SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[fooman]

I can voting for being construed as a natural right, but not buggery or stealing...


...wait we have legalized stealing through socialist tax system.

[fooman]

1677 is yet another tour de force from you.

I still think privacy is a canard.

I could see it being a ‘natural’ right that the states could recognize. I could also see it being a constitutional amendment, which it should be. The era of big government databases demands this.

However, privacy is never a veil for illegal activity, like rape and incest. So the court should decide whether the activity is illegal or not. The court loses credibility when it uses privacy to cover up illegal activity.

[puroresu]

Thanks! Upon re-reading my post, though, I see that I phrased something incorrectly. I said that the 9th amendment doesn't give the federal courts the authority to enfore any rights at all. I should have specified that that means they can't enforce rights against a state. The 9th amendment does give the federal courts the power to block federal intrusions on rights issues involving states.

For example, prior to adoption of the 19th amendment (female suffrage) states were free to grant or withhold the vote from women as they wished. The Supreme Court, under the 9th amendment, couldn't stop a state from either permitting or prohibiting women from voting. However, had the U.S. Congress tried to stop a state from permitting women to vote, the Supreme Court would have been within their power to protect female voting rights, as granted by the state in question, from federal restriction.

[Redcloak]

In case you hadn't noticed, it's not the 18th century anymore. I doubt that the Founders would have had an opinion on, let's say, the right to publish on the internet or on any similar subject. As society expands, so does its understanding of the law. Much of what's discussed today was science fiction 50 years ago. Were we to stick to an "antique" view of the Constitution, then the 2nd Amendment would only apply to flintlocks and the 1st Amendment would only apply to Ben Franklin's hand-cranked printing press. You may not like this, but your dislike won't change reality.

[fooman]

I agree with Drudge that founders would have loved the Internet as apposed to the 'Gatekeeper' media that we have now.

It is similiar to the old phamplet presses.

Homo sex is not comparable as 'new technology guns' its an old practise.

[Redcloak]

Homo sex is not comparable as 'new technology guns' its an old practise.

It is, however, one of the unenumerated rights of the 9th Amendment. I have yet to see anyone use the text of the Constitution to show otherwise. And I don't disagree that gay sex is immoral and evil. Slavery was immoral and evil as well, but it was guaranteed in the Constitution. It took a Constitutional amendment to remove it and a similar amendmwnt is required to remove buggery from the scope of the 9th Amendment.

[fooman]

Slavery was always wrong as it goes against natural law.

A document without mention of a creator that gives natural law is artbitrary. Thats why the Euro constitution is an aberration.

Slavery is never right.

[First Amendment]

I doubt that the Founders would have had an opinion on, let's say, the right to publish on the internet or on any similar subject.

You're not even comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing apples and lumps of coal. Publishing on the Internet or a handcranked printing press are essentially the same.

The right to sodomy did not exist when this country was founded and it does not exist now.

What you are espousing is called social Darwinism, moral relativity. It is the "absolute truth" of saying that there Is No Absolute Truth.

. As society expands, so does its understanding of the law.

In other words, as society devolves, what is accepted as normal degrades to include more and more repellent and vicious behaviors.

So if tomorrow or the next year or next decade necrophilia gains a significant following, that can be mandated into a legally protected act because "we're not in the 20th century."

[First Amendment]

And I don't disagree that gay sex is immoral

"Gay sex" often involves disgusting practices which we have all heard about but I will very briefly mention here (fisting, Sadism and Masochism, bondage, "golden showers", scat rolling, wildly anonymous multiple partners, etc). Do you find all of these practices moral, then?

Are there any sexual practices that you do find immoral? (Not counting forcible rape since I assume that everyone here finds that immoral.)

[fooman]

necrophilia, hey thats a good one. IT does not require consent.

We can have the sex of the 22nd century today!

[fooman]

whats a golden shower? whats scat rolling? I have heard anus licking (deases are spread through the stomach). I honestly have not heard of these terms.

Sex ed for all on FR

[fooman]

It is not wonder all the exciting new things our children and grandchildren will learn as a result of this ruling!

[First Amendment]

ALERT - Disgusting information alert!

Golden showers is when homosexuals urinate on each other (including in the mouth) for "pleasure".
Scat rolling is when they roll in - scat, excrement. And do other things with it.

Unfortunately, they actually do these things. I have a good friend who was been active in promoting the marriage amendment in Hawaii, and I learned a lot from him. These and similar practices are actually not that uncommon among homsexuals. And I didn't mention the fact that they are much more prone to molest the young.

[First Amendment]

You can read about "Fistgate" - probably do a search on it here. There was a seminar or whatever you call it in MA for middleschool age (and up, I guess) to teach kids all about fisting and other aspects of homo sex.

[fooman]

They are also many times more likely to experiment with animals.

Well yummy! Dont you think the equal protection clause will now require that we teach this to kids in high school

They must be given this information so they can chose which lifestyle they want.

[First Amendment]

It is required to teach it K-12 in California schools since 2001.

[fooman]

I remember it well.

Its fun to debate the logic behind interlocking clauses of the constitution.

I do not think people realize what this will do 10 20 years from now.

Of the sex revolution has now given us 60% divorce rate. Nothing succeeds like success.

[fooman]

what do the K kids like best? The scat rolling or the golden shower part?

[Redcloak]

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote. "Don't" modifies "disagree".

[fooman]

Which post number?