Anti-sodomy laws violate individual liberties

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

[GSWarrior]

I believe that unmarried male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than umarried hetero couples, thus the danger of spreading disease is greater among homosexual couples.

Let's start arresting people on the basis of what they might do.

[Cultural Jihad]

** Right of Self-Preservation **

"Why does YOUR right supercede the rights of others with a different point of view? Don't they have the RIGHT to live in the society they want to live in?"

SELF-PRESERVATION. If their behavior destroys our society, then we have the right to forbid their behavior. If people are going to go out and commit sex-acts, that result in their getting diseases of all kinds, that pollute our blood supply, that bankrupt our health research and free health care system, we have a RIGHT to forbid their behaviors.

If people are going to try to engage in behaviors that wreck the family, which is the bedrock of our society, then we have the RIGHT to forbid those behaviors that do that. We have a right to have laws against unmarried couples living together. We have the right to have laws against adultery, because adultery wrecks families. Who supports the children? How are the children taken care of?

We have a right to preserve ourselves and our society. When people engage in behaviors which are destructive to society, then we have a right to forbid those behaviors. We don't have to sit around and allow our society to be destroyed by a lot of self-indulgent fools, who can't see beyond tomorrow, who are too blind to see the EFFECTS of their actions, who live only for instant gratification. Who cares what happens afterwards? Well, WE care, because we have to pay the consequences.

Society can make those kinds of determinations. We can just look around and see all the terrible effects, and say: "No more! We can't afford it! We want our society to continue! We have children coming up! We have grandchildren! We want them to have a society to live in, too!"

If these people with their behaviors are going to spread all these diseases, and wreck families, we have a right to forbid that.

[Skywalk]

You really didn't address my point. Don't your views lead to regulation of every aspect of an individual's life if 51 percent of representatives vote for it? How can you call yourself pro-freedom?

When there are limits on what government can prohibit a state of liberty exists. When there are no limits, as you suggest(or few limits) tyranny finds its home. Your position is indefensible and frankly requires acrobatic leaps in logic. The opposing view is, frankly, much more consistent and simple, a defining characteristic of superior philosophies. And BTW, I have not yet uttered a word about "morality so please do not erect any further strawmen.

Nothing in Luis' argument leads to an overthrow of laws against robbery or murder, to suggest such is absurd at best, and certainly a logical fallacy.

And no, since the rights of one are DIRECTLY harmed by murder, your argument does not stand.

[Skywalk]

Heterosexuals spread diseases also. Shall we jail them?

Why not just arrest EVERYONE. AFter all, I've lied in my life at some point, or hurt someone's feelings. Probably no more destructive a thing exists in society as jealousy, yet I don't hear much of a cry to ban that.

[Cultural Jihad]

Brillian way to run a society, sheikh.

Public school graduate? Yes, a magnet school consistently ranked in the top 50 high schools in America(that's public and private, simpleton.)

He who is a simpleton is he who cannot spell 'brilliant.'

[Cultural Jihad]

No, tyranny finds a home whenever a people are weary of honoring and upholding their inalienable rights. Excusing, winking at, and turning a blind eye to evil behaviors is music to the tyrant's ears.

[Skywalk]

Yes, the age-old and unforgiveable sin of not pressing hard enough on one of my keys. That indeed proves I am stupid.

Got anything else, CJ? Oh wait, did I misplace a comma somewhere?! Oh no!

[Cultural Jihad]

... did I misplace a comma somewhere?! Oh no!

Well, you deserved it when you crowed about graduating from a top-50 magnet school. ; )

[Skywalk]

Who says evil behavior shall be winked at?

The law is not the sum total of morality. Also, you are defining evil in a rather narrow way. What of other standards of morality even more harsh than yours? There are all types of prohibitions in the Mosaic Law, shall we ban those activities also? Are they destructive to society as well?

I'd hate to see the laws that spring up in an Islamic state. But you'd overlook them because "hey, the people have a right to determine what society they're going to inhabit." Yep, if 51 percent vote to make me a slave, I just gots to live wid it. Right massa?

[Smokin' Joe]

When there are limits on what government can prohibit a state of liberty exists.

When there are total limits on what government can prohibit a state of anarchy exists.

[Cultural Jihad]

Nonsense. If an action or law infringes on an inalienable right it is eventually struck down. You would have to prove that sexual perversion is an inalienable right. Good luck!

[Skywalk]

Perhaps, but the "crowing" was in response to a previous insult. It should be categorized mainly as defense.

And honestly, it wasn't even a misspelling, but an actual failure to depress the key fully. Oh well...

[Cultural Jihad]

And supposedly it's all someone else's fault that you are not fully depressed.

[Skywalk]

It's struck down? That's why we have 20,000 firearms laws? That's why abortion protestors can be prosecuted under RICO?

If every law that violated such rights were struck down, would there even BE a Free Republic? LOL

And who, pray tell, determines if this law violates inalienable rights? Scalia? Sheikh Mohammad? Ruth Ginsberg? Quite arbitrary it seems to me.

[Skywalk]

Who spoke of TOTAL limits?

No one said anything about repealing laws against acts that violate the rights of others or fraudulently cause a loss or harm to someone.

The benefit of laws against consensual behaviors is outweighed by the harm that they cause.

[Skywalk]

So, if someone spent all their money collecting obscure refrigerator models, to the point where their wife leaves them, we can then ban such activity?

Clearly obsessive behaviors are harmful to society, but are they not an inalienable right(provided its not an obsession with murder)

[Cultural Jihad]

And who, pray tell, determines if this law violates inalienable rights? Scalia? Sheikh Mohammad? Ruth Ginsberg? Quite arbitrary it seems to me.

It's called 'due process' within a framework of 'self-governance.' You are free to renounce society if such issues are just way too much of a personal burden for you to bear a minute longer.

But be sure to not renounce your watch so that you know what time it is to beg your renunciation paste from the tourists.

[Cultural Jihad]

There is nothing inherently immoral with collecting old refrigerators as there is with engaging in homosexual sodomy.

[savagesusie]

Am I the only one who sees the moronic and perverse (and pervert) logic in these two sentences?

No...I see it too. YOU have logic; they do not.

[Smokin' Joe]

What ramification these consensual behaviours have on the rest of society, (to wit, those who give no consent) is not being talked about here. Do what you will in your home, with consenting adults, but: MY insurance costs go up as people get sick from their indulgences. MY medical care system is compromised as tainted blood enters the blood banks. MY marriage will be cheapened by the removal of the last real stumbling blocks to even one jurisdiction granting license to these ersatz unions and the granting of "gay marriage licenses" full faith and credit under the Constitution. And my wife and I will be expected to shoulder not only the tax burden for those who are sick, but pay their 'spouses' insurance and survivor benefits. I do not consent.

Besides, making an issue of supposed gay marriage, which is at the root of this issue, grants a veil of apparent legitimacy to an incredibly promiscuous lifestyle.

After all, this has diddley squat to do with rights to perform sex acts in the privacy of one's home. Anyone discreet can already do that.

This is just appears to be a small but integral portion of an overall agenda to legitimize and license perversion, then get the rest of us to pick up the tab.