Skip to comments.
SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews
Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
SCOTUS sided with the perverts.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0amanreapswhathesews; 0bedroomkgb; 0godwillnotbemocked; 1aslimmeyslope; 1scrotus; 1slimmeyslope; 3branchesofgovt; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; aides; aidesincreasetaxesup; aidesintheusa; aidesupinsuranceup; aidsalert; antibiblecountry; antichristiantrolls; antirelgiontrolls; antireligion; antireligionbigots; antireligiontroll; aregayapparel; arroganceofscotus; ascrotus; assthumpingidiots; biblethumpingmorons; biggovernmentcorrupt; bluenose; blueoyster; bohica; bowtothesecularstate; bowtothewelfarestate; bugger; buggered; buggerer; buggery; busybodieslose; buttpirate; buyvaselinestock; catsdogsmice; celebratesin; chickenlollipoppers; christianbashing; civilrights; clintonlegacy; constitutiontrashed; crazyfundies; culturewar; davidsouterisafaggot; deathoftheusa; deathofthewest; degeneracy; depravity; destructionofusa; devianceuptaxesup; deviantsex; donwenow; downourthroats; downwenoware; druglaws; endofcivilization; evilinactivistcourts; evilinrighttoprivacy; falalafalalalalala; falalalalalalalala; farkinqueers; fecalcontact; fools; fudgepackersdelight; fundiesinthecloset; fundyhysteria; gay; gayagenda; gayarrogance; gaybashing; gaycheese; gaycivlrights; gaydar; gaygestapo; gaykeywords; gaymafia; gaymarriage; gaymoose; gaynarcissist; gaypride; gayrights; gaysarevictimtoo; gayscelebrate; gaysholdusacaptive; gaysoutofcloset; gaysremakeamerica; gayssuppressthetruth; gaystapo; gaytrolldolls; gaytyrants; gayvote; getoutofmyroom; goawaymrsgrundy; godless; godsjudgement; godswrath; governmentschoolsex; hatecrimelegislation; himom; hitlerywins; homeschoolnow; homoapologists; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualagendawins; homosexualvote; hyperventilating; ihavearighttosin; ihaverights; incestlaws; indoctrination; itsjustsex; itsunatural; jeebuslovesgays; keywordwarsaregay; kitcheneducation; kneepadbrigade; lawrencevtexas; legislatinghate; legislatingsin; legislaturemakeslaws; lewinksys4all; lewinsky; lewinskys; liars; liberalagenda; libertariansareevil; libertines; lotsdaughters; lpcausesbo; makejeebuscry; manboylove; manboyloveassoc; manholeinspectorjoy; menwithmen; moralrelativism; moralrelativistinusa; msgrundypatrol; mycousinknowsclay; nambla; namblawillwinnext; onepercentrulesusa; oralsex; ourgayapparel; paulwellstone; pcdecision; pederasty; peepingtomgovt; perversion; perverts; preverts; prisoners; privacyprotection; prostitutionlaws; publichealthhazard; puritanslose; readtheconstitution; relgionbashing; religionbashing; romans1godswrath; rosieishappytoday; rosietypes; rumprangers; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; samesexmarriages; scotusknowsbest; scotusmakeslaw; scotustrumpsgodslaw; scotustrumpstate; scotustyranny; scrotus; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; sexpolice; sin; singlorified; slimmeyslope; slipperyslop; slipperyslope; slouching; slurpslurp; snitchonyourneighbor; sodomandgomorrah; sodomites; sodommites; sodomy; sodomylaw; sodomylaws; spyinthebushes; statesrights; stronginthesouth; supremecourt; swalloworspit; talibanintheusa; talibannedtrolls; texassodomylaw; thefunpolice; thegayelite; thegayvote; thisisevil; tisseasontobeunhappy; tistheseason; tobejolly; usathirdworldcountry; vicesnowvirtues; victimlesscrime; victimsofaids; victimsofhepatitus; weakinthehead; whatstatesright; womenwithwomen; zscrotus; zslimmeyslope; zzgoodruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,281-1,300, 1,301-1,320, 1,321-1,340 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
To: Clint N. Suhks
What was the compelling state interest to regulate heterosexual sodomy until 1960? I don't know why, maybe for cultural reasons and the slippery slope that homosexuals might want to compare themselves to heterosexuals?
Is that a compelling state interest?
Do you have a source for that? Or are you just pulling silly arguments out of your hat?
To: jmc813
What about masturbation? Uh-oh.
To: sinkspur
No matter what phoney arguments you make, there is no such thing as "consensual pedophilia."There's also no "right to privacy" a la Roe which, unbelievably Kennedy cited as precedent.
The Constitution doesn't mean crap any more and states have become superfluous.
To: All
gota take the kid to swim practice, will be back.
To: BaghdadBarney
"And since bestiality, to my knowledge, isn't commercially produced in the Valley, or on this continent, for that matter, the point is moot." You may well be right about the Valley but "this continent" Come on! Every now and again I receive a spammed e-mail with links to all sorts of "explicit - woman loves horse" links. Are you telling me that all this sick s*** is made overseas? Please.
