SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[VRWC_minion]

You are her father. This means that legally, she is still your responsibility until she is 18.

Not in my state. No parent can control the actions of their child after they are 16. We are legally responsible for the effects of their actions but we cannot excersize control over them. That is the law.

So, your flat out wrong. She is at the age of consent. If she wants to give Clinton blow jobs there isn't a damn think I can do about it. If we desire to have sex in the privacy of our own home then their should not be a damn thing the state could say about it.

[Bush2000]

While I disagree with the ruling (I believe that society does have the right to determine conduct which is detrimental; ie. disallowing close relatives from marrying, etc), its impact is practically insignificant. Very few people arrested for violating sodomy laws.

[Dead Corpse]

And no, increased problems for socialized medicine won't lead to government getting out of the socialized medicine business.

It would if enough of us voted for them to. Face it. You like your version of "conservative socialism" just fine.

If you morons would wake up and listen to the libertarians solution to these problems... we wouldn't be having this dicussion.

[tdadams]

If she wants to give Clinton b*** j*** there isn't a damn think I can do about it.

I'm sorry, but I think there is something extremely repugnant about someone who would talk in this way about his own daughter. Please try to have a modest amount of decorum.

[Dead Corpse]

Good luck with this nutjob. I'm giving up on this whole thread....

These people are nuts.

[puroresu]

I think you hit the nail on the head. "Government must expand to protect out rights." That's the new mantra that people are believing.

I agree with libertarians on some things, and I think they're sincere (unlike "liberals"). But I also think they're sincerely wrong if they think yesterday's ruling was anything short of a major government power grab that will lead even more government as time passes.

[VRWC_minion]

I'm sorry, but I think there is something extremely repugnant about someone who would talk in this way about his own daughter. Please try to have a modest amount of decorum.

Sorry, but such feelings are no longer relevant. What we all do in the privacy of our homes as conseting adults is just none of your business. Welcome to the new world.

[fooman]

Its already starting. Today's philly inquirer.

Malcolm Lazin of the Equality Forum, the Philadelphia-based annual gay and lesbian gathering, disagrees with Scalia on everything but one point: that gay marriage - recently given the OK in neighboring Canada - is going to be the next battleground over gay rights and morality. He said a pending decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by men turned down for a marriage license could provide the next spark.

Lazin agreed that the ruling may be a tipping point in the national debate that took center stage this spring when Santorum made his controversial remarks in an interview.

"The fact that today the court has moved us into the modern age is a major setback for Santorum and those of his ilk," Lazin said. He insisted that middle-of-the-road voters will sour on Santorum as out of step on social issues from the rest of the nation. Even the Supreme Court - with six of the nine justices appointed by conservatives Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon - took a surprisingly moderate position.

There may be a good reason that Scalia's words yesterday were harsher than Santorum's. Scalia gets to keep his job for life, while Santorum has to go back before voters in 2006. Some political strategists said the best plan for Santorum's re-election would be to simply shut up.

"He could only really hurt himself if he opens his mouth again and starts to scream about the ruling," said Neil Oxman, a Democratic political consultant. "If he just keeps his head down and stays off the tube and doesn't say anything, I think a million other issues will surface."

But some of those issues are still going to relate to gay rights, not to mention issues of sex and morality. Lazin ticked off a long list of gay-rights issues that have not yet been resolved, including whether homosexuals can join the Boy Scouts or openly serve in the military.

"Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools or as boarders in their home," Scalia said in his opinion yesterday. "They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

But those are all fights for a future day. Yesterday was a day for social conservatives to lick their wounds and for supporters of gay rights to celebrate.

"This is unquestionably the most important gay-rights case ever," Matt Coles, director of the Lesbian and Gay Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Associated Press.

"The court is saying that personal relationships, intimate relationships that...give your life meaning, that gay people have the same right to those relationships that everyone else does."

[fooman]

Yep. Thats the paradox isn't it? Perceived freedom today. But dont look at tomorrow. When the loud whiners and others who are 'harmed' (think aids, diabeties, hepetitus) overhelm our libertarian friends, they find themselves overwhelmed.

While they siphon off 2% - 3% of the vote, like in the south dakota race, we push the tax and spend crowd into office.

[Dead Corpse]

Marriage is a religious institution. Government should have no say in it what-so-ever.

Legal benefits for couples, who are together for the purpose of procreation, are something altogether different.

We need to clean the language up on this. Gays should be allowed a "civil union" type thing. To call it a "marriage" and to try to equate it with a breeding pair is logically ridiculous.

[fooman]

Marriage has both a state and religeous basis as someone else pointed out in the thread.

Civil union? Gosh dude, I hope you dont ever get married.

Really. I tell my close friends that marriage is for gay, gold diggers and losers.

[fooman]

We have set that mindset in motion.


Are you interested in your private or public health insurance subsidizing risky behaviour?

Or should civil unions pay for health insurance comeasurate with thier risky lifestyle?

[Dead Corpse]

For what it's worth, I am in fact happily married.

As for your next post...

Are you interested in your private or public health insurance subsidizing risky behaviour?
Or should civil unions pay for health insurance comeasurate with thier risky lifestyle?

Private of course. Government should have left the health care industry alone in the first place. Socializing it was the worst possible solution.

Risky behavior has its costs and people need to start owning up to their own consequences instead of getting others to foot the bill.

[Roscoe]

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.

They'll welcome the social degradation.

[tdadams]

OK, we can theorize and talk about hypotheticals all day long on the boards at FR, and that all irrelevant to the real world.

But you just used your own daughter in an example that is so demeaning and so disgusting no father in their right mind would consider even mentioning that hypothetically. You, sir, are truly sick.

[fooman]

BTW. I am married to a grounded person, but would not remarry in this environment. 60% chance of divorce now because our culture demands this divorce rate.

Ok, on the insurance issue. But the PC police will make sure that you subsidize this behavior on the backside. You wont will be able to stop this machinery.

Gays are actuarially fives times more promiscuous. Some freeper posted that one study had them with a life expectancy of 47!

But the real costs are subtle and indirect. You will have a feminized culture in the military. People will sign up to make a point, like the drag queens in Kali wanting work. Think what the corps will be like when ‘time outs’ become the cultural norm.

[tdadams]

Some freeper posted that one study had them with a life expectancy of 47!

If you believe everthing the rabid anti-gay freepers post, I've got some real estate you might be interested in.

But the real costs are subtle and indirect. You will have a feminized culture in the military.

You do realize don't you that our men served in joint units with the British troops in the recent Iraqi war, don't you? You do know that the British military permits openly gay men to serve, don't you?

I can't justify abridging someone's rights based on speculation about what might or might not happen as a result of their excercising their liberty.

[fooman]

I was skepitcal too. The health stats are hard to believe, this freeper was well sourced including the CDC.

For the most part the Brits had Basra and we had other stuff.

It will take a while before being gay affects readiness.

I hope I am wrong.

[fooman]

France to add green rights to constitution

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936733/posts

[VRWC_minion]

But you just used your own daughter in an example that is so demeaning and so disgusting no father in their right mind would consider even mentioning that hypothetically. You, sir, are truly sick.

That is simply your opinion basd on antiquated religious views. Fortunately, after this ruling there is nothing you can say about it.