Posted on 06/28/2003 7:08:52 AM PDT by Polycarp
I'm sorry to say your post will probably be deleted by the time I get this posted.
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.
Regarding Limon, antiguv pointed out on another thread (actually a thread that I think was quite productive) that Limon merely wants the lower court to review its rational basis decision for having a different sentence for homosexual rape and heterosexual rape bearing in mind that its citation of Bowers as a part of its argument is now no longer appropriate. There may be less here than meets the eye, although I suppose SCOTUS could have found the citation harmless error and be done with it. We shall see, but I would be amazed that if the lower court still finds a rational basis for the differential sentencing, that SCOTUS will grant cert again on the matter. Of course, I was surprised by the grounding of the decision in Lawrence (not the result), so surprises do happen.
Good point.
You're delusional..
You said:
Then I said:
And in the majority of cases, that's accurate.
Then you "changed the focus" with Bowers.
And either way, it has absolutely nothing to do with an Unconstitutional mandate, handed down from the SC.
Jewish Law is especially strong on the sanctity of marriage: being a man marries a woman.
It makes things so much less complicated.
Cool.. All that freedom was getting me down anway.
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.
Well, according to the "Right Wing" WP your slippery slope has been greased. Took less than a week.
Ruling directly points to another clash in nations culture war
ANALYSIS
By David Von Drehle
THE WASHINGTON POST
WASHINGTON, June 27 The Supreme Court ruling to strike down the nations anti-sodomy laws combined two of the most contentious issues on the political landscape by grounding the liberty of gays in the same legal turf that sustains the right to abortion and it directly points to yet another clash in the culture war: a fight over gay marriage.
A_R
A good start, but what I'd really like to see emerge from this is the IRS being enjoined from examining the financial status of individuals. We would have to convert from income taxation to consumption (sales) taxes, tariffs, and user fees for specified services. Then we would see a serious attack on government spending.
The author attempts to build his conclusions based a well established precedent of legal constructionism. This is the valid basis for how judicial decisions are made and how the implications of these decisions are discussed. Reading the actual decisions in the case would be a good place to start. I would suggest that in the future you be more careful in rejecting out of hand concepts you clearly do not yet understand.
I'm using common sense, which is not so difficult as it looks on TV.
The purpose of businesses is to grow and make money. To expand markets and increase market share.
On the basis of this presumptive allegation, I hold that the propietors of the barnyard sex sites want to expand markets and increase market share.
Understanding the little-known phenomenon that pornography provides material for the sexual fantasies of it's consumers, and that these consumers like to indulge these fantasies, I've taken the wild leap in guessing that at some portion of this expanding customer base would like to actually engage in the fantasized behavior portrayed in their pornography.
However, bestiality is Illegal, so I've pulled the notion from thin air that people who want to get it on with a dog might not want to be arrested for it. An efficient way of insuring that would be to get a court ruling against laws prohibiting bestiality.
Then I got some tea leaves, and came up with the wild idea that people with bestiality fantasies might want bestiality to be legalized.
But hold the phone, because I'm working without a net, here. Here's a crazy thought: people who engage in one sort of sexual deviancy will be encouraged by the open-ended legitimization of another.
Dig it, baby. If it feels good, hump it. Anyone who says otherwise is a uptight, fundie bigot.
It is a good point..
Now that copulation is a Constitutional right, what if you aren't married? You don't have a girlfriend (or boyfriend, or goat, or whatever) What are you supposed to do, rape someone?
No, no.. This is a "right" guranteed us by the Constitution.. We don't need no "bible thumpers" and their silly blue laws keeping us from our constitutionally protected orgasms.
Yes, and I replied that even so, it was still an internal matter.
Now you have a universal standard handed down from on high.
It's a complete gutting of the Tenth.
I think though that part of the problem, as I see it is that we are often talking about apples and oranges in this debate. The question of what God wants, and what Rome law states are two different questions. What do we render to Caesar could be a great debate. I do consider myself a christian( failing, flopping, and struggling along), but a small l libertarian as well. I actually believe there is no inconsistency in that view. I choose not to sin often. It is part of my faith journey. To struggle against temptation that Rome allows and still rejects it reaffirms my faith. If I was going to be shot for committing adultery, it leaves me no spiritual struggle. It would be fear of Rome, not love of God, and the union between me and my wife that he consecrated that would be driving my actions.
I do believe the homosexual lifestyle is unnatural and against God's plan. I do though believe that Rome should not be forced to forbid it. 18 is an arbitrary cut-off, but there must be one somewhere. I believe at 18 one should lose the protection of the nanny state, and you should be free to take your path, as long as you don't violate the rights of another. Job was tested, and passed. So are we every day. It makes our faith richer.
If the writers of the constitution thought privacy was an unalienable right, why did their societies permit laws that are now being overturned by this right?
If you want prostitution and driving without seatbelts to be legal, petition you state legislature.
You lost already Geek.
212 posted on 06/27/2003 7:18 PM CDT by jwalsh07
I'm sorry, could you repeat that? What were you saying?
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.