CJ, do you like movies about gladiators?
Have you ever been to a Turkish prison?
Posted on 05/19/2003 6:01:32 AM PDT by SJackson
They're just cutting their own throats. Those who were inclined to give to the UW in order to make the donation to the Scouts will just give DIRECTLY to the Scouts now. Others who might have given to the UW may refuse to out of disgust for their spinelessness! I'd be curious to see how fundraising has gone this year for the UWs that have decided to drop the Scouts.
Bestiality -- What part of "people" did you not understand?
Pedophilia -- What part of consensual did you not understand? And before you go off, there are "age of consent" laws in every State of the Union, minors can't give their consent, and an adult is not allowed to accept the consent of a minor child.
Necrophilia -- The rights of the deceased are in the hands of the next-of-kin until burial, so if you can get Cousin Billy to say OK to your humping dead Aunt Millie silly, you go boy!!!
Quit it with the absurd boogeymen...no one is buying.
CJ, do you like movies about gladiators?
Have you ever been to a Turkish prison?
Haters are those who say: "Go to hell-in-a-handbasket, for all I care." Perhaps we should do as you do, and fawn all over them, and tell them how wonderful their sins are, but then we are not haters.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
You mean that?
I see the rights reserved to the people.
The Constitution does not delegate the right to regulate sexual activity in any degree to the Federal government. From Amendment IX we know that the Founders recognized rights beyond those specifically enumerated in the Constitution and the ensuing Amendments to it. One of those rights is the right to privacy, and yet another right, one that protects us against unreasonable search and seizure, makes anti-sodomy laws ridiculous, in light of the fact that sex in public is prohibited everywhere.
By the way, before you argue that there is no such thing such as "the right to privacy", please explain why the government is required to obtain a Court order to open someone's mail, or to wiretap their telephones?
The "incest, bestiality, necrophilia..." strawman is old.
Try to think one up of your own.
You can just save yourself the trouble of actually typing out the dribble, and just post the picture from now on.
Ridiculous, absurd arguments only make you look foolish CJ.
Quit making them.
We have gladiators today, they are called boxers and wrestlers. Some die.
| The pleasure and joy which a moral-liberal derives from ridiculing religious morality in no way balances out the great suffering which immorality brings to the broad masses of people.
|
Are the results of wrestling and boxing always death? Is their goal to murder a consenting victim? How about consensual machete fights? Are those okay since we also allow boxing?
Are STD's limited to gays CJ?
No, they are not.
What's really funny, is that you agree with my post about the decadence of society in general, and the gay movement being merely a symptom of that moral decay.
But you're too dumb to realize that.
Who said they were? Even so, in this country, the vast majority of AIDS sufferers are those so-called 'harmless' and 'consenting' homosexuals and intraveneous recreational drug users, which the moral-liberals try to excuse because of the Ryan Whites of the land. Every evil deed has evil repercussions. The guilty suffer as well as the innocent. Hence there is no such thing as a 'harmless immorality.'
Who are you to judge the consensual happiness-seeking of others, O moral-liberal? Throw a consensual million dollar prize in the till, add a callous society which devalues human life, and it'll be on pay-per-view in no time.
The CDC says those with genetic defect [spina bifita, cleft palate, downs, club foot…et al] have a whopping 95% rate of passing on their defect, are you going to regulate sexual activity for people with these “genetic” defects or are you just a hypocrite? But…there’s always abortion or how about mom had a hysterectomy or son a vasectomy…it’s OK then right? NO??? Then it must be OK for dad and son or sister and sister since there’s no possibility for procreation. If not you’re just another hypocrite protecting your pet perversion.
Bestiality -- What part of "people" did you not understand?
Absolutely NONE. Animals are property and the only consent needed is from the “people” involved. Or are you for regulating the use of your blow-up doll (i.e. “your property”) too? No??? Then you’re a hypocrite.
Pedophilia -- What part of consensual did you not understand?
Children…some children, have the legal “mental capacity” to consent. An emancipated adult only requires a 70-75 adult IQ for the capacity to provide legal consent, surely you can understand many children have that level of intelligence.
And before you go off, there are "age of consent" laws…
That doesn’t mean a child doesn’t have the mental capacity to consent does it? So if the legislature made the “age of consent” say 10 then it’s OK by you right? If “the law” says it’s OK then it must be the right for everyone.
Yet look at your hypocrisy here again. I thought your threshold for ‘sexual civil rights’ was ONLY based on the capacity to consent and when the legislature says it’s against the law for children that can mentally consent that’s OK but it’s not when it comes to your pet perversion. Why the hypocrisy here?
Necrophilia -- The rights of the deceased are in the hands of the next-of-kin until burial, so if you can get Cousin Billy to say OK to your humping dead Aunt Millie silly, you go boy!!!
So it’s OK for the state to regulate this kind of sexual behavior but not others? You really do pick and choose your hypocrisies don’t you? Wow, how breathtakingly sanctimonious.
Hehehe… Griswold v. Connecticut only addresses the right of marital privacy which makes the rest of your point mute not to mention silly. Next time you get pulled over for not wearing your seat belt tell the LEO about your right to privacy.
The "incest, bestiality, necrophilia..." strawman is old.
Only if you're a hypocrite...oh that's right you are.
A good portion of mankind, and a substantial portion of Americans, disagree with you. Some of us, particularly those of us who are conservative by nature, do not believe that the government has the right to enact laws to protect us against ourselves.
Why would you cut out the portion of the Declaration of Independence where the Founders established the fact that all men are created equal?
Could it be because you are arguing that some are not?
I missed nothing from that document…
Luis Gonzalez - 2003
Nor did you miss the opportunity for a red herring. Here's the relevant passage again…
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Thomas Jefferson - 1776While all men are indeed created equal, not all behaviors are equal. The error you're making is in the idea that homosexuals are defined by what kind of people they are, rather than in what type of perversion they engage.
Sodomy laws do not punish people for being created differently, but for how they behave.
The Constitution does not delegate the right to regulate sexual activity in any degree to the Federal government. From Amendment IX we know that the Founders recognized rights beyond those specifically enumerated in the Constitution and the ensuing Amendments to it. One of those rights is the right to privacy, and yet another right, one that protects us against unreasonable search and seizure, makes anti-sodomy laws ridiculous, in light of the fact that sex in public is prohibited everywhere.
Luis Gonzalez - 2003
Something else you missed…
"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."
Thomas Jefferson - 1778Even if the punishments are harsh by today's standards, Jefferson clearly didn't believe that sodomites were protected in their behavior by an unenumerated right of privacy. Nor did the Supreme Court in the 1986 Georgia decision. Regulating sodomy remains a prerogative of the States, and only a gross abuse of judicial power by the SCOTUS would hold otherwise.
Two people having consensual sex is the equivalent of consensual machete fighting?
Luis Gonzalez - 2003
Jefferson again, from the same document…
Whosoever committeth murder by way of duel, shall suffer death by hanging; and if he were the challenger, his body, after death, shall be gibbeted.
Thomas Jefferson - 1778Not quite the same, but you can see that like consenting sodomites, consenting duelists are not "created equal… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" as sodomites and duelists, in the view of the Founder who enunciated the principle.
I can't blame you from running away from your lame moral-liberal statements in support of perversion. Come back when you have a valid argument to offer.
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.
