Skip to comments.
Anti-sodomy laws violate
individual liberties
The NH Sunday News ^
| 5/11/03
| Deroy Murdock
Posted on 05/11/2003 7:04:33 AM PDT by RJCogburn
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 461-472 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
Answer my question...have you ever engaged in sodomy with your wife or girlfriend?No.
Now you answer mine. Have you ever feared that Texas bedroom police would peek in on you as you engaged in it with your girl friend, boy friend, or pet schnauzer?
To: Kevin Curry
Answer the question Kevin.
Do you regularly,or have you ever engaged in sodomy (either oral or anal sex) with your wife or girlfriend?
Why won't you answer that question?
222
posted on
05/12/2003 7:11:38 AM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(Most goldminers used to blame stuff on the ass.)
To: Luis Gonzalez
Such a gestapo mindset you exhibit, Luis. I hope it's a passing fad of yours, since you are usually a level-headed individual in many other areas of thought. Anything is morally-licit within a heterosexual marriage provided it is consensual and in no way degrading to either partner.
To: Luis Gonzalez
LAUGH OUT LOUD, CRY BABY!
My constitution demands that I not only not blow away a burglar, but that I invite him in. HA HA HA NOT
Also demands I sharpen that knife first before I stand still and let an old man stick a knife. HA HA HA NOT
Interpret, FALLACIES - good word old boy.
Common sense, if we the people are the government and the second give a right to bear arms for the security of a "Free" State then who the >ell is one to defend.
"LOSER", You think I really care if you call me names.
To: Luis Gonzalez
No one is arguing in favor of restoring the morality of the Founders...
#218.
To: Cultural Jihad
It is not a facet of religious morality, I've made the point on other threads that God condemns homosexuallity 'probably' more than any other act, except idolotry. Yet, it did not make the Big Ten that God gave to moses written in stone.
It just seems to me that laws written in stone are more than customs to be observed.
My point is that our government does not make or enforce religous laws that do not tresspass onto another person, like they do murder and theft.
The government isn't supposed to be enforcing religion, even if it is 'good for the community'.
226
posted on
05/12/2003 7:15:23 AM PDT
by
Eagle Eye
(There ought to be a law against excessive legislation.)
To: Eagle Eye
Hey, you really ought to try moving to the Mid EastMideast, midwest, mountain states, Pacific states, or eastern seaboard. They all had such laws and enforced them before the destruction of traditional morals and the meltdown of the American family began in earnest in the 1960s. That was America before the perverts got firm hold of it.
Your America is the America of Larry Flynt; mine is the America of John Adams.
I'll choose Adams any day.
To: Luis Gonzalez
Have you ever feared that Texas bedroom police would peek in on you as you engaged in it with your girl friend, boy friend, or pet schnauzer? Why won't you answer my questions, sodomite?
To: Cultural Jihad
You are again advocating that the government has a place in protecting people from themselves for their own good.
I disagree.
229
posted on
05/12/2003 7:18:02 AM PDT
by
Eagle Eye
(There ought to be a law against excessive legislation.)
To: Kevin Curry
Nice dodge Kevin.
I don't engage in sexual activity with animals, or men. And I fear the State having the power to violate any right of mine, constitutional, civil, or fundamental.
Making consensual sexual behavior a criminal act theoretically gives the government the right to peek in my bedroom. I will not allow them that power.
Now answer my question, I answered yours.
Have you eve, or do you currently engage in sodomy with your wife or girlfriend?
230
posted on
05/12/2003 7:18:29 AM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(Most goldminers used to blame stuff on the ass.)
To: RJCogburn
Anti sodomy laws just uphold common decency. And if one can't legislate morality, then why are we putting people in jail? Laws existed before our constitution did. I suppose those were all just arbitrary...
231
posted on
05/12/2003 7:18:45 AM PDT
by
Havoc
(If you can't be frank all the time are you lying the rest of the time?)
To: Just mythoughts
"My constitution demands that I not only not blow away a burglar, but that I invite him in."Where in this living constitution of yours does it say that.
Please provide a link to it.
232
posted on
05/12/2003 7:23:48 AM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(Most goldminers used to blame stuff on the ass.)
To: Cultural Jihad
After I broght the point up?
Surely you jest?
233
posted on
05/12/2003 7:25:31 AM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(Most goldminers used to blame stuff on the ass.)
