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 ... 621-640, 641-660, 661-680 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
To: tomahawk
We're not "simpletons" to believe that the Constitution doesn't prohibit laws on the books for 140 years that say that buggery is illegal. If you can't see the difference between adult consensual sex and pedophilia/necrophilia/bestiality then yes you are a simpleton.
Trace
641
posted on
06/26/2003 10:17:27 AM PDT
by
Trace21230
(Ideal MOAB test site: Paris)
To: Trace21230
Don't forget the inherent possibilities of abuse of power and trust as well as the manipulation that goes along with incest - which is why it is deemed a criminal act.
642
posted on
06/26/2003 10:17:39 AM PDT
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(Winning flame wars on the net is like winning a medal at the Special Olympics)
To: Those_Crazy_Liberals
I would support that. He's never going to ride the sodomy card into the CJ's chair. Definitely. Outside of the homosexuality cases, he's nowhere near liberal enough for the RATs, and his open support for them kills his chances of being elevated by a Pubbie.
643
posted on
06/26/2003 10:18:16 AM PDT
by
steveegg
(Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, air-burst artillery and thermonuclear weapons)
To: Antoninus
I'm ready. It's time for a Marriage Amendment. Isn't your marriage a covenant between yourself and your spouse, and potentially your God?
Or are you also married to the state?
644
posted on
06/26/2003 10:18:22 AM PDT
by
OWK
To: Antoninus
I'm ready. It's time for a Marriage Amendment. Is there any doubt it would pass??? Let's get moving on it! I think some members of this SCOTUS would find the amendment to be unconstitutional.
To: OWK
Criminalize the common cold now! When you outlaw colds only outlaws will.....nevermind.
646
posted on
06/26/2003 10:18:41 AM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(Ohio Chapter. Original White Devil for Sharpton!)
To: Paradox
Thats not neccessarily true. The guy who washes my car is a Libertarian, however, the car hasn't been running all that well, I wonder if he has been sodomizing the exhaust pipe... See. This is precisely the slippery slope that is caused by this SCOTUS ruling. Soon libertarians will be sodomizing gutters, mail boxes, and even vending machines.
To: VRWC_minion
You're a little sick to be personalizing it that way.
I'd never talk about my daughters like that.
You might reconsider how that makes you look.
648
posted on
06/26/2003 10:19:10 AM PDT
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(Winning flame wars on the net is like winning a medal at the Special Olympics)
To: Trace21230
The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable. I beg to differ. The main reason against incest and rather obvious is the detriment to the child being sexually abused or used by the adult parent. I'm not aware of any cultures outside dog cultures that endorse parent/child incest.
649
posted on
06/26/2003 10:19:24 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
(DIVERSITY IS BEST SERVED EARNED)
To: nravoter; unspun
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. I think communist regimes like China and North Korea do this based on such a reason of "obvious" government interest.
650
posted on
06/26/2003 10:19:49 AM PDT
by
GraniteStateConservative
(Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
To: tomahawk
Have you visited public restrooms recently? Have you visited public parks? I've seen them doing it there. Then criminalize public sexuality.
And quit pretending that criminalizing private homosexuality constitutes the same thing.
651
posted on
06/26/2003 10:24:17 AM PDT
by
OWK
To: Trace21230
The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.
So using this logic, I guess a father can screw his 16 year old son, then? If not, on what grounds would you oppose such acts?
652
posted on
06/26/2003 10:24:17 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(In hoc signo, vinces †)
To: Trace21230
The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.
So using this logic, I guess a father can screw his 16 year old son, then? If not, on what grounds would you oppose such acts?
653
posted on
06/26/2003 10:24:17 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(In hoc signo, vinces †)
To: VRWC_minion
So, If I put my 17 year old daughter on the pill we can then have sex. No, for several obvious reasons.
1. The pill is not a failsafe birth control measure.
2. The emotional damage inflicted on a child makes the child of the parent incapable of consent, even if they are otherwise competent.
3. The family is a traditional American institution where the boundaries of authority (i.e. father/daughter, mother/son) must be respected in order to stregthen and preserve the family unit. Sex with relatives destroys that.
There is a better case for de-criminalizing "incest" with first cousins, but I'm not prepared to go there yet.
Trace
654
posted on
06/26/2003 10:24:18 AM PDT
by
Trace21230
(Ideal MOAB test site: Paris)
To: tomahawk
Have you visited public restrooms recently? Have you visited public parks? I've seen them doing it there. Then criminalize public sexuality.
And quit pretending that criminalizing private homosexuality constitutes the same thing.
655
posted on
06/26/2003 10:24:19 AM PDT
by
OWK
To: Thane_Banquo
This decision should cut both ways. What people do in the privacy of their bedroom shouldn't entitle them to preferential treatment.
To: MissAmericanPie
"OK, so Texas fix the anal intercourse ban so it applies to all genders. Problem solved."
And I live right next door to two who are as discreet as anybody can be. Not only do they shut their blinds, but when friends came over and started to hold hands in the back yard, they stopped them because they didn't think it would be appropriate for our kids to see. It's the hetero couple four doors down that we have a problem with exhibiting themselves.
You never know.
657
posted on
06/26/2003 10:24:20 AM PDT
by
kegler4
To: wardaddy
I'm not aware of any cultures outside dog cultures that endorse parent/child incest. Ain't that the truth. Does the AKC recognize them when they're bred that close?
658
posted on
06/26/2003 10:24:21 AM PDT
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(Winning flame wars on the net is like winning a medal at the Special Olympics)
To: MissAmericanPie
"OK, so Texas fix the anal intercourse ban so it applies to all genders. Problem solved."
And I live right next door to two who are as discreet as anybody can be. Not only do they shut their blinds, but when friends came over and started to hold hands in the back yard, they stopped them because they didn't think it would be appropriate for our kids to see. It's the hetero couple four doors down that we have a problem with exhibiting themselves.
You never know.
659
posted on
06/26/2003 10:24:21 AM PDT
by
kegler4
To: rintense
Homos have FIVES TIMES more partners. They also are three times more likely to have sex with animals than heteros.
660
posted on
06/26/2003 10:24:21 AM PDT
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640, 641-660, 661-680 ... 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