SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[jmc813]

Fun to read and watch, if you like flamewar threads that say the same thing every time they are posted.

Hell, I maintain the Drug War ping list. I live for those threads. ;-)

[Trace21230]

This thread is moving way too fast for me to even consider refuting all the usual straw men.

You are witnessing the temper tantrums of a minority that has been exposed as exactly that.

Most people still believe in American values like individualism and liberty. This decision memorializes those virtues, and they don't like it.

Trace

[wimpycat]

...but it is way beyond the pale to lie and say they're for pedophiles.

You mean I can't paint them? Shoot, and here I was all ready to paint some Libertarians.

[The Red Zone]

Just as I thought. Fifth degree foolishness.

[jmc813]

If they are against the government legislating morality, they are against the government banning pedophilia.

If someone is against the government banning alcohol, does that automatically mean they want marijuana legalized?

[Liberal Classic]

Who do you despise more, Browne or Buchanan?

Browne. At least Pat Buchanan doesn't lie about believing that Congress is Israeli-occupied territory.

[OWK]

It's just a simple little question.

What are rights?

What are their extent?

What are their limitations?

Why are you afraid to answer?

[MineralMan]

"I can hardly credit that on a website called "Free Republic", that people would be having a serious discussion of what laws should govern bedroom conduct between consenting adults."

It's simple. Many here are conservatives in name only. They're for what suits them, but against anything that goes against their particular religious beliefs. That way, they can claim conservatism while advocating that all gays be punished, along with all Muslims and anyone else they don't like.

The Constitution? It's irrelevant to such folks, except as it applies directly to their desires.

[Dead Corpse]

(eyes narrow) Say..... you aren't one of them rapist child molesters, are ya?

Nope. I have been known to cause hair cancer though...

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Buchanan, hands down. Browne is a distant second, LOL.

Hell, Ol' Pat is probably rolling around on the floor and frothing at the mouth about now.

[Trace21230]

If you are in favor of this ruling you are in favor of pedophilia because you are saying that the government has no right to ban it.

1. This decision deals with consensual adult sex.

2. Pedophilia is never consensual because children cannot consent to sex.

3. There is no comparison between the two.

4. You look very foolish and ignorant when you treat them as the the same thing.

Trace

[RAT Patrol]

you've got it just backward. scotus did not create a law imposing a certain morality, it struck down a law which did so.

As Scalia said in his dissent, it is not the Court's place to do either. That is the job of the people and their elected representatives (legislatures). You should read the dissent. Imposing the concept that the morality of a community cannot be reflected in its laws is imposing morality -- immorality. The people of Texas have no say, yet they will pay the tab for all the social results. They should be able to bill The 6 Supremes to enforced this on them. They chose it.

[jmc813]

I'm not even gonna touch that one.

[Liberal Classic]

There are three kinds of flamewar threads that get this way. The War Between the States, The War on (some) Drugs, and Microsoft versus Linux.

[puroresu]

So giving unelected federal judges the power to write state law is decreasing the size of government?

There are actually some restrictions on liberty that enhance liberty overall.

Think of it like this. Traffic laws restrict your liberty. They require you to stop at red lights, drive on the right side of the yellow line, etc. However, they actually enhance your liberty to travel. How far would you get if all the traffic laws were repealed, and people were "liberated" to drive on whichever side of the road they wished, to ignore red lights and stop signs, to park wherever they wished?

Laws which keep homosexuality in the closet do, technically, restrict the liberty of the few people wishing to engage in that disgusting behavior. But they enhance the overall liberty of society. Because uncloseted homosexuality goes on a rampage against the liberty of the general populace.

It starts with disease. Homosexual acts are far more likely to transmit disease than heterosexual acts. So the bathhouse culture that arises when homosexual conduct is legalized and tolerated triggers a sharp increase in AIDS and other STDs. The result? Billions more in tax dollars is siphoned out of our pockets to pay medical bills, and taxation is itself a restriction on liberty.

Next, uncloseted homosexuals demand that opposition to or even disapproval of their conduct be suppressed. So we get speech codes telling us what we can and can't say. We get called a bigot if we fail to take our small children to Disneyworld on "Gay Day". We get governmental decrees ordering schools to teach your kids that homosexuality is normal, and if your religion teaches otherwise, well then, it's "bigoted". We get more and more laws dicatating who people can hire, who they can rent an apartment to, etc. It'll soon be a federal crime to refuse to rent to a pair of drag queens carrying whips and chains. In California, they're about to pass a law requiring employers to hire cross-dressers.

To satisfy the gay lobby, we came within one Supreme Court vote of completely losing our freedom of association (the Boy Scout case) and the pro-gay forces are determined to overturn that ruling just as they did the Hardwick ruling today.

So in return for a few perverts being able to freely engage in their sickness, we, as a people, see a decrease in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, property rights, monetary rights, and state's rights.

We'll soon be like Sweden, where even ministers can be jailed for up to four years for saying that homosexuality is wrong in the pulpit of their own church.

The gay movement is not libertarian, and neither is the pro-abortion movement, though both present themselves as such when manipulating the libertarian crowd.

[The Red Zone]

Why are you afraid to answer?

Keep on confirming your fifth degree foolishness.

[Teacher317]

What are rights? What are their extent? Define them for me.

Two of the most important and appallingly unaddressed questions of our age.

Here's my best answer, (but I understand that it probably isn't perfect):
Rights are those things that any free adult individual can assert, that the government can guarantee (or direct compensation/retribution if violated) equally for all, and that does not trespass upon the Rights retained by others.

I could assert the Right to pick my nose, and it does not trespass upon the Rights of others, but the government can't guarantee that Right if I have no arms or fingers. Therefore, it is not a Right.

Animal Rights do not exist, because there is no way to monitor and guarantee them for all animals.

Group Rights and preferential treatments like AA are not Rights, because I cannot assert some of them due to the circumstances of my birth (gender, skin color, etc).

[The Red Zone]

There are three kinds of flamewar threads that get this way. The War Between the States, The War on (some) Drugs, and Microsoft versus Linux.

No, four. Creation vs. evolution.