Still knee-deep in homophobia

The Arizona Republic ^ | Apr. 29, 2003 | O. Ricardo Pimentel

[First Amendment]

that the government knows better than the individual whom a person should love and they're willing to enforce that using police. Perhaps the Senator can also decide what films I can watch in my own home or how many glasses of wine I can have with dinner.

Deciding in court whether there is an inherent right to commit sodomy in the Constitution has nothing to do with what you just said. You are creating a straw man. Santorum is not intimating any of the above.

You must know that "gay acitivists" claim that public sodomy is their right and their culture, and as a result many public parks, bathrooms, beaches and the like are now off limits to normal people and families. If homosexuals wanted to commit sodomy or other weird "sex" acts on their own time, in their own houses or closets, that would be one thing. But homosexuals want to teach our children - K-12 in California - how to perform sodomy and other acts, let them see and read about that stuff on the Internet at the library, and muzzle anyone who tries to have public discussion. Homo Nazism is what it is.

[Cultural Jihad]

People do have a right to decide what kind of a society they are to live in. The liberals (and libertarians) are robbing people of that right.

[longtermmemmory]

homsexuals suffer from MORALPHOBIA

[Torie]

I don't think you comment is apposite to my query, but perhaps I failed to understand its nuances.

[tpaine]

Have at it if thats what turns you on, you silly savage...

[Torie]

I don't think the Supreme Court will mandate that states must teach minors how to perform homo sex, so relax.

[Cultural Jihad]

Well, you raised the question about penumbra shadow rights which only trained ideologues can see and rule on by judicial fiat. My response was in regard to that robbery.

[longtermmemmory]

If genetic homosexuality has to be accepted due to lacke of choice. (then fetuses get aborted and gene therapies developed)

If environmental then it can be prevented. It becomes an affirmative choice which can moaralized.

The entire homosexual behavior movement is geared on the choice model. They act as if it is a choice and work to desensitize the 99+% straight population. That is why they are so frantic to get acceptance before science catches up to the politics.

[Torie]

So put you thinking cap on. How does a justice which voted to uphold Roe v Wade or its progeny, or for that matter Griswald, explain why given that the right to privacy protects contraception and abortion, it nevertheless does not reach private consentual sex between adults (incest aside, which raises the risk of deformed progency)?

[tpaine]

People do have a right to decide what kind of a society they are to live in. The liberals (and libertarians) are robbing people of that right.
222 -cj-

Bull.. We the People made the decison long ago what kind of a society we are to live in. - A free republic.

The liberals (and rino dupes) are busy robbing people of that right.

[reg45]

The Ebonics Translator works. Here is a familiar example:

Yo buss dis. foesco an' sevun years ago our fathers brung forth on dis continent a new nation, conceived in liberty an' dedicated to de proposition dat all homeys be created equal.

Now we be engaged in a great civil war, testin whethuh dat nation or any nation so conceived an' so dedicated can long endure. We be met on a great battlefield uh dat war. See what I'm sayin? We has come to dedicate a portion uh dat field as a final restin-place fuh those who here gave deir lives dat dat nation might live. It be altogethuh fittin an' propuh dat we should do dis.

But in a larguh sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow dis ground. De brave men, livin an' dead who skruggled here has consecrated it far above our poor powuh to add or detract. De world will li'l note nor long remembuh what we say here, but it can nevuh forgit what dey did here. It be fuh us de livin rathuh to be dedicated here to de unfinished wuk which dey who fought here has thus far so nobly advanced. It be rathuh fuh us to be here dedicated to de great taxe remainin befo us--that from dese honored dead we take pumps upd devotion to dat cause fuh which dey gave de las full measho uh devotion--that we here highly settle dis dat dese dead shall not has died in vain, dat dis nation unduh God shall has a new birth uh freedom, an' dat guvernment uh de people, by de people, fuh de folk shall not perish from de earth. Sheeit!

[longtermmemmory]

prostitution is still illegal. (unless the state legalizes it)

[Torie]

Good point, but that is meretricious sex. I grant you, if it isn't a public nuisance, and there is no soliciting on the streets, that might be a distinction without a difference.

[tpaine]

-- you raised the question about penumbra shadow rights which only trained ideologues can see and rule on by judicial fiat. My response was in regard to that robbery.
-CJ-



There are no 'penumbras' in the 14th, cj..

The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect our RKBA's, among others.

Some states were depriving their citizens of the right to a private life, liberty & property, without due process of law.
-- Fancy that..
Some still are, and you and I live in one, CA.
-- When 'they' come for my guns here, I intend to use any constitutional protection [including the 14th], I can get.

-- Dream on, -- that a state having the power to intrude in your bedroom will keep out of your gunroom.

Of course, I realise that you have no gunroom, CJ. -- How bout we substitute a barroom? - Same principle.

[Cultural Jihad]

We the People made the decison long ago what kind of a society we are to live in. - A free republic.

A free people have a right to expect all members of society adhere to the kindness of religious morality, without which there would be no free republic.

[tpaine]

Backwards.

Prostitution is constitutionally 'legal'. (the states can regulate its public aspects)

[tpaine]

'Expect' what you like.
Just keep your nose out of my business, bedroom, barroom, & gunroom.

[jwalsh07]

Perhaps you could help me with some of this. Just how would you frame a legal opinion that holds that the Contitution protects abortion as a fundamental right of privacy, or for that matter contraception, which trump proscriptive state laws, but does not protect sex between consentual adults?

My "blue collar" legal opinion is that two wrongs do not a right make. An honest court would admit that Roe was baseless, and despite the fact that I think the right to life should be Constitutionally protected, they would return that decision to the states and the law and respect for the Constitution would once again be consistent.

Problems with inconsistency are abounding. The Peterson case is a prime example. The killing of an unborn baby is homicidal if done by person A but not if done by person B at the behest of Mom C.

A SCOTUS decision here is going down that same crooked road, imh"bc"o.

What do you think?

[First Amendment]

I don't think the Supreme Court will mandate that states must teach minors how to perform homo sex, so relax.

Either you are ill-informed or duplicitous. In California for the last 2 (or 3) years it is MANDATORY in grades K-12 to teach the kids about homosexuality - which includes, in the older grades, what homosexuals do. You can do a search on "fistgate" and see what's happening in Massachusetts. You are wrong - kids are being taught how to practice sodomy and other sick acts.

[Torie]

Ya, and Scotus doesn't mandate it.