Posted on 06/26/2003 6:15:35 PM PDT by Polycarp
You are just full of insulting assunmptions, aren't you?
FR IS the public square of the times.
Speaking for the first time at one of the scores of mass protests held in Cuba almost daily since Dec. 5, Castro described the Cuban Adjustment Act as a ''monstrosity'' that lures Cubans to risk the lives of themselves and their children. The law, passed in 1966, allows Cubans who reach American soil to stay and apply for political asylum.http://www. nocastro.com/archives/elian47.htm
Call Comrade Castro to share your theory that Elian's legal rights weren't violated when he was denied the administrative hearing he was entitled to.
Fidel will luv ya!
promoting degeneracy in the majority of the people.
Backwards. You're the apologist for sodomy.
Then prove it.
It's easy to stand there like a child yelling "liar, liar" without ever having to offer proof to the effect. What has been apparent throughout this thread is that you can't back up your smears.
Post one single same-sex anti-sodomy law enacted prior to 1970.
The reason you have yet to do so is obvious.
You are a liar.
It's already been done, but I'll do it one more time because you seem to be unusually slow. You made the statement, in post #204, that "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy in this country 100 years ago" . Every state had sodomy laws at that time, and every one of those laws outlawed same-sex sodomy. But to prove your statement to be a lie, I need only provide one. Since the case that started this thread is about Texas, I choose "Texas General Laws, 8th Session 1859-60, page 97, ch. 6, enacted Feb. 11, 1860, effective July 1, 1860". There is your proof: a law in effect in this country 100 years ago that outlawed same-sex sodomy, which proves your original post to be erroneous and you to be a liar.
It's easy to stand there like a child yelling "liar, liar" without ever having to offer proof to the effect. What has been apparent throughout this thread is that you can't back up your smears.
I, as well as a few others in this thread, have provided the proof. It isn't a "smear" because it is a fact. You are a liar. If you had simply rephrased your original statement into one that was historically and factually correct (and you have had multiple opportunities to do so, but have consistently refused), then you would not have to suffer the indignity of being a liar.
Post one single same-sex anti-sodomy law enacted prior to 1970
It has been done several times in this thread; the law cited above is just one example.
You are a liar.
You sound just like the homosexuals, who try to refute claims by their opponents of perversity by making erroneous counter-claims. It doesn't work for them, and it won't work for you.
That is because they way you phrased your thought was a lie. You have been given numerous opportunities to re-phrase it in a form that is not a lie, but you refuse to do so.
There were in fact, no same sex anti-sodomy laws before 1970
This is a distortion. Before 1960, all states had such laws, banning same sex (as well as heterosexual in nearly all cases) sodomy.
There were anti-sodomy laws, but no law which was called a same sex sodomy law.
All those laws applied to same sex sodomy. Some did not apply to heterosexual sodomy (such as Marylands's law mentioned in post 349).
The laws before the 1970's banned sodomy for everyone
There. That wasn't so hard was it?
I qualified what can be a justified limit by using the word fundamental. The meaning of course depends on the theory, or scheme that is referenced. Since I was referencing Freedom, not any particular state scheme, I made that statement without qualification and it is true.
The fact is, that the US doesn't guarantee Freedom. It just as well imposes socialism, which more, or less is not Freedom. It is a republic and a a mix of the two can result. How the balance appears depends on the folks the electorate place in power engineer it.
Authoritarian rules are socialist and fundamentally have no rational justification to protect rights. They have no justification under the theory of Freedom. Socialism does justify them. It justifies them under the guise of the public good. The public is the central identity in socialism. The individual is the central identity and focus of Freedom. Freedom has no concern, or focus on the public; it doesn't recognize the public as a valid entity to be concerned with.
" In a just Free Republic, there are limits of that power, but it is certainly a mistake to make the simplistic statement you do.
In a Free republic, socialism is not allowed. The US has the character of a Free Republic only insofar as it protects Freedom and rejects socialism. To do that the electorate must generate representatives that know and respect Freedom and reject socialism and it's authoritarian impositions. It is no mistake to say this and no mistake to protect and support Freedom over the tyranny of socialism. In fact under Freedom evil is defined as that which unjustifiably violates individual rights. Socialism violates them at will. Hence the term, "necessary evil".
