Skip to comments.
More than Sodomy?
Salon Magazine ^
| Dana Berliner and Steve Simpson
Posted on 03/26/2003 9:28:34 AM PST by Stone Mountain
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-169 next last
To: jimt
And that was before Lot got drunk and slept with his daughters. He was supposedly plied with booze by his daughters, but no matter how drunk you got, I can't see that as an excuse somehow...
To: Teacher317
Just a thought: if the decide they can't regulate the private lives of consenting adults, couldn't the decision be used to support legalization of drugs? Same issues of potential private health risks to consenting adults that may contribute to secondary risks to society at large.
Well, in my case, I think drugs should be legalized. I don't think we should be punishing people for engaging in activities that don't hurt others. If people want to use drugs in the safety of their homes, I don't see that the government should be stepping in. If they are blasted and go out and drive, that's a different story, and there are existing laws in place to cover that. As far as secondary risks to society, I believe that there are greater risks to society when the government oversteps itself...
To: Hermann the Cherusker
Ill-conceived upon what basis? That private indulgence in immorality must be given every lattitude by the civil law? Is that not essentially what you are arguing?
Basically. In a situation where two consenting adults are engaging in activity that doesn't harm anyone else, I don't believe our government should be stepping in.
The majority of us have chosen not to live in a world with prostitutes on every corner and controlled drugs in our pharmacies.
If you don't want prostitutes on street corners, legalize it and they will have a place to go and get off the streets. And controlled drugs are certainly available in our pharmacies - that's what controlled is. I assume you meant outside the pharmacies?
It has been the unbending tactic of our socialist anti-Christian enemies to subvert majority rule through the courts and bring about the total corruption of society hand-in-hand with their corrupted judges. You are joining in with this brigade that brought us abortion on demand, instruction in fisting in public school "Health Class", the forbidding of public displays of religion, and cruel and unusual leniency towards vicious criminals and deviates.
Accusation through association. This kind of debating tactic should be beneath you. It's like arguing that since the KKK is anti-affirmative action, you would be "joining in with this brigade" if you too were anti-affirmative action. C'mon... you must be capable of better than that...
To: Stone Mountain
Me, either.
It reminds me of the story about the guys who were talking about Freudian slips. One of them says he had one at breakfast that morning.
"I meant to ask my wife, 'Please pass the salt, honey,' but what came out was 'You f*****g b***h, you've ruined my life!'"
84
posted on
03/26/2003 12:01:25 PM PST
by
gcruse
(Democrats are the party of the Tooth Fairy.)
To: gcruse
Yes, adultery is illegal in many states. Check your state stautes.
And statutory behavior is the question here. Two men were found breaking a Texas law against sodomy when other circumstances required the forcible entering of their house by legal authorities.
To: steve-b
I don't see any point in continuing discussion with you.
To: jmc813
The first step would need to be personal religious revival. The second would be a cleansing of the judiciary and legal profession so that the people can actually govern themselves again. The Democrat Pary must be kept around to remind us of what we are struggling against.
To: Hermann the Cherusker
Statutory in the sense of being underaged. Adultery laws should be overturned, too. Why is it the lifestyle police can't see that they are mirror images of gun grabbers?
88
posted on
03/26/2003 12:20:37 PM PST
by
gcruse
(Democrats are the party of the Tooth Fairy.)
To: tahiti
Every state who agreed to live under the constitution had laws against certain immoral activities including sodomy.
You are suggesting that those states agreed to have all those laws overturned by the judicial branch of the federal government when they signed the constitution and the bill of rights.
They would never have agreed to live under that type of oligarchy.
These laws have only recently come under attack. The attack has been led by the ACLU and their leftist allies. Since they don't have a leg to stand on and could not get the job done via the proper legislative branch, they have recreated the intent of the original constitution, using the leftist, activist courts who want to rewrite the meanings and laws from the bench.
The population of each state that sent their elected officials to go to the constitution convention in 1787; who also gave consent for the bill of rights to become law for them to live under did not intend to live under a judicial kingship.
If someone would have said, "that bill of rights you are agreeing to put into law is to be used by judges to overthrow all your state morality laws, like your anti-sodomy laws", they never would have signed it in the first place.
To: Stone Mountain
I didn't mean outside the pharmacies. I meant within, where cocaine and heroin and the like used to be sold over the counter. We rid ourselves of that plague 100 years ago, aroudn the same time we rid our mail of pornography.
Prostitutes - last time I checked, most prostitutes could already be found in-doors in their "massage parlors" and "escort services". They have been driven in-doors because the police arrest the ones found out of doors. Same for the drug trade - it is mostly inside now that the Police here in Philadelphia have tried the novel tactic of occupying the street corners and arresting the dealers. This should be the tactic of law-enforcement - drive the purveyors of vice in-doors to discreet locations where they may then be picked off one by one in sting operations. Exactly what is going on with affaciandos of child pornography.
