SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[The Red Zone]

I am not answering the One Who Kookoos because he will not accept an answer that rights have a nature and foundation that are ineffable because they are in God; thus they can't be spelled out on a computer screen. He has explicitly ruled that logical possibility out already by his question. He has made it into a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of question, when I don't even have a wife to beat.

[Grando Calrissian]

Yes. In the abridged version, they have actually compiled statistics that show the best Christian schools to lurk in front of and have done psychological test to figure out the best color shirts to wear when confronting young fundamenalist Christian children.

In case your curious, that color is mauve.

[huck von finn]

You probably misunderstood...I don't think the sky is falling. I'm just wondering how decriminalizing oral and anal sex creates "preferential treatment" for anyone. I don't see that it does.

[freeeee]

I can't believe you are arguing for Nanny Statism because to do otherwise it might endanger your socialist Medicare.

It's always interesting to see conservatives promote the intrusions that accompany socialism.

The most insidious thing about socialism is that once people are dependent upon entitlements for their needs, the smallest details of how they live become regulated by those paying the bills.

It's the Golden Rule: He Who Has The Gold Makes The Rules.

Conservatives don't see that instead of fighting socialism to begin with, by promoting the accompanying intrustions, they do it's most insidious bidding.

[88keys]

The premise of your argument--that children can consent to sex with adults--is totally false. Yet you unsuprisingly and blithely ignore the unalterable fact that sex with a child is not comparable to consent sex between two mentally competent adults.

In sum, your hysterical claims are totally unpersuasive.

I'm certainly not in favor of any "hysteria" going on here, but...I think some are overlooking the point that "children" and "mentally competent" are legally defined terms, and if the Supreme Court can overturn laws based on an interpretation of what constitutes a "right", it's not out of the question that the legal definitions of "children" and "mentally competent" could also be revised in accordance with "changing times"...

I'm glad someone finally mentioned "mentally competent"...how many criminals plead "innocent" based on that definition? Anyone remember the movement several years ago to allow "children" to "divorce" their parents? The point isn't really the Texas law per se, it's "judicial legislating", the "reading into" the Constitution of so-called "complete privacy rights", and the Federal imposition of "mandates"...

It's a safe bet this one "innocuous" ruling that seems very sensible will really end up opening a can of worms.

[OWK]

I disagree. Lying is definitely immoral, but few would advocate a law outlawing it.

I would (provided it results in violation of the rights of others).

[f.Christian]

Shock (( SOON )) -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... AWE --- you haven't seen anything - yet

... unprecedented ---

Syllables: un-prec-e-dent-ed

Part of Speech adjective Pronunciation uhn preh sih dehn tihd

Definition 1. having no precedent; never before observed or experienced.

Related Words prodigious , original , phenomenal , novel , miraculous

[kegler4]

"I don't understand why no one is willing to take a cut at it."

You know why, of course. There's no one "right" answer to any of the questions, but whoever attempts to answer will be pummelled by those who think they DO have the right answers. I assume most of us aren't into masochism.

[wimpycat]

But if you have the answers, as you claim, then you don't need to hear them from anybody else.

All I want is sincere and legitimate answers to the questions.

For some reason, that statement reminds me of some cherub-faced doe-eyed kid caught in the act of being up to no good at all. But what is "sincere"? What is "legitimate"? LOL!

I hope you're not reiterating the questions for my benefit. I'm certainly not going to answer them. Because you already "know".

[OWK]

I am not answering the One Who Kookoos because he will not accept an answer that rights have a nature and foundation that are ineffable because they are in God; thus they can't be spelled out on a computer screen.

So you state that they cannot be defined?

But you want to make laws regarding them?

That's kinda weak man.

[HumanaeVitae]

Just because something is not outlawed does not mean it is not immoral. But if something is outlawed, then society is saying it is immoral. The standard of morality being employed may be flawed, but society's statement about whatever activity is outlawed is clear: it is wrong.

[Roscoe]

fighting socialism

Anal intercourse to the rescue!

[OWK]

But if you have the answers, as you claim, then you don't need to hear them from anybody else.

I thought the purpose of a discussion forum was to exchange ideas.

[jimt]

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

This statement is correct.

But libertarians, while supporting repeal of sodomy and prostitution laws, also support many other measures that homosexuals would not like.

An example would be repeal of all laws restricting freedom of association.

It's perfectly libertarian to run a business that does not serve homosexuals, or to lecture that homosexuality is bad, or to print an ad declaring it sinful, or to refuse to rent to homosexuals, or not to hire them to work for you, or to quit a job because of homosexuals in the workforce, or....

Much of the other crap they want - "celebration" of their lifestyle, state sanction of their "marriages", queer clubs in schools, proselytization of homosexuality in schools, yada, yada - they have no "right" to whatsoever.

Such garbage should be resisted vigorously.

[wimpycat]

I might sour the milk in your fridge though.... ;-)

So THAT's what's been causing it.

[jethropalerobber]

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.

a common response to this is that the assertion of any right must necessarily restrict the rights of others (i.e. the right to violate), making this definition contradictory.

can you remind me how libertarians resolve this problem? is a social contract in which the 'right to violate' is waived part of the bargain?

[68 grunt]

... But the idea of government is propably anethema to an anarchist like you ...

... But the idea of government control is probably commodious to a brownshirt like you. Gee, aren't insults fun?

[MineralMan]

"I've seen heterosexual couples doing it in a park. "

I've seen a _lot_ more heterosexual public sexual activity than homosexual.

[freeeee]

The law is about what you 'ought' do and what you 'ought not' do. Where the law is silent on what you 'ought not' do there is tacit approval. 'Oughts' and 'ought nots' are value-decisions.

In other words, that which is not prohibited is mandatory.

I don't need the state to decide for me whether or not to have oral sex. Only a mindless automaton does. In fact, when the thought crosses my mind, the very last thing that matters to me is what the government thinks about it.

Do you really think a single person who wouldn't have had oral or anal sex when it was illegal will change their behavior because of this ruling?

[Grando Calrissian]

I intend to brush up on my legal knowledge by catching the premier of "Gary the Rat" tonight on Spi. . . er, the new TNN!

Good thing you stopped on the "i". Spike Lee has people lurking the internet ready to pounce people for copyright infringement.