SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[tdadams]

Let me guess, it was Remedy? He keeps a ton of stuff he's ready to cut-n-paste at a moment's notice. If you look at any of it independently and scratch just a bit under the surface, it easy enough to dismiss his "statistics".

You're probably correct about the deployments in Iraq, I'm not certain. But nonetheless, the British and U.S. troops conduct joint training operations on a regular basis without problems. The British have permitted openly homosexual men to serve in their military for many years now (not sure the exact number, but I think it's been at least about 20) with very little turbulence (none that I can actually recall hearing about).

[fooman]

I dont remember. There is tons of stuff on gay health risks and the fact the 70% 80% of the transmission happens from needles and/or gay sex.

There was also an article yesterday talking about how the anus rips and is not designed to handle this kind of activity.

Then there it is tranmission of hepititus and so on.

I posted the France link because it illustrates the pathology process underway there.

[fooman]

It is fun debating you all. I will check in over the weekend.

[tdadams]

I'm going to quit playing your folly before I say what I really think of you and get myself banned.

[steve-b]

We should be fair.

ROFL!! Telling KC to be fair and honest is like telling Bill Clinton to keep his zipper shut.

[tdadams]

Well, Remedy likes to post that stuff because there's a very high shock and disgust factor to it. But personally, I'm not doing that, so I really don't care. If someone engages in that kind of activity, the risk is theirs.

Let's be honest, there is plenty of cost to society for all sorts of behavior. Realistically, heterosexuals probably cost society more than homosexuals. With about 97% of the population being heterosexual, and a good percentage of those being nonmonogamous, there are a lot of STDs and unplanned pregnancies that society is paying for.

[steve-b]

In my example, the society would determine the scope of property rights.

If you believe in socialism, what the devil are you doing here?

[steve-b]

There was a pre-existing, informal, covenantal agreement forbidding homosexuality.

Obviously, a homosexual has not chosen to abide by any such "agreement", and it thus does not exist.

[steve-b]

If you assert the right to homosexual sex, I can and will assert the right not to be around people who engage in homosexual sex.

  "You don't like the Goths?"
  "No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
  "Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
  "Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
  "But I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
  "That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country! If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
  -- L. Sprague deCamp (Lest Darkness Fall)

[Grando Calrissian]

That's the Tenderloin isn't it?

The edge of it. Market Street in that area divides the Tenderloin, the worst part of SOMA, and the worst part of the Mission district.

[steve-b]

OWK's post #1077 covers free association in libertarian societies. I suggest you re-read it.

LOL! Is anybody supposed to believe that HV read that, or anything else that conflicts with its prejudices, in the first place?

[ffusco]

I had a ggod time in SF in 91. Too bad it is now almost a gay Disney-land.

[jethropalerobber]

No, I still would.

so when you said "this behavior damages society" because "sex is for procreation" that was just hand waving to cover for your real motivation for criminalizing sodomy: a religious belief that it's immoral. i'll thank you for keeping your religion out of my government.

I'm consistently amused by you libertarians always instantly promoting social conservatives to positions of super-authority.

first, the rejection of theocracy does not make one a libertarian. and second, since when does asking someone a question equal "promoting" them to "super-authority"? dear God what an ego. your opinions do not even carry the authority of an honest and logically consistant argument. most of the questions posed to you on this board are intended to uncover your ignorance, not ellicit your insights.

[steve-b]

The best way for this law to be 'enforced' is to have the people enforce it themselves by shunning homosexuals. And, by the way, that's why it was passed in the first place.

You've got it completely wrong, as usual. If people genuinely shun a certain form of behavior, then it will die out on its own.

For example, the reason Jim Crow laws were passed was not because all whites were prejudiced against blacks -- it was because some whites were not so prejudiced, at least not to the point of rejecting the economic benefits of doing business with blacks.

[steve-b]

But if something is outlawed, then society is saying it is immoral.

Society says that it is immoral to drive on the left side of the street?

(No, you can't evade the issue by pointing out the obvious fact that everybody needs to drive on the same side of the street. What is outlawed in the US is driving on the left side of the street. This example, among others, proves that at the law has a significant component of pure arbitrariness.)

[steve-b]

Libertarians aren't friends of democracy.

Nobody in their right mind is a friend of the process whereby two wolves and a lamb vote on today's lunch menu.

[Grando Calrissian]

San Francisco is, and has always been a freak show dating back to the days of Emperor Norton. Part of it's charm. Admittedly it's not for everyone, but I for one could never live in a place like Salt Lake City.

[Aquinasfan]

Karl?

Karl Marx?

Why do we send men off to fight wars?

[jethropalerobber]

I for one could never live in a place like Salt Lake City.

ever been there?

[af_vet_rr]

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.

I agree in general, the language dealing with the way marriages/civil unions are handled should be cleaned up. Let them (gays) have a civil union, as well as heterosexual couples who do not believe in/want marriage, but want the benefits. I'm fine with it since I consider that more of a legal/financial issue than anything and the states can/should regulate the way civil unions are handled since that gets into matters that are handled by the states (insurance, financial, etc.).

At the other end, discussing marriage, I think the government should stay out of it. You shouldn't have to get a license (i.e. the state's permission) to marry somebody, especially when handled in a religious context (which is where marriage belongs). Marriage belongs in God's realm, not the state's realm.