As to guilt-by-association. Its not me painting you as one with the liberals. You did that by sticking up for one item of their multi-faceted cause of destroying our previous society. When you crawl in bed with these causes, you've got to expect what is coming.
The prime-mover behind the anti-affirmative action movement is not the KKK. On the other hand, the prime-mover behind the "repeal the sodomy laws" bandwagon is the usual coterie of liberal suspects (the Faggot-Rights groups, the ACLU, etc., etc. ad nauseum).
If I were advocating forcible segregation, you'd be right to tar me as being one with the KKK and the Aryan Nations on the prime demand of those groups, even if I otherwise had nothing to do with them.
I think you grasp this distinction, even if it is distasteful to you.
To: tahiti
If I have to explain it to you why this amendment is the constitutional basis for overturning "sodomy" laws, then you do not think from the starting point of a "presumption of liberty." You are assuming that "rights" includes the ability to do things which are objectively wrong and against the natural law, like sodomy. None of the men who wrote the Bill of Rights would have put up with such childish drivel beign asserted. Perhaps you should review the penal laws then in force for homosexual acts?
I fear you have little understanding of what "rights" and "liberties" are. That makes you quite ill-equipped to try to teach others about them.
To: Stone Mountain
As I said before, the point is that sex with children is in no way comparable to sex between consenting adults. On the contrary, sex with children and homosexual acts are both despicable crimes which fill ordinary men and women with the utmost feelings of disgust and revulsion towards the perpatrators. That is why they are both illegal.
To: Old Landmarks
You are suggesting that those states agreed to have all those laws overturned by the judicial branch of the federal government when they signed the constitution and the bill of rights.
I'm sure they read the Tenth Amendment when they signed, too. Whatever happened to that?
State's rights is not only seen as racist cover, but a huge joke. The America of 1776 is dead and gone.
93
posted on
03/26/2003 12:36:17 PM PST
by
gcruse
(Democrats are the party of the Tooth Fairy.)
To: Michael.SF.
I just feel this is something between God and Man and not between the Government and Man. God specifically told Man to execute those found guilty of homosexual acts because of the dangers it presents to society (as if our own natural revulsion at the mention of the act was not enough to tell us where the law shoul be found). Sounds like God made it into an issue between "Government and Man" after all.
To: gcruse
Why is it the lifestyle police can't see that they are mirror images of gun grabbers? Because we aren't. The right to defend oneself is a natural right based on our existence as rational creatures. Similarly, natural law tells us of the innate evil of homosexuality, adultery and all the rest of the crimes you fellas want legal. Why can't the libertines see that no significant number of people has ever wanted to live in the fantasy land society they wish to create?
Last thoguht - when we legalise drugs, what will we then do about the plague of driving under the influence of these substances that will result?
To: gcruse
The America of 1776 did not have legal sodomy.
To: Servant of the Nine
If the states can ban purely private conduct between consenting adults, what is to keep them from banning home schooling, for instance, or instituting mandatory preschool, or requiring parents to follow certain nutritional guidelines for their children?
What's insane is comparing home schooling and nutrition guidelines to homosexual, anal sex. I realize it is not that easy to catch people in the act but when they are they should be prosecuted. This is NOT a civil right, it is a public health crisis.
End the gay plague.
97
posted on
03/26/2003 12:46:58 PM PST
by
johnb838
(Understand the root causes of American anger)
To: TightSqueeze
Bull. In most lib states it's worse to smoke cigs than to smoke d*ck.
98
posted on
03/26/2003 12:48:07 PM PST
by
johnb838
(Understand the root causes of American anger)
To: Hermann the Cherusker
God also specifically said--Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
When was the last time a witch was killed? Evidently religionists are disobeying God's law in the dearth of witchicides reported.
"You're just making a straw argument. There are no witchicides because there are no witches."
Are you saying God would specifically tell us to kill something of which there were none?
"No, no. I mean there is no such thing as a witch."
Then God is specifically tell us to kill something nonexistent?
"Well, yeah."
Thanks for the lesson in the specificity of God's commands.
99
posted on
03/26/2003 12:48:33 PM PST
by
gcruse
(Democrats are the party of the Tooth Fairy.)
To: tahiti
I think your conception of the federal government is somehow inverted; the relevant question is where does the federal government get the power to step in and override state sodomy laws.
All of these limited power/privacy things are good arguments, but they are good arguments to make to State legislatures, not Supreme Court justices who shouldn't be mucking around with State laws in the first place absent some compelling Constitutional reason to do so. The Supreme Court is the one exercising government power here, even if it's power to stop another government from exercising power.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-169 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson