Anti-sodomy laws violate individual liberties

The NH Sunday News ^ | 5/11/03 | Deroy Murdock

[Doc Savage]

I just want to state that prior to my common law marriage to my horse, Nelli, we were celibate. Of course there was a cousin of mine who co-mingled with a sheep prior to marriage, but then again he had had relations with 5 of his 12 daughters too.

Gotta go, I hear Nelli getting ready out in the barn.

[Publius6961]

I must of [sic] missed that point.

As you continue to. Must be by choice.

He was repeating the Supreme Court legal point that once you argue that the state can't sanction one criminal behavior, it must, logically then, cease to sanction all similar behavior.
Not rocket science.

[Old Professer]

As many married people commit sodomy as single people, so the cause and effect is specious.

Even if your statement were supported by fact, it remains inaccurate; this is a poor use of the word, specious; actually, a specious use of it.

[tangerine]

Lot also bred with his daughters.

[borntodiefree]

You are in error, all it does is nullify a law saying something is illegal.

The government should have no say (and via the constitutions of the US and the states they don't) on ANY matter between consenting adults on sex or any other issue, as long as it does not violate the rights of people outside the activity.

This is not an approval by the government, it would be the government taking the rightful stand that they do not have "jurisdiction" in the matter.

In addition, you would be in error if you believe this is a "Christian" nation.

Treaty of Tripoli
“Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries”

[lelio]

Your tortured logic would have me do the same.
Huh? You're the one that brought up the anti-murder laws are anti-individual liberties. I'm the one pointing out the fallacy in that argument.

[Cultural Jihad]

** Domestic Partners vs Families **

On St. Valentine's Day, 1991, San Francisco began the registration of "domestic partners."

"What's so wrong with extending the same benefits that heterosexuals enjoy? Don't they just want to be left alone to live their lives?"

If that were so, just look at the self-inflicted disease they suffer from. If they'd listened to religion, they'd all be alive right now. We told them not to do that, and they went ahead and thumbed their noses at us, and did it. Now they're dying, and we're supposed to bail them out. They try to make all these plays for sympathy. Let them do what they want to? In other words, let them jump off the bridge if they want to? Let them play Russian Roulette if they want to? Is there any kind of behavior we shouldn't allow? So your neighbor moves in next door and starts having marital relations with a horse. Are you going to feel good about that? Are you going to feel good about raising your kids next to that guy?

We all have an interest in the general moral level of society, because if that level goes down, we all suffer, through diseases, for instance. Our kids grow up in this climate where they're encouraged to engage in these really bizarre behaviors, that'll end up hurting them. We have an interest in that.

Also, families are falling apart. One half of all children in California live in divorced families. A lot of kids have no mom or dad, so they're deprived of a parent they really need. Every child needs a mom, needs a dad. They need both, for their own psychological health. There was a study in the paper that said children from divorced families have a lot more psychological problems than children in families with both parents, where both parents are there. So now we have all these mental health problems coming up down the road.

Society has an interest in maintaining the INTEGRITY of the family, and making the family a really strong, stable structure, because that's where the new members of our society learn how to behave and learn to treat each other in a good way. So by allowing ANYBODY to come along and say they're a married couple, no matter what, that would DESTROY the family. And that's going to destroy our whole society, because the family is the basic unit of society.

The "Anything Goes" attitude is so destructive to not only our society, but to us individually. But people claim: "Oh, I tolerate homosexuals, because I'm compassionate." They try to use that argument. But actually, how about having some compassion for all the people who are INJURED by allowing this to go on? Not just the people who get AIDS, such as the kids that come up thinking that they should go out and engage in these activities and get these horrible diseases, and compassion for children growing up in families that are all split up and broken.

It's sort of a very one-sided "compassion."

[oncebitten]

I think many taboos, such as eating pork and sodomy, have their roots in observed negative consequences. In the case of pork trichinosis would have been a major problem in ancient societies without the knowledge of microscopic organisms. In the case of sodomy, the human anus is not designed for the kind of abuse inherent in using it for a sexual organ and becomes an easy pathway for the spread of pathogens. The widespread outbreak of AIDS in the gay community of the 80's is proof that this basic fact has not changed. Heterosexual sodomy coupled with adultery has had the same effect in Africa from what I understand. Therefore a society has the right and obligation to impose rules of behavior that protect society at large from a very real threat linked to sodomy.

[RJCogburn]

Right, Buffy, but tolerance does not mean approval.

[Cultural Jihad]

Right, Buffy, but tolerance does not mean approval.

Tolerating evil makes one just as guilty as the doer of evil. It is evil to tolerate evil.

[RJCogburn]

What's your point?

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

By discussing and/or debating one implicitly admits that there is something to debate and/or discuss. There is not.The only thing your trash office holders understand is money and votes. At a minimum write your office holders and express your opposition. Next donate to those office seekers who will help suppress homosexuality and its expression.

[lodwick]

"The point is, this could happen to anyone," Chase says.

Actually, this could not happen to anyone, you nitwit.

[RJCogburn]

You guys just gotta be able to make a better argument than that!

[Cultural Jihad]

Actually, this could not happen to anyone, you nitwit.

What can one say? The poor, oppressed managers, bankers, lawyers, employers, and all other lumpenjaded need societal protections!

[RJCogburn]

This is not about stopping the sinners, it is about giving "legal status" to method of sex

OMfriggin'G......the moralist police are just tooooooooo much.

[Geritol]

If the single most important and inviolate standard is that consenting adults (or possibly even consenting minors of roughly equal ages, but let us avoid the minor's issues for now) have innate rights of privacy (and intimate association?) that make it unconstitutional to outlaw or even condemn any consensual and freely joined act between them, then we would have to strike down ANY statute that would discourage ANY adult from freely participating in ANY intimate acts with ANY other adult.

We would then have to strike down all statutes against sodomy, homosexuality, incest between adult siblings of same or opposite genders, incest between parents and adult children of any gender, adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, bigamy and other group "marital" relationships (whether the abundance is females, males or both), prostitution both male and female, sadomasochism (even leading to death? Assisted suicide?), and other activities that I will not describe in detail. This standard could NOT just apply to same-gender "intimate" relationships. If privacy and adult consent are the highest law then all of these acts and more would have to be legalized.

Besides, those who wrote and signed the Treaty of Tripoli lied, at least this once, and you have fallen for it, or are simply desperately wishing it were true.

[Luis Gonzalez]

In Texas, by definition in the State statutes, sodomy (defined as any contact between one person's oral/anal cavity, and another person's genitalia) is considered to be "deviant sexual intercourse", and by Texas law, some people can freely engage in the practice of "deviant sexual intercourse" while other people can go to jail and/or be fined.

Is that equality in the eyes of the law?

Does that law, in and of itself, create a separate but equal situation?

Does the Texas situation create an equal protection under the law constitutional argument?

[Just mythoughts]

"all it does is nullify a law saying something is illegal"

Actually, the government is "THE PEOPLE". Since in that document at its very foundation state "RIGHTS given to the individual by the CREATOR no government can take, lets it be known where "RIGHTS" come from. Our Heavenly Father sent us a letter giving the RIGHT & WRONG of his creation, and what happens when His little creatures ignore HIM!

We in this evolutionary stage of man becoming "gods" ignore the Creator and exactly what it is that brings about our blessings and curses.

The constitution does not give "civil rights" this was done via man's evolving of a so called living document.

"TREATY of TRIPOLI" man's treaty, it a statement of man based upon what? Wake up every day and thank man for that TREATY of TRIPOLI!

[Publius6961]

Hello again!

I would love to engage you again, but after the bijol and caldo fiasco of yesterday (I still don't have a recipe), I refuse to.

Your post is off topic.
I do not wish to argue Texas law.

The topic is Laws Violate Individual Liberty.
A self-evident and redundant post.
And a crummy way to argue for pro-pervert rights.

Happy Mother's Day!