SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[Thorondir]

There is no right to privacy in the 14th amendment. It was invented by leftists to protect certain immoral behaviors, like abortion, and will eventually be used by the left to support overturning laws against child molestation and pornography.

Which is exactly what the commielib perverts want, especially those who come on the FR and make a great pretense of being Christian and conservative just to argue for the side of darkness.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

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?

Most of the people who think the sky is falling know that is not the case. They are just mad that there is now one more area where they can not use the force of law to punish people who engage in behavior that, albeit private, disgusts them. I think its that simple. Heck, one poster even said something like "Why is it wrong to have laws that demean people". The law is their last means of punishing those they dislike without having to use the tactics of people like E.R. Rudolph. Without their wishes for retribution being codefied in law, they have to look inside themselved and realize that harming others is wrong. Too many people rely on government to dictate and enforce their morality. When they as an individual are forced with either leaving the person they dislike alone, or handing out punishment themselves, they back down.

[freeeee]

There is NO right to PRIVACY in the CONSTITUTION. Those words DO NOT exist in the 4th amendment.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Grando Calrissian]

Never underestimate the perfidy of the Gay Mafia. Mark my words, in 10 years the new national anthem will be "Believe" by Cher.

[MineralMan]

"Laws that restrict sexual habits that violate rights, like laws preventing adults from having sex with kids, or rape, will be perfectly legitimate"

Indeed they will. It is a straw man to suggest that this narrow decision affects anything but sodomy laws where such activity takes place in private.

The sky, despite all reports from the religious right, is not falling.

[VRWC_minion]

Laws that restrict sexual habits that violate rights, like laws preventing adults from having sex with kids, or rape, will be perfectly legitimate.

how so if they are done in the privacy of our own homes ?

Please explain why my 16 year old daughter and I cannot have sex.

[OWK]

Good to see you.

[HumanaeVitae]

First of all, you're careering into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence here, and your missing my point. First off, if you want to talk about the 4A, I can point you to the recent SCOTUS decision in the case of Kyllo v. US, the majority opinion written by none other than Antonin Scalia, which upheld a kind of "my home is my castle" standard in terms of 4A privacy. In this case, the court found that the infared imaging and detection of marijuana plants being grown by Kyllo from outside his home by the cops was unconstitutional because it represented an unreasonable 4A search. Again, Scalia wrote the majority opinion (which I wholly agree with), the same Scalia that wrote today's dissent (I haven't read it yet) in Lawrence v. Texas.

You seem to believe that I'm pushing for the right of cops to employ some kind of infared HomoCam to root out homosexuals engaging in sodomy in their apartments. You're missing the point completely. First, in the case of Lawrence the 'fruits basically set the police up to come into their apartment while they were in flagrante dilecto. It was a set-up. The purpose, of course, was to challenge this law.

The point here is that these laws are rarely enforced, and mostly when they are it's for some kind of public sex. It is impossible to enforce these laws in private. I'm sure if you went back through arrest records well into the 19th Century, you'd see that these laws were lightly enforced and applied even then. The purpose these laws serve is to reflect the underlying moral structure of society. This law, and others like it, is saying that the community itself disapproves of homosexual conduct. And rightly so. It's a dangerous, disease-spreading, sexually profligate behavior. And so, basically society is saying that they don't want it happening. Does it still happen, even in the teeth of these laws? Of course. But society expresses it's disapproval of this behavior through the law. And now it can't, because the SCOTUS is more attuned to the opinions of the NYT editorial page than it is to the opinions of the people.

The best way for this law to be 'enforced' is to have the people enforce it themselves by shunning homosexuals. And, by the way, that's why it was passed in the first place. Everyone more or less agreed that homosexuality was wrong, and therefore they decided to formalize that sentiment by passing a law proscribing it. If the mores of society change, then the law gets repealed. Your 4A argument is a red herring because you misunderstand the purpose of this law.

Homosexuals, however, do not misunderstand its purpose. They know all too well what laws like this mean. They want their behavior 'normalized'. And so they want the laws that express social disapproval of their disgusting behavior removed. As Rush Limbaugh always says, "don't listen to what they say; watch what they do." Libertarians seem to be listening to what homosexuals have to say. Dupes.

[Thorondir]

You are trying to rain on somebody's (gay) parade. How beastly of you! (/sarcasm}

[ffusco]

A sensible precaution.

[OWK]

Please explain why my 16 year old daughter and I cannot have sex.

Please explain why you want to have sex with your sixteen year old daughter.

[dead]

Mark my words, in 10 years the new national anthem will be "Believe" by Cher.

At that point, it’s “Hello Canada!” for me.

Oh wait, their national anthem will probably be something by Celine Dion.

Hello Iceland! (I love Bjork.)

[VRWC_minion]

Laws concerning non-consensual behavior will be unaffected

Non-consenual is in the eye of the beholder. Who can consent ? At what age ? Who can judge acts done in privacy ?

[wimpycat]

Hey, he asked first. It's only fair that his question is answered first.

[The Green Goblin]

There are five degrees of fool in the Proverbs. I think you've hit #5.

"...but whosoever shall say, 'Thou fool', shall be in danger of hell fire." ---Matthew 5:22

[f.Christian]

It seemed that indeed the truth would be 'forever on the scaffold, and ... wrong (( link )) --- forever on the throne'. With great eagerness he listened to the query, 'How long (( end of evil )) shall be the vision?'(Daniel 8:13)."

[OWK]

It is. But you don't claim to have "an" answer, you claim to have "the" answer, which implies it's the only answer.

I claim to have an answer which is rationally sustainable and objective.

And I seek others who believe they can define the concept in a rationally sustainable, and objective fashion, so as to be able to test my assertions against alternate assertions.

[jethropalerobber]

Is there any doubt [marriage amendment] would pass???

imho, plenty of doubt.

in fact, i'm willing to say you will _never_ get it passed by 2/3 of the senate or 3/4 of the states. you should have tried it 10 years ago - so it goes.

[tdadams]

You're wrong. Trace answered that, but to recap, she is part of your family and as a father with authority over her, a sexual relationship with her is considered exploitation per se, to a criminal extent. Plus you're a sick man if you do that.

Got any other strawmen?

[LanPB01]

Personally, I'm not really worried if you have sex with your 17 year old daughter. It's sick and disgusting, but it's also not my problem (considering that 17 is within the legal age of consent in your area).