SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[fooman]

Several leaps in logic you are making and assuming. The privacy issue is a canard, if you have been reading the thread.

No one wants the gov in the bedroom. The question is do we want norms to keep economic externalities and protect YOUR private property.

Homo/bi behaviour has enormous government and insurance costs.

I hope you are ready to start paying taxes in texas to pay for this. Look what happens in places like sweden, cali and here in NYC where you have permissivness subsidizes.

Its a paradox, but true.

[Kevin Curry]

Actually, we're not. We're pretty distressed at the usurpation of state authority. The SCOTUS should never have agreed to hear this case.

You're shedding crocodile tears--the same sort of tears you'll shed if dope is decriminalized and the taxpayer gets stuck with the tab of paying for it with costly Soros-style touchy-feely rehab programs.

This fundamental dishonesty and crass failure to face to reality is the most annoying trait of libertarians. They agitate and scream for the legitimization of socially destructive and costly personal addictive behaviors and then sigh softly when the taxpayer gets hit in the wallet.

They roar like lions to implement the liberals' social experiments and then retreat like mewling kittens when the costs come due.

Proof? Now that the right to enagage in disease-spreading sodomy has been declared sacred in a Roe v. Wade sense you'll see no further threads posted by libetarians protesting the social costs this change will impose on us all.

Flaming hypocites. I'd rather deal with a Ted Kennedy-style liberal. At least he's fully honest and upfront when he mugs me.

[fooman]

I would be all for pot smoking AFTER we got rid of ALL government transfer payments.

This means unemployment medicare medicaid soc security would all be privatized.

POT makes people lazy and creates health care costs.

[fooman]

We should be fair. Some of these people DO want to end taxes. BUT I say we reduce the welfare state by 5% until its all gone, then we may allow more behaviours that create costs for others.

[rintense]

Binary view. Please. Just because I don't know of any older gays who believe this doesn't make it any less true. It just means I don't know older gay people. As for making false distinctions, that is simply your opinion. I don't know what your view of homosexuality is, but there are 'bad' straight people out there who commit acts worse than sodomy.

[VRWC_minion]

Laws against incest protect minors, whereas laws against sodomy are for consenting adults

I'm talking about a 16 year old girl and her dad in the privacy of their own home.

[rintense]

You're wrong. I think the government has no right to police what you do in the privacy of your own home. If you had read any of my posts on this ruling, you'd know that.

[Dead Corpse]

Homo/bi behaviour has enormous government and insurance costs.

Once again, you are using the socialists pet programs to justify your own pet prejudices. END THEM BOTH.

Get your nose out of my curtains and end socialized medicine. PERIOD.

[Dead Corpse]

I'm talking about a 16 year old girl and her dad in the privacy of their own home.

Good God! Are you still on that crap? Hasn't it been shot down ENOUGH for you?

[Xenalyte]

THANK YOU for saying that.

Loved your first novel, btw.

[Dead Corpse]

Flaming hypocites

"Pot, this is Kettle. You're BLACK!"

[puroresu]

No, it absolutely does not say for government to back off. It says that the unelected federal courts are the real power in Texas, not the people or their elected representatives.

Most libertarians operate on the assumption that behavior has no consequences. The problem is, it does.

So when people engage in sexual irresponsibility in "private", they create public consequences. "Tolerance" of gay behavior leads to increased government.

When homosexual behavior is in the closet and legally restricted, it forces homosexuals, who are wildly promiscuous be nature, to be discrete. But once "liberated", they find it easier to obtain sex partners and a bathhouse culture arises. This is why AIDS spread like wildfire, and it's cost the taxpayer billions of dollars.

Once uncloseted, homosexuals go on a rampage against anyone who disagrees with them. They inevitably do this because they psychologically need constant reinforcement of their behavior, because even they know it is ugly and unnatural.

The result is speech codes, restricting free speech. Then the government forces schools to teach that homosexuality is normal, even if parents hold different religious values. Private clubs and groups like the Boy Scouts come under assault from gays determined to force them to change their moral teachings. Laws are passed forcing employers to hire gays and landlords to rent to them. Churches lose their tax exempt status if they fail to sanction gay relationships.

One necessarily leads to the other. You surely don't believe that all the gay activists want is to be left alone to commit sodomy in private, and that they'll take full responsibility for the consequences of that.

Keeping homosexuality in the closet requires less government than is unleashed when homosexuality is uncloseted. That's why big government "liberals" like Hillary are for repealing sodomy laws. She isn't trying to get the government off out backs, she's trying to expand it exponentially, and uncloseted homosexuality always leads to that.

[Xenalyte]

POT makes people lazy and creates health care costs.

Wrong.

If that were true, I'd not have a graduate degree and a full-time corporate job, not to mention a strenuous part-time performance job.

As far as health care, I pay for myself - I don't have insurance - and there's no way anyone can say a kidney stone is dope-related.

Thanks for playing, though.

[rintense]

you seem to know a lot about what "most" gays want. and you came by that info how?

From my exposure and friendships with them. It's somewhat limited (as I have stated) and I was wrong to generalize- which man on this thread have done anyway- but can anyone who isn't part of that culture say they know said culture completely?

a lot of heteros believe they can have sex anywhere as well. let's burn them all at the stake.

Your statement, not mine. Let me repeat for the 10,000th time: The problem with some people in general- straight, gay, whatever- is that they believe they have the *right* to do anything they want and incorrectly justify their actions with false interpretations of the Constitution. Do you have the right to do whatever you want in your bedroom? Of course you do. But that *right* doesn't extend to having sex in public places, etc. And my fear is- based on my knowledge and interactions with some of my gay friends- that this ruling will only continue to foster that false assumption. Keep your private life private. Period.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Dead Corpse]

So you are not only saying we have no higher redress than State Courts for our grievences, but that the government can legislate ANY behavior it wants. And you use the socialism cannard as well.

Maybe we shoulda never let those uppity negros have their freedom either...

[jpl]

Ensuring the presence of classroom "diversity" is a compelling state interest, but trying to prevent the spread of AIDS isn't that compelling I guess. Pretty remarkable.

[poet]

Can we survive moral degradation? I think not. Can we survive balkanization of America? I think not. Can we survive open borders? I think not.

The thieves in DC worry more about telemarketers and music trading than the real issues.

[fooman]

There is nothing about 'prejudices' going on here. Its an emotional card.

Again privacy is NOT the issue. It is the costs to society.

Sure, we agree on getting rid of socialized medicine. But look what happens in San Fran. Try living there. Big taxes. Poor state credit.

Believe me, there is plenty permissiveness there and taxes are sky high to pay for the outcomes of unhealthy behaviours.

But lets think about another implication.

What you do think is going to happen to your beloved corps now that dont ask dont tell is toast.

You will have the hazing done by the dipstick patrol instead of Mr. full metal jacket.

This could affect unit cohesion just a touch.

[rintense]

I am dissappointed that so many Freepers do not see the harm that is being done to the culture.

Yes, but culture and law are two separate issues. Maybe my views on this are a bit more libertarian, but I honestly don't care what anyone does in their bedroom. It isn't my pace to judge, and He will do that in His own time. It's when people use the law to justify various actions that gets me. It's kinda like that lady in Florida who refused to take of her veil for a license photo. She said it is a right to drive. She's wrong. It's a privilege. Too many people today think they have the right to do this or that. Freedom is wonderful. But sometimes people try to stretch that freedom farther than it really goes.