[Macklew]

America at bat...
STRIKE TWO!

[Action-America]

Although I have no use for or respect for Queers, I must agree with the Court.  The reason is simple.

Homosexuality is either a mental illness, a physical disease or a birth defect.  Those are the only possible, rational explanations.  If we punish these sick people for their sickness, all that we are doing is opening the door for the persecution of other people with different diseases or defects.

Punishing a person with cancer or heart disease does not help them or us.  Neither does punishing people whose particular disease or defect causes them to want to have deviant sex with others of the same sex.

Rather than wasting time, effort and taxpayer money, trying to punish queers for deviant sex between consenting adults, we should be spending that same time, effort and money trying to cure them.  After all, if we can find a cure for homosexuality, there will soon be no need for laws against it.

 

[csconerd]

I'm ever so confused here. It's been my contention that this site, and those who frequent it, were in favor of freedoms afforded by the Constitution. In reading the posts of this, and many other threads, I find that some do support freedom, but only if it matches their own individual definitions of the term.

I do feel that the individual States should have more power than the Federal government. While I feel that State's rights should play in here, I feel that the State of Texas has failed in protecting the freedoms of her citizens when law makers sought to impose their idea of morality on them. Therefore, SCOTUS stepped in.

The legislation of morals has no place in a truly free society. By insisting on separation of church and state, the Founding Fathers were making it clear that religion had no place in the government of this country.

Hypocrisy is rampant on both the left and the right. So, I take a simple stance in day to day life. If my actions cause no harm or infringement on the rights of others, then leave me alone about them. Don't impose your ideas of right/wrong on others. Don't impose your religious beliefs on others. Not everyone wishes to hear the message you're attempting to deliver.

Don't like guns? Don't own one, but don't expect me to give mine up. Don't like abortion? Don't have one, I don't like it, so I won't have one. Don't like anal sex? Don't have anal sex. I certainly won't be doing it.

This thread makes me laugh when those posting here relate this situation to child molestation and other such issues. The basic difference is that in this ruling, sex between CONSENTING ADULTS is private and protected in whatever form it may choose to take, and there is no victimization. No rights are violated (unless you count those of the defendants when they were arrested). Therefore, no crime has occurred.

When a child is molested, there is NO legal consent. The child is a victim. There is a violation of rights. There is a crime.

It is possible to maintain your convictions and still have a free society. It means supporting a tolerant society. Many in this country cannot fathom such a thought. I'm most certain that many will spew hatred and "what-if's" at me as a result of this post. That's fine. It is their right. My message is not meant to be inflamatory, but it will be seen as such by many.

All I'm saying is that if you're going to claim to stand for freedom, then stand for freedom. . . ALL Freedoms, even those with which you may not agree.

All this talk of the 4th Amendment and 10th Amendments in this case. . . What of the 9th? The Constitution doesn't discuss sex. However, James Madison had the vision to make it known that the rights listed in the document were not the only God-given rights that the people of this nation possessed.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, you have the right to choose your own path.

[Sparta]

I abhor this decision today. The Supreme Court once again attacked States' rights. The Feds should've never gotten involved in the case in question. This case will create too many slippery slopes.

Having said that though, I would support repealing the sodomy laws on the State level. The government has no business getting in the bedrooms of two consenting adults and telling them what kind of consenting sexual acts they may practice.

[jpl]

Ensuring the presence of classroom "diversity" is a compelling state interest, but trying to prevent the spread of AIDS isn't that compelling I guess. Pretty remarkable.

[Bush2000]

While I disagree with the ruling (I believe that society does have the right to determine conduct which is detrimental; ie. disallowing close relatives from marrying, etc), its impact is practically insignificant. Very few people arrested for violating sodomy laws.