SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

What city do you live in?

[dmz]

now you're just being silly.

please tell me what part of the moral code I have violated by driving 30 mph in a 25mph zone. unless you argue the absurd point that if it is a law that is what makes it a moral issue. Which, as any good freeper will tell you, is absolutely circular (hence, faulty) logic.

[Elsie]

You managed to get the consent of the spouse of the person you suborned to break their marital vows?! DANG -- that's some smooth work there!

---

They don't call me 'charming' for nuttin'!!

---

(actually, there ARE spouses that consent to this; as long as they can watch!)

[OWK]

Yeah, people like me and that horrible busy-body Tom Jefferson..

1)The only words Jefferson EVER penned on the subject, came as a function of his responsibilities as committee recording secretary in the Virginia House of Burgesses. They were not his words, but those of the committee. (which are of course often misattributed to him by those seeking to justify invasion of the bedrooms of their countrymen)

2) Jefferson was often quite the hypocrite. (he owned people for example)

[Antoninus]

1) Libertarianism is not anarchy.

Perhaps not in and of itself... however....

2) The French Revolution begat authoritarian government, not anarchy.

No, the French Revolution begat anarchy which in turn led to authoritarianism. Do you honestly think a libertine-arian regime in this country would not beget similar authoritarianism? I guarantee you it would.

The only hope for free republics is for the citizens to self-regulate their behavior. That's why freedom worked in this country for so long. Since the 1960s, we've given up this part of our patrimony in exchange for the quick fix, fun times, and dare I say, a "right to anal sex." This has made us weak to the point where the federal and state governments routinely tread on our God-given rights. We've effectively traded our rights to free-association, free speech, keep and bear arms, freedom of religion, etc. for pornography, gambling, and gay sex.

If this trend continues, there will come a time when people will say "Enough!" and there will be an authoritarian crack-down. If you don't believe me, try reading some history. I know this much: If we can't have a constitutional republic as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, I prefer a benign dictatorship to the glittering anarchy posing as "freedom" offered by libertine-arianism.

[kegler4]

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

So is your answer to ban these behaviors? If we're focusing on "anti-social" behaviors that cost us money as a society, do we then ban excessive drinking, eating large amounts of fat and cholesterol, smoking, and on and on?

[MineralMan]

"What city do you live in?"

I don't live in a city. I live in an unincorporated area somewhere south of you. I also don't reveal personal information on Free Republic. Suffice it to say that if I have a hankering for really fine Chinese food for dinner, it's within range for me to have some in San Francisco.

Trust me, I'm very familiar with the city.

[Elsie]

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

---

(As told to Lot, just before the rains came. His sons-in-law thought they were joking........)

[Thane_Banquo]

Well, perhaps saying all laws are moral is a bit hyperbolic, but criminal laws certainly are based on moral views of behavior. Murder is illegal because we believe it is immoral for a person to rob another of his life. Indeed, our view of the right to life is inherently moral, as are all other views on rights.

[MineralMan]

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

---

(As told to Lot, just before the rains came. His sons-in-law thought they were joking........)
"

Is that the same Lot who, later, had sex with his daughters? Oh well.

[Clint N. Suhks]

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

That would be the 10th amendment.

[Thane_Banquo]

The 14th amendment does not define those rights, but references them to be part of the rights of individuals protected from federal government action by the other portions of the Constitution. The Constitution does not state that one has a right to engage in homosexual sex.

[MineralMan]

"The Constitution does not state that one has a right to engage in homosexual sex."

Nor does it state that one has a right to heterosexual sex, either. The constitution is pretty silent on sexual activity.

[huck von finn]

Noah and his kin

Well, he didn't mellow out right away...

Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Nah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had don to him, he said,
Cursed be Canaan;
a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers."

GEN 8:20-25

[Thane_Banquo]

It can and should however regulate criminal acts

How do we define what is a criminal act except by our moral perception of it? We define murder as criminal because of our moral perception of a right to life. We define stealing as criminal because of our moral perception of a right to property. Etc.

[Thane_Banquo]

I'd also point out that if there is a right to privacy, how can the government institute am progressive income tax based on how much money I make. Isn't my income a private matter?

[Antoninus]

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.

Tweeeeeet! Flag on the play. Comparing your opponent to the Nazis. 15 yards and loss of argument.

Seriously, though, you should try doing a Google search for Ernst Roehm and homosexual.

[Antoninus]

I admire Thomas Jefferson greatly, but in this case I think it's safe to say he was a crackpot.

Game, set, match. Thank you for playing!

[OWK]

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

That would be the 10th amendment.

The subjugation of rights is no more morally justifiable at the state or local level, than at the federal level.

[jethropalerobber]

One question: Is morality good or bad?

let me just put it this way - your desire to use the apparatus of the state to force others to live by your particular religious view of sexual morality is bad.