Posted on 12/02/2002 10:18:20 AM PST by polemikos
I think it would be great if we had a less intrusive SCOTUS which would allow us to move to states that attracted more people we like to be around.
The law ISN'T preventing anyone from doing anything behind closed doors. That's the point. It's used to stop crimes
Let's draw a parallel. Let's say it is against the law for a minor to possess cigarettes. If Doris asks her 14 year-old son to bring her a pack of Winstons, is he breaking the law? Technically, yes. Should we get rid of the law because of it? No.
You are freaking out over something that isn't happening. You should worry about the nany stuff that IS happening.
Indeed. But it was written to limit the powers of the Federal government, not state government. The extension of the Bill of Rights to state government was via the 14th amendment, and that extension clearly does not encompass the 10th amendment, which explicitly *cedes* to the states and to the people powers not reserved to the Feds.
I'm no fan of sodomy laws, but the arenas to debate them are state courts and state legislatures. The founders' answer to people who didn't like the way their state was governed was - move!
FWIW, you're confusing "normal" with "normative" - not that this has much bearing on whether this particular statute should get overturned.
Exactly, if they monkey with the law, the gays will be playing Pied Piper in the parks and getting off with technicalities.
If they would quit doing it in public, we wouldn't have the law. There would be no need for the law. When the black helicopter start buzzing your house looking for sodomy, let me know and I'll scream with you.
Something already gave. The constitution. It's used as toilet paper by almost everyone. It only depends on their pet likes and dislikes where they violate it. And rights in general are on the run almost everywhere.
You just made my point. Why should sodomy or oral sex be a "crime" between consenting adults in their private home? "Let's draw a parallel. Let's say it is against the law for a minor to possess cigarettes. If Doris asks her 14 year-old son to bring her a pack of Winstons, is he breaking the law? Technically, yes. Should we get rid of the law because of it? No."
Pretty weak parallel since the other party is a minor.
"You are freaking out over something that isn't happening. You should worry about the nany stuff that IS happening."
Freaking out? Hardly. But I am concerned that ANY nanny law exists.
Solution: increase the public decency law penalties, but don't tell me what I can and cannot do in my home if it doesn't impact the rights of others.
Your qualification of impropriety involves the question of social norms, not universal normalcy per se.
At issue in the post by station51 was the definition of "normal" behavior.
station51's comment is rather clearly addressing the question of "normative" behavior despite the fact that he expressed the same common verbal misconception as yourself.
"So you do think the law against incest ought to be overturned, since it outlaws behavior even behind closed doors. First, the incestuous didn't 'create' this problem, the Texas legistature did. Those who enjoy incest want to be treated equally under the law, not 'create' problems. Second, how can two unrelated people have sex and not commit a crime but father and daughter do the same and it's a felony? LOL, you've got an interesting point if you think the laws, discrimination and social stigma against those who practice incest are caused by the incestuous themselves. Sheesh."Sheesh indeed. Statute law is based upon natural law. Under natural law, sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex, between persons and animals, or between close relatives are forbidden. With this in mind, the government has every right to regulate private sexual conduct when such conduct violates natural law and those laws established by statute.
May I assume you are not in favor of legalzing incest? Well, if society has the right to forbid incest -- even when privately practiced between consenting adults -- it has the right to forbid sodomy under the same conditions.
Where the hell do you think these two were arrested??
I'll tell you where - in their own bedroom! The cops burst in without a warrant and without probable cause and arrested them. The cops were there because of a bogus prowler call from someone else.
What about incest? Is that okay?
As much as a minor smoking in the privacy of his own home should be a crime. If the gays would stop having sex in public, we wouldn't need this law. Period.
That is one of the better-constructed strawman arguments I have seen lately. There are compelling reasons to not allow incest - namely, the profound genetic problems that could result from a child created from such a union. Gay sex doesn't have that problem, for obvious reasons.
There are laws against public heterosexual sex as well. You don't need a blanket prohibition against sodomy to legislate against public gay sex.
Why should it not be? I'm certainly not endorsing the legalization of incestuous behavior, but I'm curious as to your rationale for its prohibition..
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.