Skip to comments.
Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?
CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter ^
| 6/27/03
| Deal Hudson
Posted on 06/28/2003 7:08:52 AM PDT by Polycarp
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 681-697 next last
To: tdadams
You're distorted.Nope. I know parents who have had teenage daughters who were raped. I know women who were raped as teens. I know parents who had teenage sons homosexually molested, I know men who were homosexually molested as teenage boys.
I'm not distorted. I know exactly what I'm talking about. You are simply ignorant of the differences which I know and have seen firsthand.
181
posted on
06/28/2003 9:29:16 AM PDT
by
Polycarp
(Just like calling others a Nazi, Once you throw out the label "homophobe" you have lost the debate.)
To: tdadams
There used to be anti-sodomy laws in all 50 states. One by one as they were repealed, did we see people going down that slippery slope, asserting their right to sleep with goats?
Yes, absolutely, without question, bestiality proponents have gotten extremely bold. Do a Google search on barnyard sex, and you'll get over 39,000 results.
The judges who will rule in favor of the unenumerated right of bestiality will be former students of Harvard Law Professor and animal rights theorist Peter Singer.
To: Polycarp
Get real. You think Lawrence eroded states rights but Roe didn't? There goes any favorable estimation of your analytical skills.
183
posted on
06/28/2003 9:30:53 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: tdadams
Of the eleven states to abolish their anti-sodomy laws in the wake of Bowers, ten did so by ruling of the state court. Meaning that the "emerging awareness" is basically just that of the law school culture. And opinion in that milieu was enough to invalidate state law this past week, the same week when O'Connor used the fact that the leading law schools spawn our ruling class as justification for racial discrimination in choosing who goes there.
The power grab is becoming more and more undisguised.
To: Jhoffa_
Change your reasoning if you have to, but you were wrong. They weren't repealed as they were enacted, by the legislature.
185
posted on
06/28/2003 9:32:59 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: aristeides
Yesterday, in Limon, the Supreme Court vacated the sentence of someone who had homosexually molested a 14-year-old boy, on the basis of Lawrence. I don't know the whole story, but from what I understand is the the 18 year old who molested a 14 year old will not get off scott free. What they said was that the 18 year old should have been prosecuted the same as he would have been had the minor been a female. They didn't overturn his crime, only the sentence because it was different than it would have been under the "statutory rape" law.
To: Jhoffa_
Well then: Don't you amoral, corn-holers have something better to do than use the power of the federal government to force your perversions upon other peoples communities?
No fair mentioning their tyrannical power-grab.
To: Sabertooth
Homosexual incest is the probable door through which a general right to incest is discovered. What is the compelling state interest in prohibiting sodomy between two adult brothers, or sisters?
There's obviously nothing to keep the SC from effectively legalizing incest, bestality, or basically whatever sexual perversion they wish at this point..
If you toss out the Tenth, the the power of the fed is completely unchecked in this area.
188
posted on
06/28/2003 9:34:06 AM PDT
by
Jhoffa_
(Hey you kids, get off my lawn!)
To: Polycarp
You seem to think your opinion on such matters is unquestionably universal. You don't think that's a bit arrogant?
189
posted on
06/28/2003 9:34:37 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: tdadams
Get real. You think Lawrence eroded states rights but Roe didn't? There goes any favorable estimation of your analytical skills.Get real, you libertarian fool, I think they both did. But they both grew out of Griswold. Why don't you tell me about Griswold V Connecticut (without looking it up). If you know nothing about Griswold, you are not qualified to judge my opinion. And I'm certain you knew nothing about Griswold prior to today.
190
posted on
06/28/2003 9:35:18 AM PDT
by
Polycarp
(Just like calling others a Nazi, Once you throw out the label "homophobe" you have lost the debate.)
To: Polycarp
It IS worse than heterosexual rape Not being female, I think that neither you nor I are in a position to judge. Of all of the horrors of homosexual molestation, however, one consequence is that you or I or society are not potontially burdened by the cost of raising an unwanted child. Otherwise, I would think the horrors are pretty much the same unless you subscribe to the theory that women find rape ejoyable, which by all accounts they do not.
To: Sabertooth
The fact that we now have the internet and such phenomenon are more easily accesible and visible does not indicate an increased prevalence. But arguing so just might convince the gullible.
192
posted on
06/28/2003 9:37:06 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: AndyJackson
Otherwise, I would think the horrors are pretty much the sameYou would be wrong.
193
posted on
06/28/2003 9:37:40 AM PDT
by
Polycarp
(Just like calling others a Nazi, Once you throw out the label "homophobe" you have lost the debate.)
To: tdadams
Change your reasoning if you have to, but you were wrong. They weren't repealed as they were enacted, by the legislature.
You don't know what you're talking about.. Some were overturned, but the majority of State Sodomy laws were Repealed.
United States Anti-"Sodomy" Laws
Further, even if, for the sake of argument, they were ALL overturned at the State level.. It does nothing to justify this Unconstitutional intrusion by the FED.
This is quite simply a States issue from beginning to end.
194
posted on
06/28/2003 9:39:59 AM PDT
by
Jhoffa_
(Hey you kids, get off my lawn!)
To: aristeides
Meaning that the "emerging awareness" is basically just that of the law school culture. I see you've embraced Justice Scalia's dissent with all the credulity of granny watching her televangelists.
195
posted on
06/28/2003 9:40:22 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: cherrycapital
Yes, the yahoos and pinheads were elected by mostly yahoos and pinheads. And yes, that is what I don't like about them. That even the most illiterate wino can have a say, however small, in making laws for other people, is apparently what conservatives think is great about America. Libertarian totalitarianism in all it's splendor. There are plenty of other adjectives to apply but I'll resist them.
You Mr Libertarian wouldn't know freedom if it bit you on your ass.
To: codercpc
Not only that but they were completely silent about why Lawrence v. Texas should have any influence in this case. They simply said "in light of Lawrence v. Texas" without elaboration.
197
posted on
06/28/2003 9:41:51 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: jwalsh07
You Mr Libertarian wouldn't know freedom if it bit you on your ass.
It has taken every last fiber of my being to not elaborate on this comment..
198
posted on
06/28/2003 9:43:50 AM PDT
by
Jhoffa_
(Hey you kids, get off my lawn!)
To: Always Right
It appears that the SC can do any damn thing they want to. It appears that the SC is now the Supreme ruler of America. It appears the SC doesn't give a damn about what the other two branches of government think.
199
posted on
06/28/2003 9:44:04 AM PDT
by
jpsb
To: tdadams
I happen to be a graduate of Yale Law School. I'm quite familiar with the law school culture.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 681-697 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