Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

From homosexuality to incest?
TownHall.com ^ | Thursday, April 24, 2003 | by Marvin Olasky

Posted on 04/23/2003 11:42:58 PM PDT by JohnHuang2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-198 next last
To: Emmylou
He comes up with it from the Texas law that's being discussed. It's perfectly legal for two unmarried heterosexuals to commit sodomy in Texas. The law only applies to homosexual sodomy.

I thought this was a general discussions of principles.

If the Texas law is written in such a way that it applies only to a certain group, then it was badly drafted and may not pass Constitutional muster.

If that is the case, I could rewrite the law in five minutes time to correct that defect. If you want to make a something illegal, you must focus on the act, not on the perp.

81 posted on 04/24/2003 12:01:49 PM PDT by John Valentine (Writing from downtown Seoul, keeping an eye on the hills to the north.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

Comment #82 Removed by Moderator

To: jimt
I think you are taking it a bit too far, but the main difference I see between us is that you seem to believe that government is inherently oppressive while I do not. The passage of a particular piece of legislation does not have to be liked by myself in order for me to recognize the legitimacy of the legislature to approve of such action. I may not like a "no spitting" law, or an anti-sodomy law, but I can see where the legislature indeed has the right to pass such a law.

The Founding Fathers, in their inspired wisdom, did not merely restrict power from the Federal Government, but provided the tools for the different levels of Government to weild power. They did this by making sure that every State had a Republican form of government. Thus they empowered each State with it's own legislature that represented the people of that State. Just as a major flaw of many liberals is the failure to recognize the restrictions on power weilded by the Government, so it is a major flaw of many conservatives to fail to recognize that power is indeed allowed to be wielded by the Government.

Sometimes this means laws are passed we don't like, but that doesn't mean that every law which has it's critics should be removed or deemed inappropriate.

83 posted on 04/24/2003 12:10:42 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"his remarks show nothing but contempt for lesbian and gay people."

That sums up the feeling by many. It is beginning to look like many Americans are awakening to exactly what the homosexual agenda for this nation truly means.

84 posted on 04/24/2003 12:15:03 PM PDT by LuisBasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
I think you are taking it a bit too far, but the main difference I see between us is that you seem to believe that government is inherently oppressive while I do not.

No, I believe government should be protective of our rights, and will be if properly limited. I also believe that an unlimited government will inherently trend towards oppressive.

You haven't commented on my reiteration of what you're saying the limits are. While my examples may seem silly, they fall within the definition I think you provided: anything goes unless it violates a right specifically addressed in the Constitution, or a statute of a superior government.

Which effectively negates the Ninth Amendment.

Is that correct? Or are there any other limits?

85 posted on 04/24/2003 12:29:00 PM PDT by jimt (Is your church BATF approved?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Emmylou
"There will come a time when people will look back and say, "Why were gay people treated so harshly?"

In this world maybe.But,what about the next?

86 posted on 04/24/2003 12:34:16 PM PDT by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: fml
Ah, but it is if your gonna shake hands or open doors.

You're right. I probably should have picked a better example. But I'll pretend our hypothetical nosepicker doesn't shake hands or open doors.

I'm trying to get ASB to agree there are limits to government power, and more particularly, that those limits should be protecting individual rights.

Which is why I think the Texas sodomy law should be overturned - or repealed. No one's rights are being violated, assuming two consenting adult unmarried homosexuals engaging in private behavior.

I may not like it, but it doesn't violate my rights.

87 posted on 04/24/2003 12:36:35 PM PDT by jimt (Is your church BATF approved?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Or are there any other limits?

Common sense and the desire to be re-elected? Recall measures?

This is a democratic republic we are talking about. If a City Council voted to outlaw every color of underwear besides lavender, I'm pretty sure there would be a serious turnover in Council membership as soon as possible.

Would the law still be legitimate? Yeah, I would say it was a legitimate law. Could it be prosecuted successfully? Doubtful unless the jury was composed primarily of City Council members.

But in theory, yes, a City Council could indeed pass a law like that. But in theory Communism works =)

88 posted on 04/24/2003 12:37:57 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: John W
"There will come a time when people will look back and say, "Why were gay people treated so harshly?" In this world maybe.But,what about the next?

Good question. Possibly Santorum will have some 'splainin to do.... ;-)

89 posted on 04/24/2003 12:38:02 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Qwerty
animals are property consent is not required.
90 posted on 04/24/2003 12:38:07 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"animals are property consent is not required."

So it's legal if I light my dog on fire? How about if I just hack her to death?

91 posted on 04/24/2003 12:39:59 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
This all boils down to whether or not the State has a right to regulate sexual conduct. Basically it does, in my opinion.
92 posted on 04/24/2003 12:43:55 PM PDT by ColdSteelTalon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: All
Does a state legislature have the constitutional authority to legislate certain sexual conduct? The answer is yes.

If we follow the "consenting adults" position put forward by the homosexuals, then ADULT immediate blood relatives are allowed to have consentual sex. Thus an adult father/mother and have intercourse with an adult son/daughter. It can not be prohibited because it is sexual conduct withing the "privacy of the home." EVery argument homosexuals use in the texas case can be applied to allowing adult incest.

Given the head of the Utah Polygamists objections to santorums comments about the legislative authority of the states, his point is proven. Every sexual proclivity wants their practice "righted".
93 posted on 04/24/2003 12:44:01 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Qwerty
sorry forgot to put "sarcasm off."
The states can prohibit sex with animals and lighting your kitty cat on fire. I posted the same state's can prohibit argument elsewhere.
94 posted on 04/24/2003 12:45:43 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon
"This all boils down to whether or not the State has a right to regulate sexual conduct. Basically it does, in my opinion."

Wow. You've just given away the ability to decide what you want to do in bed to complete strangers. That has to be some kind of weird fetish...

95 posted on 04/24/2003 12:45:44 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

Comment #96 Removed by Moderator

To: Qwerty
Eh.. replace "want to do" with "can do".
97 posted on 04/24/2003 12:47:18 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Qwerty
Please go read your Bible again. Masturbation, per se, is not condemned. Abel's disobediance to God is what is condemned.

-=I=-
98 posted on 04/24/2003 12:47:23 PM PDT by =Intervention= (so freaking sick of the lies...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Honestly, I can't think of a reason why people shouldn't be able to have multiple religious weddings.
99 posted on 04/24/2003 12:48:35 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: =Intervention=
Oh ok. If I ever see Sister Theophane again I'll let her know.
100 posted on 04/24/2003 12:49:57 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-198 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson