?
518
posted on
04/27/2003 11:43:10 PM PDT
by
weegee
(NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS: CNN let human beings be tortured and killed to keep their Baghdad bureau open)
To: tpaine
Prohibitive 'sin' type laws violate due process. He endlessly, sourcelessly, plaintively begged.
519
posted on
04/27/2003 11:55:10 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: jwalsh07
The writers of the Constitution clearly endorsed laws outlawing sodomy. Pesky facts.
520
posted on
04/27/2003 11:57:19 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500, 501-520, 521-540 ... 701-708 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson