Ron Paul - Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution

House Web Site ^ | 8-11-2003 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not everyone...just you.

[tpaine]

Whatever, -- oh He that must not be contradicted, - ever.

Must be nice to be infallible.

[Luis Gonzalez]

tommy...I came to the thread because people were completely missing your point, and I thought that I couls help you make that point somehow.

A few posts later, you're snipping and biting at my ankles for agreeing with you.

[inquest]

Imagine that we make murder only a crime if males commit murder.

Being male doesn't change the nature of the offense of murder. Being of the same gender, on the other hand, most certainly does change the nature of sexual deviancy (seeing as how it defeats the whole point of the word "sex") - just as being in the same family changes the nature of sexual deviancy.

[tpaine]

You intended to 'help' me? Dream on luis.


And stop sniveling.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Later tommy, not worth it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Being of the same gender, on the other hand, most certainly does change the nature of sexual deviancy"

In your eyes perhaps, the Founders didn't see it that way, they condemned all sodomy, all fornication. Up until 1973 Texas found all sodomy unacceptable, then they decided that the majority wanted to enjoy deviant behavior...what happened in 1973 that this specific deviance became acceptable for most?

Nothing other than the majority decided to decriminalize the act for themselves.

Inequity in the law.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Being male doesn't change the nature of the offense of murder."

But you want to change the nature of sodomy and make it less deviant for yourself.

[inquest]

In your eyes perhaps, the Founders didn't see it that way, they condemned all sodomy, all fornication.

And as soon as you can find the section in the Constitution that says that all our laws must be exactly as the Founders wrote them, you're home free. Otherwise, you're left without any meaningful explanation as to why the Texas law is unconstitutional. "Discrimination" doesn't cut it, as all law discriminates in some form or another - for example, laws against siblings engaging in sexual intercourse, despite the fact that everyone else is allowed to do it.

[inquest]

But you want to change the nature of sodomy and make it less deviant for yourself.

No, I want states to be able to decide these matters for themselves, without the courts making up ever more arcane legal theories to force down their throats.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"No, I want states to be able to decide these matters for themselves."

The States do not have the power to vioate the people's rights at a whim. That's what Texas did.

The US Supreme Court os the correct place to raise the question of a State violating fundamental laws.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Otherwise, you're left without any meaningful explanation as to why the Texas law is unconstitutional."

It violated the equal protection under the law clause.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Make that the due process clause.

[inquest]

And what about laws against incest? Do they also violate the due process clause? After all, they prohibit to a "certain class of people" actions that are perfectly legal for everyone else.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"And what about laws against incest?"

Incest involves a third party...the possible issue of the relationship. That third party may suffer physically from the union of siblings by way of birth defects. There is ample proof of the negative impact that incestuous breeding can bring.

In some States, cousins may marry ONLY if they can prove that they are unable to bear children.

[inquest]

No, incest is illegal regardless of whether the act results in conception, or even whether the participants are fertile at all. In addition, there are few if any laws that I know of that prevent genetically defective people from procreating.

[tpaine]

"not worth it"
-LG-

I tried to tell you that, in our first exchanges here. -- Listen next time.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"No, incest is illegal regardless of whether the act results in conception, or even whether the participants are fertile at all."

Not true, unless you are limiting the definition of incest to siblings or parent/child relations, which the law does not do.

This is not a great site, but it has the most comprehensive State-by-State listing of incest laws.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"In addition, there are few if any laws that I know of that prevent genetically defective people from procreating."

Not the same thing, incest laws exist to stop the possible creation of genetically defective offspring.

[takenoprisoner]

"As long as disease can be passed via sexual contact, then what you do in your bedroom is not private business, and it SHOULD be debated and controlled. "

Here ya go jackson. Here's living proof that there exists folks (scary as hell ain't it?) who want a camera in your bedroom to observe and control your private behaviors.