Notice that bestially was prefaced with 'commercial'. Depiction and production of bestiality for commercial purposes (and others as well) is illegal in Canada, the US and Mexico. Most likely, if you get one of those emails, all servers storing data that they advertise will be outside of N. America.
1,305
posted on
06/26/2003 3:17:03 PM PDT
by
Pahuanui
(when A Foolish Man Hears The tao, He Laughs Out Loud.)
To: SJSAMPLE
If they can prohibit things in my own home, what's next - enforcement? Try building a machine gun in your basement (easily done) and you'll find out about "enforcement" against actions in your own home which harm no one. Assuming you survive said "enforcement action", that is.
To: Clint N. Suhks
Can you cite any legislature before 1960 that defined sodomy as "heterosexual" as the distinguishing contextI'm not aware of any such law.
That's why the Texas sodomy law was ripe for overturning.
Sodomy laws applied only to homosexuals and bisexuals was a novel idea not grounded on our traditions, or our common law, or our Constitution.
To: Clint N. Suhks
Ok smart guy, why is the the power to determine the extent any right may be exercised not in the 10th?
1,202 Clint N. Suhks
Recompose your question, in some sort of context . It makes little sense [it sucks] as written.
1,266 -tpaine-
Consensual pedophilia, bestiality (personal property) and consensual incest the Liberaltarians are hypocrites on the 10th.
-Suhks-
You're getting as loony as the fruitcakes you detest, suhks..
1,308
posted on
06/26/2003 3:21:12 PM PDT
by
tpaine
(Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
To: Clint N. Suhks; sinkspur
That's right, you Liberaltarians hang on to that 10th amendment when it suits you, doncha?LOL! Sinkspur is most definitely NOT a libertarian, nor do I think is he a big fan of them.
1,309
posted on
06/26/2003 3:21:28 PM PDT
by
jmc813
(If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
To: tdadams
What century are you living in? Are you telling me this isn't already the state we're in? If people have changed their opinions so greatly, then there should be no problem with voting on this, should there.
To: jethropalerobber
i assume you would have no problem with them at that point in time, correct? No, I still would. Homosexuality is immoral now and forever. Having said that, I'm consistently amused by you libertarians always instantly promoting social conservatives to positions of super-authority. Gotta be Freudian. Anyway, if society has descended to that point and people have no problem with it, there's not much one guy banging away on a keybord on the North Shore can do about it.
To: tpaine
Took a long time to establish this principle, but here we are. Are you saying that it's right??
To: RAT Patrol
You are mandating amorality. You take it further and call for the public condemning of morality... That is absolutely ridiculous. Just when I think the logical contortions can't get any more disingenuous...
No one is mandating amorality. You're free to be as moral as you please.
To: rintense
My question is, how did the cops know these guys were having sex? Were they in their own house? Yes they were, well aparently their own apartment. The cops *did not* know they were having sex. A neighbor reported someone "going crazy", and they broke in on probable cause of a crime in progress. Just not the crime they arrested the men for. But that apparently doesn't enter into the decision. If it did, all drug busts at "seatbelt" checkpoints would be invalid, and they're not.
To: tdadams
The people of Texas are mandated to make amoral laws. That is not freedom. Let License Ring!
1,315
posted on
06/26/2003 3:33:10 PM PDT
by
RAT Patrol
(Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
To: HumanaeVitae
The SCOTUS just violated the "force, fraud, coercion" principle of libertarianism by initiating coercion against the people of Texas. That argument has all the veracity of a trial lawyer working on a contingency fee.
To: freeeee
1. Who owns the land? You never say. If the land in your small society is privately owned, those who own it can tell gays or anyone else to leave for any reason, or no reason at all. Completely irrelevant. Under the libertarian construction of things, if people voluntarily agree to organize society in any way they wish, that's kosher with libertarians. Doesn't matter if the land is communally owned or privately owned. The small society has to agree, voluntarily, on social organization. However they do that is irrelevant to the argument, because whichever way they do it, it's voluntary. Perfect libertarianism.
Are you asserting that the gay men are breaking a rule they consented to? This is a profound breakdown of logic on your part
I stated that there was a pre-existing taboo (social rule) on sodomy. It was well established. By living in that society, they agree to abide by it.
A libertarian society cannot have laws that initiate force or fraud, no matter if everyone there agrees to them. The gay people in your example never initiated force or fraud in their actions.
Sure they did. They initiated fraud. There was a pre-existing, informal, covenantal agreement forbidding homosexuality. They broke it.
I can understand why you're arguing specifics. You've pretty much lost the broad point.
To: tpaine
You're getting as loony as the fruitcakes you detest, suhks.. Your obfuscation is well noted pain...
To: fooman
Better bolt down the houshold pets. What? I think they deserve a fighting chance to either run away or to turn on their assailants and bite, kick, peck or claw the snot out of them, don't you? :)
To: Clint N. Suhks; tpaine
You're getting as loony as the fruitcakes you detest, suhks.. Your obfuscation is well noted pain...
Ya'll's devotion to one another is admirable. It brings tears to my eyes, it does...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,281-1,300, 1,301-1,320, 1,321-1,340 ... 1,721-1,734 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