Replies

More's the pity that you do understand the difference in the two rulings.

I don't think that is his point. He can correct me if I am wrong. The level of language and debate has been filthy, obscene and very un christ like. There is no hating the sin but loving the sinner, it is hate, anger, slander, accusations of homosexuality of those who disagree with some. Charges on the other side mocking faith in christianity. This debate has not been civil, just, or reasoned.

You can feel that the court is wrong, detail the constitutional law that was wrongly applied, without calling everybody one disagrees with whoring sodomites.

Clarence Thomas seems to be the only person with sanity here. He thinks the law is silly, but constitutional. Scalia, his comments notwithstanding, based his feelings more on his moral principles rather than the constitution.

I have more respect for Clarence Thomas, who I happen to disagree with here, than for the rest of the 8 justices combined.

Scalia hates homosexuals, so you know how he was going to rule. The left wing of the court was going to twist any way they could to rule how they did. Then alone, Clarence Thomas, states that he would personally vote down such a law, but sees no constitutional basis for him to do so personally.

I personally don't need any more of this "bible thumper, religious whackjob" talk on one side, or any of the faggot, sodomite, and much worse things on the other. Most of you claim to be adults. Please start acting like it.

I don't use eptithets and I resent your implying that I do.

The epithets for homosexuals come from both sides of the debate amazingly enough. The religious epithets are confined to one side by necessity.

I have no problem at all telling you I am a social conservative and that I consider the homosexual act perverse. But I don't use epithets because, thoguh, I am undoubtedly a sinner, it is poor form in an anonymous forum even though I post under my own name.

And by the way, I'd be more than happy to engage you in debate on whether or not homosexual rape is deserving of harsher penalties.

What's truly amazing to me is the hypocrisy of those crying about this SCOTUS decision as if it signifies the fall of Western civilization as we know it.

I wonder where the outrage was when Texas created the right to sodomy, and make no mistake, the SCOTUS did not create the right to sodomy, Texas and any other State that decriminalized sodomy for heterosexuals created the right to sodomy.

In the case of Texas, they replaced an older law which made sodomy illegal for all, with newer statutes and laws which clearly labeled sodomy as "deviant sexual intercourse", but lifted the criminality from the majority of the citizens.

Texas in fact, gave 97% of it's citizens the right to commit sodomy, all that the SCOTUS did was allow the remaining 3% to enjoy the same right.