[Technogeeb]

Don't post an anti-sodomy law, post an anti same-sex sodomy law

Now it appears that you are not only a liar, but you are brain-damaged. It is impossible to post an "anti same-sex sodomy law" without posting "an anti-sodomy law". If you think you can win an argument just by demanding the impossible, then you are a fool as well as a liar.

Your original statement was "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy in this country 100 years ago", and that statement is a lie. Stop trying to change the subject and admit what you said was false.

[dogbyte12]

Here is the rub. If you had a law prior to 1960, that said all people can not eat tomatoes, then after 1960 you had a law that said red heads can't eat tomatoes, there is a difference. There is no confusion here.

I shall be blunt. Anal sex was outlawed in this country. Period. Didn't matter who was involved. People didn't want heterosexual married couples who engaged in the practice to face jail time, so they narrowed the law to fit one group of people. That is fact. You can argue the merits. Perhaps you believe that it shouldn't be prosecuted between married heterosexual couples, but it doesn't change the fact that the law technically involved everybody until the newer laws.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You keep calling me a liar, but you have yet to post one shred of evidence to my lying.

Go ahead, post one single example of one single same-sex anti-sodomy law enacted anywhere in the United States prior to 1970.

I guess the evidence is mounting as who the clear liar truly is...is your nose growing yet?

I know exactly what I meant with my statement, and you know exactly what I meant by my statement, and most adults who frequent this site know exactly what I meant with my statement. But you jumped on the semantics surrounding my statement, and chose to parse words, and issue ad hominem attacks.

You know, that actually reminds me of someone...

[ninenot]

I don't think Luis gets it. Sodomy is sodomy. Same, opposite--bestial, whatever.

But he can't admit it--if he did, Scalia's argument would be logically impelling and he'd have to agree with US!

Never happen.