"When those are imposed, there is only authoritarian tyranny."
" way too black and white. limiting freedom via regulation of lewd sex acts is not *authoritarian* in a democratically-run community, like the Republic of Texas. Sodomy is not a natural right, although some may like it to be so.'tyranny' is an imposition on our Natural Rights, but this does not fall into that category."
The KISS principle is always appropriate.
Sodomy isn't found as a natural right, because in the search for the collection of what is a natural right normal folks are used. If they had looked at things from the prospective of a homo, they would have found sodomy as a natural right. freedom sees sodomy as just something a person may want to do. I find no way that it and of itself violates anyone elses right. Therefore there's no justification to pose legal sanction. Legal sanction can only justified with notions of public good.
As a practical matter, which is of course what will always be, Freedom and its respect for life and individual rights is always paramount. A homo is and will always be a homo. I find no valid reson for punishing him for what he really is, for his essential leanings and desires. I see the sanctions traditionally imposed on this minority as simply a tyranny of the majority. Folks may find it icky, as I do, but they should acknowledge his right to exist and follow his essential nature.
And the DoubleThink of the Day Award goes to LG!
Although I've simply posted the truth, watch Luis hit the abuse button and get me suspended again.
Then post one liar.
Post an exclusive same-sex, anti-sodomy law.
Come on liar, posta link to one.
Quit it with this "meaning of if" crap and post a same-sex, anti-sodomy law that was in effect in the US prior to the 1970's.
Keep on lying.
That you have been proved a liar cannot be negated by falsely claiming that assertion about others. You are the only one who has lied here. You are wrong even your modified definition of "same-sex sodomy law" that you used in post 349 of "When the law stopped pertaining to all people, it became a same-sex sodomy law", due to Marylands's sodomy law F 27-554, since the courts ruled that it did not apply to heterosexual couples. But that fact, even while proving your new assertion wrong, is still irrelevant, and does nothing to modify the fact that your original statement of "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy in this country 100 years ago" in post 204 was a lie.
Quit it with this "meaning of if" crap and post a same-sex, anti-sodomy law that was in effect in the US prior to the 1970's
References to them have already been provided in previous posts; you ignore them and then demand them again. The fact is that prior to 1960 every state had anti-sodomy laws that made same-sex sodomy illegal, thus proving your original assertion in post #204 that "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy in this country 100 years ago" was a lie, and that you are a liar.
Keep on lying.
The proof that you are a liar is in post #204. Your laughable, and only, claim of me lying is that I have refuted your lie in that post. Rather than simply correcting your error, you irrationally chose to defend your lies.
It's also gay propaganda, as I also pointed out on the other thread.
I cut them and pasted, rather than link, because the rest of it's inappropriate. It's not spam.
"It's also gay propaganda, as I also pointed out on the other thread."
It's the truth. The truth is not propaganda.
Noting that "[p]roscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots," id., at 192, that "[s]odomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights," ibid., and that many States had retained their bans on sodomy, id., at 193, Bowers concluded that a right to engage in homo-sexual sodomy was not "‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’" id., at 192.I think Scalia contradicted you. Emphasis supplied.
If you want to be left alone, then stop posting lies on a public forum. You have a right to freedom of speech, but that freedom does not extend to making lies (like your post 204) and insisting no one has the right to dispute your lies.
The fact that you don't approve of the way I worded my thought is so not important to me. Think what you want.
It has nothing to do with "the way you worded your thought"; except that the sum of the combination of words that you used was a lie; a lie that you refuse to correct.
Traditional sodomy laws simply banned sodomy, for everyone, and as such, there was no need to ban same-sex sodomy in addition. If you stopped dating Ted, and started dating Alice, you still couldn't engage in oral or anal sex without fear of the law.
This is a true statement. It contradicts the false statement you made in post 204. If this is now your revised statement, then we are now in agreement.
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.