"You're confusing rights with priveleges and prerogatives. That something is legal does not make it a right."Then, when you argued in many previous posts that there was no "right to sodomy" you where debating some other issue and not this case?
This case simply leveled the "privileges" of the people in Texas according to you.
So then, if God deemed sodomy to be a sin, and historically in the US, the general concensus was that no one could violate the laws of God and engage in sodomy, what basis did the people of Texas use to enact a law which elevated 97% f the population above the laws of God, but sought to force 3% of the population into observing the same laws they voted themselves above?
On what grounds did the people of Texas award the majority the "privilege" of engaging in deviant sexual intercourse without fear of repraisals?
So then, if God deemed sodomy to be a sin, and historically in the US, the general concensus was that no one could violate the laws of God and engage in sodomy, what basis did the people of Texas use to enact a law which elevated 97% f the population above the laws of God, but sought to force 3% of the population into observing the same laws they voted themselves above? On what grounds did the people of Texas award the majority the "privilege" of engaging in deviant sexual intercourse without fear of repraisals?
The 10th Amendment guarantees that the people of the state of Texas may elect a legislature which decriminalizes sodomy between members of the opposite sex, for everyone over the age of consent.
The same 10th Amendment guarantees that the people of California may elect a legislature which decriminalizes consensual sex between adults, regardless of gender.
