Posted on 12/10/2002 11:21:41 AM PST by Liz
They leave out the fact that By the very early 1800's every state North of Delaware had outlawed slavery.
It was the Southern States that were the Slave Holders.
The Founders intended for it to be a state issue in order to keep the nation together. The Southern States would never have ratified a Consitution otherwise. It worked until 1861.
Even after the Civil War, Every State STILL had laws against sodomy, That was after the 13th and 14th amendments mind you.
So tell me, Every State had sodomy laws well into the mid-1900's, then all of the sudden the pot-heads of the 1960's hit, are you telling me that the 60's radicals are more enlightened than our nation until the 60's?
Really? Last I checked they applied to heterosexuals too. And heterosexuals have been charged and convicted of sodomy on several occaisons that I know of, including between man and wife in their home!
I believe the prostitution should be legal. And for those that think it should be illegal, prostitution is to combination of sex and commerce. Which of those are you against?
Should homosexuals be prosecuted for being homosexuals, convicted of a felony, and put in prison for 25 years? And if not, what should be the punishment for being an illegal homosexual?
Another shining example of libertarian thinking.
Libertarians are not pro-Consitution, They are pro-immorality.
. In most of the states that still criminalize sodomy, it doesn't matter, legally, whether a couple engaging in behavior (A), above, consists of two men, two women, or one of each.That's how it was in Texas, too, until 1974. In that bell-bottomed year, the Texas Legislature made heterosexual sodomy legal, but it couldn't quite bring itself to do the same for gays. The result is that Texas is now one of only four states (the others being Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma) where it is a crime for gays to please each other in ways that are perfectly legal for straights. The panel that overturned the conviction saw this as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Of course, this same battle of whether a state could prosecute a homosexual for behavior that is legal for a heterosexual could have been fought over "age of consent" laws. But that would have eliminated the term "consenting adults" and the fictional boogeyman Big Brother snooping in the bedrooms.
The fact of the matter is that overturning the law on this basis will "norm" age of consent laws downward for homosexual behavior. If the legislatures decide to revise their age of consent statutes, they will be doing it after their existing prohibitions of adults committing acts of homosexual sodomy (the only type of homosexual sex there is) on minors aged 14-17 have been struck down as discriminatory.
Homosexual adovocates and privacy defenders tell me that I'm taking this too far. I don't see how the courts could permit those laws to stand as written if they strike this one down under the grounds of "discrimination".
By the way, men and women are not discriminated against in Texas. Both may participate in acts of sodomy with one another, they are prohibited by law from participating in such acts with members of the same sex.
If this sounds like a sub-case of this lawsuit, be aware that there are those who have pushed for this precise change in age of consent laws (both in America and the UK).
Agreed. In fact, the exact opposite of what FF578 said is true. Every civilization EXCEPT the Jewish culture and it's religious offspring, Christianity, indulged in homosexual practices...the Greeks, the Romans, you name it, they did it. To be honest, being straight and monogamous was the DEVIANT behavior of the day.
The Lord God called a people, and commanded them to live holy, not like every other culture around them. It would seem that legislating morality would have been the obvious thing to do in order for a culture or society to maintain the blessing of God.
Unfortunately, there are those on this thread who hate God, and will defend their "right" to sin against all reason and common sense. So be it.
Phantom Lord said he supports Prostitution, I wonder if he also supports the end to the age of consent (or lowering the age of consent), the right to have sex with animals, the right to marry close relatives, and the right to multiple wives?
If not why not? If So, explain your thinking.
The Christians would do the killing instead of the Muslims.
The Founders did not allow women to vote. She we ban them from voting?
The Founders considered blacks to be 3/5ths of a person in the census. Should we return to that standard?
Using the founders as a basis in arguing for position A can put you in a horrible bind on position B
The early Romans did engage in Homosexuality, they were not civilized.
You are probably aware that later on the Roman Empire banned sodomy and made it a capital crime, The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. "It is Justinian's collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English)."
The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris: "'Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,' and [is] translated in a footnote as 'Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.' At common law 'sodomy' and the phrase 'infamous crime against nature' were often used interchangeably."
And I am not a libertarian.
Nothing new there.
Scalia, Thomas, Renquist and O'Conner are not going to vote to overturn the law. (O'Conner and Renquist voted in the majority in Bowers V Hardwick. Scalia and Thomas will side with them.)
Kennedy will decide the vote.
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.