Skip to comments.
SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews
Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
To: LanPB01
A man's gotta know his limitations- Dirty Harry
601
posted on
06/26/2003 10:06:58 AM PDT
by
ffusco
To: Thane_Banquo
RE-ELECT G.W.
GET A
FILIBUSTER-PROOF
CONSERVATIVE
SENATE!
REPLACE THE SCOTUS LIBERALS NOW!
Work hard, but most important: Pray for the people in this nation, and be an example, as Christ was the Supreme Example!
602
posted on
06/26/2003 10:07:28 AM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
To: BlackjackHF
Wrong. They said what was and what wasn't moral. They defined morality. uh... no they didn't.
will you please stop posting until you've actually read the opinion of the court?
To: Liberal Classic
The diet ones can develop almost religious fervor. I haven't seen one on dogs, though.
I have a good impression of Atkins type diets, fwiw.
604
posted on
06/26/2003 10:07:43 AM PDT
by
Sam Cree
(Democrats are herd animals)
To: OWK
into the refuge of reason WHOSE reason? John Doe's reason? Richard Roe's reason?
To: LizardQueen
Pedophilia is illegal,as it should be, because children cannot make an informed consent.
If children can be forced to go to church they can be forced to have sex with adults. End of story. /sarcasm
606
posted on
06/26/2003 10:08:37 AM PDT
by
johnb838
(Understand the root causes of American Anger.)
To: jimt
There will be enormous pressure to make gays.
The media is already talking about HUGH and SERIES victory for gay rights.
607
posted on
06/26/2003 10:08:40 AM PDT
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: Thane_Banquo
If the Supreme Court can invent a right to sodomy, the Constitution is meaningless.
Any guesses as to the actual year our nation lost its status as a constitutional republic? I vote 1973.
608
posted on
06/26/2003 10:08:44 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(In hoc signo, vinces †)
To: Trace21230
Exactly. Just because one doesn't like what someone is doing behind closed doors, the government shouldn't be allowed to break down the doors and arrest people.
To: BlazingArizona
This is a black day for busybodies nationwide. But it is a very white day for germs and diseases nationwide.
To: Liberal Classic
A new category is about Staffordshire Terriers, aka Pit Bulls that seems to be gaining popularity. Totally off topic, but you should see the movie "Best in Show". Freakin' hilarious.
611
posted on
06/26/2003 10:09:14 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: VRWC_minion
Is incest a crime or a taboo (or both)?
612
posted on
06/26/2003 10:10:26 AM PDT
by
ffusco
To: Thane_Banquo
Indeed. Mark my words: This decision will be used by NAMBLA and other child molestors and child pornographers to challenge bans on sexual abuse of children. Yessirree - everyone is going to drop what they're doing and run right out to have sex with dogs!
To: Liberal Classic
I tend to think the SCOUS was right for the wrong reasons.I'm leaning that way, too, but this would have been a ground-breaking decision no matter which way it was decided. The main reason that I think I support the decision is because I'm uncomfortable saying that the states may tell consenting adults what particular positions are acceptable and which are not. I'm all for states' rights, but putting the government at any level in my bedroom is not exactly a good idea. They'd learn far too much! ;^)
The drawback is that gays marriages are now FAR more likely to be supported, since it uses the same logic: consenting adults of the same gender should be allowed to do the same things as mixed gender couples. A very strong, simple, and supportable Equal Protection argument.
Had the Court gone the other way, I would have been happy that states' rights were starting to be respected more, and would have been hopeful that it would be a trend for the future. I need to read the dissents to get more insight into why this decision is a bad one, though, because I trust Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist far too much to think that this is the only thing that was lost today.
To: rintense
Most gays believe they have the *right* to have sex anywhere, not just in the privacy of their own home. Would you be so kind as to provide some information about this? Where did you get this information?
To: B Knotts
Good thing we've got all those Republicans on the court.
Kennedy, Souter and Sundried O'Connor voted pro-sodomy. These people are a disgrace.
616
posted on
06/26/2003 10:11:10 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(In hoc signo, vinces †)
To: nravoter
The logical conclusion of your line of thinking is that the government can regulate your brother-in-law's diet and exercise regimin, lest he die early and leave your sister a destitute burden on society. Once you begin to walk down that proverbial road, there is nothing the government can not and should not regulate. A red herring. There is nothing that governnment cannot regulate or at least attempt to, in human behavior. One only has to change the Constitution, for example, to take away constitutional "rights."
"Slippery slope" is fallacious here as in most places in my humble o.
617
posted on
06/26/2003 10:11:30 AM PDT
by
unspun
("Do everything in love.")
To: Antoninus
The Constitution is whatever 9 "Justices" say it is. The sheeple won't care enough to remove the "Justices" who enshrine pervsion as a "fundamental right". The nation rots.
To: VRWC_minion
A consenting adult is 16. My daughter is 17. Can I have sex with her ? No, but for reasons totally unrelated to those espoused by the moralists in their crusade against gay people.
The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.
There is no such risk with consensual gay sex.
I concede that there were undoubtedly religious and moral beliefs that motivated the anti-incest laws when they were first passed.
Even though these reasons are inappropriate grounds for passing laws limiting personal behavior, there are other legitimate bases for outlawing incest, noted above.
I'm just wondering when the simpletons here will realize that consensual gay sex is not incest. Nor is it pedophilia, nor is it bestiality. The concept is not a difficult one to grasp.
Trace
619
posted on
06/26/2003 10:11:53 AM PDT
by
Trace21230
(Ideal MOAB test site: Paris)
To: BlazingArizona
Wheelbarrow pooch alert
620
posted on
06/26/2003 10:12:31 AM PDT
by
ffusco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson