SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[MineralMan]

"Agreed. Doesn't the old testament also contain a lot of human sacrifice?
"

You bet, although that was against Mosaic law. But looting and pillaging and slaying every man, woman, and child in a city was OK. The soldiers got to keep the virgins, though, for themselves.

Now, animal sacrifice, polygamy, and that sort of thing was quite standard. The OT kings did all kinds of wierd stuff, like having their generals killed so they could sleep with the general's wife. Stuff like that.

It was a pretty lively time back in the Old Testament days, and all under the watchful eye of JHVH himself. He seemed to enjoy all that stuff. Things toned down later, though, once JHVH killed off the whole population of the planet and started over with Noah and his kin, apparently. I guess he got mellow with age.

[HumanaeVitae]

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

Christians more or less invented the idea of large-scale charity. Sure, other people are charitable, to be sure. But if we're talking America here, the most consistently charitable people are devout Christians.

[Clint N. Suhks]

What are rights? What do they include? What are their limitations?

Everything you want minus constitution especially the 10th amendment.

By what yardstick do we differentiate "right" from "non-right"?

The constitution.

I don't understand why no one is willing to take a cut at it.

Consider it cracked.

[EagleMamaMT]

Truer words were never spoken. Their attitude is: "As long as I get my "kicks", who cares if America is turned into a pestilential hellhole?"

[Antoninus]

Had people like yourself not first conspired to criminalize the private sexual behavior of censenting adults to begin with, the Supreme Court would not have been addressing the issue today. But I rather suspect that you still would.

Yeah, people like me and that horrible busy-body Tom Jefferson that you libertine-arians are always popping off about.

Funny, it took the Supreme Court 200-odd years to get around to fixing the problem. Have we been living under tyranny that long?

[kegler4]

"The "born on" date check.

The last refuge of the beaten."

Comes right after calling everybody who disagrees a homo.

[Redcloak]

...a homosexual behind every tree.

Remind me not to go to that park for a picnic.

But seriously...

Heh, heh, heh... he said "but"...

But seriously, seriously...

I'm torn on the larger issue at hand: Should the US Supreme Court be telling the states how to run their affairs? On the one hand, I like the reservation of powers and rights embodied in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Governance in the US was intended to be from the bottom up; not the top down. On the other hand, I don't want things like gun laws written by the loons in Sacramento. In that case, I'd like nothing more than to see SCOTUS use the 14th Amendment to ram the 2nd down their throats.

And on a side note, I wonder how many of those criticizing the "right to privacy" on this thread squealed like stuck pigs with the Clintonistas tried to force that "know your customer" crap onto the banking industry. And how many have expressed concerns about the potential for snooping in the "Patriot Act"?

[Dead Corpse]

"Try listening to the New Kids on the Block Christmas album..."

You win. Hands down. No contest.

[MileHi]

Libertarians are cheering.

You should be cheering, Kevin. THE SAME POWER that SCOTUS uses to strike down state Med MJ laws, that you cheer so loudly, is the power invoked here. Pisses you off when it is your ox, though.

[CholeraJoe]

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.

So I suppose you'd advocate just rounding up all the gays and gassing them? Look at your words. You're talking like a Nazi.

[tpaine]

. The 10th amendment guarantees to the states and the people themselves all powers not granted to the federal government.
The Constitution does not give the power to the federal government to regulate in this area.
-TB-


Wrong. The 14th protects our rights to life, liberty, and property from violations by ANY level of government, fed/state/local.

[Elsie]

What part of ...are reserved to the states respectively... do you NOT understand?

OR

What part of "to the people" do you not understand?

There is a big OR in there!!

---

Logic, please!!!

[MineralMan]

"You think I'm obsessed? This is every day life for me."

I've been to San Francisco many, many times. I don't live that far away. I don't pay any attention to the homosexual stuff there. I have other things to do. I attend plays, eat at the many fine restaurants in the city, visit museums, go to conventions.

I guess, maybe, you are a bit obsessed with homosexuality. I just ignore it, since it's of no importance to me. The city has lots of stuff that's really positive, and aside from New York, it's my favorite city.

Maybe you should get out more to see the other things going on there. Lots to discover, if you can let go of your obsession with homosexuality.

Sometimes, living in a city blinds you to its attractions. Go ride the cable car, have lunch at Fisherman's wharf, then wander around Chinatown for a couple of hours. Eat a steamed pork bun or something. Go visit the Academy of Science. See a play. Go to the symphony. Shoot, you could do new things every day and never deal with homosexuality at all.

Ignore the billboards, like everyone else does. I don't look at the Calvin Klein billboards, either, even if they have cute young women on them. They're boring.

In short, get yourself a life and rediscover your wonderful city.

[vin-one]

I think we were following the same line of thought that I was trying to take

[Elsie]

If there's no limit on state FEDERAL power we live in a tyranny, albeit a little NO closer than D.C. the Federal building in YOUR neighborhood.

[kegler4]

"Yeah, Scalia and that tyrant Thomas Jefferson who had the unmittigated GALL to sign a bill into law punishing sodomy with castration."

I admire Thomas Jefferson greatly, but in this case I think it's safe to say he was a crackpot. Did said bill include hetero sodomy, as does the law in my state?

[OWK]

But what if I want to form my own society?

Have at it.

What if I don't want to be affected by people who engage in anti-social behaviors whatsoever?

Avoid yourself at all costs.;^]

You see, as hard as you try, I'm still going to have to pick up the costs for anti-social behaviors in some way.

Not unless you subscribe to the same old socialist crap running rampant in the United States today. It is the argument over the distribution of socialist goodies that drives most of the dissent.

As long as I'm sharing a society with perverts, they're going to affect me in some way.

And as long as they have to share it with you, you'll effect them in some way. And neither of you consider the other's influence beneficial. But so long as neither of you violate the rights of the other by initiating force or fraud, you are both otherwise free to act as you please, and ignore the other to your heart's content.

Don't I have a 'right' to live the way I wish, around the people I wish to live around? Isn't this the essence of libertarianism?

You have the right to choose your own associations. You have the right to purchase property with like-minded others. You have the right to include or exclude anyone you wish.

What you do NOT have the right to do, is mandate or prohibit the otherwise peaceful behavior of your unwilling neighbors by force.

Again, I can't make it any clearer than that.

[ffusco]

You worry about your kids. I'll worry about mine.

[MineralMan]

"Well, first, I think that I could take about 45% of the population of the U.S. with me (the percent that thinks homosexuality should be illegal), probably more since abortion and other things would be illegal there. "

It's OK with me if you withdraw from society. No skin off my butt. The Amish have managed it, and there are monasteries and convents scattered all over the country. You're welcome to isolate yourself and to convince others to do the same.

But...you're not welcome to my property. I won't sell it to you, so you'll have to find somewhere of your own. Good riddance, I say.

[freeeee]

I'm still going to have to pick up the costs for anti-social behaviors in some way. We'll vote in the same elections, pay the same taxes, and so on.

In the absence of socialist entitlements (mainly health care) and in the presence of true free association, in exactly what way do you have to pick up costs?

It seems your real problem is socialism, and not the private behavior of others. Why don't you focus on the former, instead of doing socialists most insidious work of regulating everyone's life down to the smallest details?