SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[Liberal Classic]

Amateur.

[ffusco]

Most definately. the real perves will pounce on this one, but I doubt peds will be able to gather support for a law permitting child endangerment from any court in the land, even so, let the pendulum go too far and it will correct itself in good time.

[Liberal Classic]

D'oh

[yonif]

Amateur.

I've always wanted to do that..:)

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Thanks, but I think you got the wrong poster. Did you mean that for me?

[dead]

Exactly. And if you lived in a society that had the kind of moral rectitude that people would care enough about each other to engage in that kind of private charity, you would be living in a Christian society.

From my experience, Jews are also quite charitable. I also know a number of atheist people who are very generous with their time and money. I don’t personally know any charitable Buddhists, but I’m sure they’re out there.

I've never before heard anybody assert their religion has a monopoly on charitable expression.

[af_vet_rr]

If there is a right to privacy, what gives the government the right to come into my home and tell me whether or not I can own a gun that I never use against any human being?

Didn't you get the letter that firearms were different, and that part of the Constitution doesn't count ;-)

At the risk of going off topic even further, I think there is a widespread assault on privacy by the government. It's very subtle, and it's being conducted on many levels (from city/county upto and including federal).

This ruling on the sodomy law means nothing to the government. They are more interested in what you buy, who you talk to, where you travel, how you travel, what you look at online, etc. than what you physically do with another person in your own home.

I've said it before, but the more and more the government does, the more worried I am about sites like FR being branded as terrorist sites by a liberal government (FR = people who treasure the Constitution, like firearms, and speak out against the government - liberals' worst nightmare).

[Antoninus]

imho, plenty of doubt. in fact, i'm willing to say you will _never_ get it passed by 2/3 of the senate or 3/4 of the states. you should have tried it 10 years ago - so it goes.

The 3/4 of the states should be no problem. 37 states already have a similar amendment on the books. That's one short of passage.

The 2/3 of the senate is the real hurdle. However, I have little doubt that once this issue goes national, the vote whores in that august body will care more about their careers than a handful of sodomites.

And even if such an amendment doens't pan out, guess what? No big deal. I already know how this all ends up. And it doesn't look good for the pro-buggery crowd...

[Grando Calrissian]

After martial law is declared, the masses will be rounded up and brought into large stadiums to watch nonstop episodes of "Sex and the City".

[MineralMan]

"Birth control covers the birth problems. 16 is age of consent."

Hmm..still at it, I see. Yes, you can use birth control and avoid the problems of pregnancy, but it is still wrong to have sex with your daughter. Don't do it.

There's a couple in my community. They're in their 60's now, and have been together for over 40 years. They've never had any children, and are not married. They're brother and sister, and have lived as if they were married for all that time.

It's not known to many folks, since they naturally keep it to themselves, except to a few people they trust. Nice folks, too. Both were school teachers until their retirement, and were very good at their jobs. The kids really liked them, as do their neighbors. They're active in volunteer work now and seem quite happy in their lives.

What they've been doing all those years was illegal, but I've not seen that it harmed either of them. If you saw them, you'd think they were a model couple, and you'd never know.

Such relationships are far more common than you realize. But it's still wrong for you to want to have sex with your 16-year-old daughter. The age difference alone is enough to make it ill-advised. The legal issues, however, are insurmountable. She may consent now, but who knows what will happen down the road someday, and then you'll be in big, big trouble.

I think you should not do this.

[tpaine]

Just because something is not outlawed does not mean it is not immoral. But if something is outlawed, then society is saying it is immoral. The standard of morality being employed may be flawed, but society's statement about whatever activity is outlawed is clear: it is wrong.
771 -HumanaeVitae-


Bullhockey. How is my owning an EEEEeeevil assualt rifle immoral/illegal in California.. but somehow not so here in Austin Texas?
795 -DC-


You didn't read my post. The people of Kalifornia are saying that ownership of assault rifles is wrong for some reason, i.e. you 'ought not' own one. That doesn't mean they're right. As I noted in my post.
-hv-


We ALL read your post. You clearly wrote:

"society's statement about whatever activity is outlawed is clear: it is wrong."

Thus, you are defending CA 'societys' statement that 'assault weapons' can be prohibited. -- Which is clearly unconstitutional.

Waffle all you like as to your personal intent, but you support societies ability to 'outlaw' property or immoral behaviors.

[glory]

Very well said!!!

[autoresponder]

SCROTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ba.....

[huck von finn]

So, as I take it from your posts in this thread, you:

1. Watch homosexuals having sex in the bushes

2. Frequent homosexual chat boards, and

3. Read homosexual magazines ??

I'm sorry to have to say it, lady, but it looks as if you are the one with the agenda here.

[Grando Calrissian]

I'm still waiting for the posts with links about the movement within the gay community to eat lots and lots of fecal matter.

[Antoninus]

Please bear in mind that I am neither gay nor liberal. I believe all human beings need to be treated with decency and compassion irrespective of their religion, skin color, health status or sexual orientation. To do otherwise conjures up images of swastikas and burning crosses.

First of all, it's insulting that you consider people who voluntarily and habitually put their penises in other people's anuses the moral equivalent of blacks, Indians, Catholics, Jews, or the disabled.

Second, do you feel that way about all "sexual minorities" as defined by homo-promo groups and some member of the American Psychiatric Association?

[MineralMan]

"Honest question OWK...do I and people like me have a right to secede from a society that condones homosexual behavior and form our own society?"

Sure. You just can't do it within the confines of the United States of America. However, I don't see why you can't buy a nice island somewhere and make it an exclusive place as private property. You can isolate yourself there and not allow anyone who is not a member of your little club from coming there.

I'd say you can do it if you want to. I suspect you'll have a tough time, though, finding enough people that want to do this to make it succeed as a separate entity. You'd still need supplies, etc.

But, hey, go for it.

[Dead Corpse]

"...to watch nonstop episodes of "Sex and the City".

Now that's just evil. I mean really evil. The only thing worse would be a 24-hour non-stop DNC fund raiser.

[Antoninus]

In fact, he can't think of many outrageous laws the states could come up with that he'd rule unconstitutional-- turning us into a banana republic.

Yeah, Scalia and that tyrant Thomas Jefferson who had the unmittigated GALL to sign a bill into law punishing sodomy with castration. It's a good thing we've moved beyond what our idiot Founding Fathers had in mind...

[huck von finn]

There's going to be a plague. Lots of scabs.