To: Cultural Jihad
"Anything is morally-licit within a heterosexual marriage, provided it is consensual and in no way degrading to either partner."
Not at all CJ, and that's my point. How can a partner be degraded if they consent to it? Do you then support swinging?
The anal cavity is as dirty in married women as it is in unmarried men. The Bible does not draw a distinction between heterosexual sodomy and homosexual sodomy, married or unmarried, and neither did the men who authored the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson said that sodomites "should be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman by cutting through the cartilage of her nose of one-half inch in diameter at least." Do you see a distinction between married sodomites and ummarried sodomites there?
We have tempered with all the very same concepts that we stand on to condemn homosexuals, in order to justify our own participation in the very same activity we describe as deviant.
234
posted on
05/12/2003 7:40:58 AM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(Most goldminers used to blame stuff on the ass.)
To: Sam Cree
but I don't believe gambling is necessarily a sin, not even at racetracks and casinos.
I would ask myself "What Would Jesus Do"? Would he go to such a place and gamble? Would he try to gain money in a through non-work? What would Jesus think looking around those places and seeing those whose lives have been ruined through gambling?
I think the answer lies in there.
235
posted on
05/12/2003 7:42:04 AM PDT
by
lelio
To: RJCogburn
Here is the libertarian answer to this burning question: Things deemed distasteful should not always be illegal. This response is one that every freedom-loving American should embrace. Here is the libertarian paradox:
Societies are necessary to protect liberties. Laws define a society. If the laws that define a society are destroyed to protect liberties, then the society those laws define will eventually be destroyed and be unable to protect liberties.
The answer is not libertarianism but conservatism balanced by (classic) liberalism. Conservatism protects the institutions of a society. Left unchecked, the society crushes the individual (the valid libertarian fear). (Classic) Liberalism protects the individual. Left unchecked, individual license destroys a society.
In balance, the two have done a pretty good job of keeping the US Strong and Free. Leaning too heavily toward one or the other will leave the US either strong, or free, but not both.
As always, it is a question of balance. Libertarianism, at least as posted on this board, is unbalanced.
Looking at the question of permitting homosexual behavior we should ask ourselves several hard questions, and look for evidentiary rather than anecdotal evidence. A small subset of those questions are (I picked a short list for brevity's sake because I believe they make the strongest point. Feel free to discuss the questions I did not include):
- Are individuals harmed by denying a "right" to homosexual erotic activity?
- Is there any new information that causes us to want to change thousands of years of historical precedent for declaring homosexual erotic attraction aberrent?
- Is there any information to suggest that sexual license (including homosexual erotic behavior) is harmful to society?
I don't believe the answer to the first is "yes." I am almost certain the answer to the second is "no." I believe the answer to the third is "yes."
The conservative position is that we can not allow liberty to become license to the destruction of the Republic. Based on those three questions I have chosen to present this particular moral wrong can not be declared a civil right.
Shalom.
236
posted on
05/12/2003 7:42:38 AM PDT
by
ArGee
(I did not come through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man... - Gandalf)
To: Eagle Eye
The government isn't supposed to be enforcing religion, even if it is 'good for the community'. Here is an important question. Is morality an opinion or a reality?
That is, do we establish "good" and "evil" by popular vote, or do "good" and "evil" exist for us to discover?
Shalom.
237
posted on
05/12/2003 7:53:25 AM PDT
by
ArGee
(I did not come through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man... - Gandalf)
To: ArGee
"I don't believe the answer to the first is "yes."Are you then arguing that people who enjoy that kind of sexual activity are not individuals?
238
posted on
05/12/2003 8:21:31 AM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(Most goldminers used to blame stuff on the ass.)
To: Luis Gonzalez
No, I'm denying that they are harmed.
Shalom.
239
posted on
05/12/2003 8:25:09 AM PDT
by
ArGee
(I did not come through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man... - Gandalf)
To: ArGee
"Is there any information to suggest that sexual license (including homosexual erotic behavior) is harmful to society?"If your answer to this question is also "yes", are you then in favor of criminalizing pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, group sex, bondage, or anything above and beyond sex for the strict purpose of reproduction?
Who gest to define "sexual license", and last but not least, how will offending sexual activity be policed?
240
posted on
05/12/2003 8:27:49 AM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(Most goldminers used to blame stuff on the ass.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 461-472 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