Privacy amok (Sodomy Laws)

Washington Times ^ | 6/27/03

[kattracks]

The Supreme Court turned the Constitution upside down yesterday. In a 6-3 decision, the majority struck down state sodomy laws across the country ? a move that is being celebrated as a huge victory for homosexual rights, which it is. The court used the so-called right to privacy to rule against a Texas law prohibiting sex between people of the same sex. In a brazen example of judicial overreach, the court also ruled against all sodomy laws in all states. This is bad law; the Constitution protects the rights of the states to legislate on these matters.

[tbpiper]

So, was that a yes or a no to the wife beating question?

Absolutely.

[jejones]

Doesn't the will of the majority still rule in a representative republic?

No, it doesn't, thank the deity of your choice.

[jejones]

There's a "ban on gay bashing" in effect on FR?

I've certainly seen no evidence of such a ban.

[jejones]

If the people of a state, through a legislative process by duly elected representatives, codify their collective belief that being left-handed is wrong for their society, this, then, in your view, justifies a law requiring the jailing, or perhaps execution, of all left-handed people?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Rush was unusually flatulent on it, wasn't he? I had to turn him off.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

If a married, heterosexual couple enjoys anal sex, would you support laws which criminalize that conduct? What if a married couple enjoys oral sex?

Just seeing how far you are willing to let your personal sexual preferences be dictated into law.....

[tdadams]

Sodomy is wrong because it goes against the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Being thusly antithetical to society, it should rightly be illegal.

Sorry, dude, there are just too many crackpots out there who weild that "law of nature" argument like a machete. I have no doubt you sincerely believe you are firmly 100% in accordance with what God believes and that you're doing His work, but there are nutjobs in Malaysia who believe God wants them to prohibit couples from holding hands in public.

They decree that it's a crime. It's illegal in order to preserve the moral purity of their community. They believe this is the will of God and it's justness is beyond question. But hey, you may agree. Most in the U.S. would not.

Most people who rely on such reasoning aren't really interested in a rule of law, they're more interested in using the force of government to impose their morality where they've been unsuccessful in doing so by persuasion.

[garbanzo]

So states also have the right to ban interracial marriage? Something that was also struck down by the Supreme Court.

[Clint N. Suhks]

BTW, that was a deliberate mis-citation he posted.

Why because pain is citing a decenting opinion as law of the land OR because pain (himself) added the words the right to consensual incest; to Harlan’s opinion OR because Harlan goes on to say “Thus, I would not suggest that adultery, homosexuality, fornication and incest are immune from criminal enquiry, however privately practiced.”

Is that right pain??? Now we can add LIAR and FRAUD to the charge of hypocrite too? Have you NO integrity? You must be a troll from DU to pull a stunt like that. Why am I not surprised?

[tpaine]

Yep, sure was.. I was proving the point that Suhks doesn't even read what is posted to him.

[tpaine]

Yep it was a deliberate mis-citation to prove a point.
You don't even read whats posted.
You didn't even 'get it' when I told you I could 'prove it'. -- Roscoe had to point it out. - Thanks yappy.

[tpaine]

Scuze me, but you have yet to answer the question. You have spent this entire time dodging and obfuscating. All that was wanted was a simple yes or no and that seems to be totally beyond your capability. It shouldn't be because the answer has no nuances.

Have you stopped beating your significant other?

[hosepipe]

[ sometimes (I) see a widing chasm between conservatives and liberals ]

Probably most because liberals are not liberal, and many conservatives are not conservative.. some Patriots are not patriots and Democrats are too democratic(MOB RULE)..

I think that Nelson Mandela would join the KKK before Republicans tire of having their balls swatted down by racket-wielding Democrats. -Jack Ryan

Let there be no castration without representation. My kingdom for a Republican representative with more testosterone than no less than herself >Butch Reno< - -Jack Ryan

[Dimensio]

How 'bout the fact that you're breathing?

How is this evidence?

Have you seen children?

Yes. How is this evidence?

How about the marvelously intricate structure and function of a single cell?

How is this evidence?

Or perhaps just the gas transport mechanism across the cell wall?

How is this evidence?

How about the Earth's orbit being in a narrow band that supports life.

How is this evidence.

Further, is this evidence for the nature of this supposed god, or just the existence? I can understand how someone might appeal to ignorance to assume that a "God" must be responsible for all of the above because they just can't think of any other way to explain it, but I can't see how any of it provides any kind of means of derving the nature of this supposed "God".

I realize that it is absolutely pointless to discuss God with someone who is an atheiest.

In other words, you don't have evidence and your entire argument aginst sodomy is based purely upon supposition.

[Roscoe]

it was a deliberate mis-citation to prove a point.

Your dishonesty?

[Dimensio]

Perhaps we should be more compassionate than that. We should sentence convicted lefties to "rehabilitation" centers, where we shall get to the root cause of their left-handedness and help heal them toward the normal state of right-handedness.

[Roscoe]

It's his S.O.P.

[tbpiper]

your entire argument aginst sodomy is based purely upon supposition.

Yes. I'm supposing there is a God and your supposing there isn't one, something for which you can offer no proof. If you're right, when I die, I have lost nothing. If I'm right, when you die, you will have lost everything.

Tell me, what sort of proof would you accept?

[tpaine]

It's not dishonest to deliberately mis-cite a quote to prove a point, and then promptly admit it.

You do it all the time roscoe, by selective editing..
But then you dishonestly refuse to own up. Thus, - you cheat. - I prove my points.

[Dimensio]

I'm supposing there is a God and your supposing there isn't one

Actually, I'm just refusing to accept your assertion without evidence, much the same way that I don't accept the assertion of Hindus, Muslims or anyone who still asserts the existence of the Olympian gods.

something for which you can offer no proof.

The particular God in question is your assertion. Don't try pushing the burden of proof onto me.

If you're right, when I die, I have lost nothing. If I'm right, when you die, you will have lost everything.

Pascal's Wager is a false dilemma fallacy. You are asserting that the only two possibilities are that your God exists or that no gods exist at all. You have forgotten to consider that there may be a god or gods who do not match your particular definition -- including a god who has a lower opinion of followers of "wrong" gods (such as yours) than it does of people who lack belief in all gods.

Tell me, what sort of proof would you accept?

Something for which tests can be made with predictable and repeatle results that can be observed.