Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban
AP via Yahoo ^
| 6/26/03
| AP
Posted on 06/26/2003 7:25:57 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280, 281-298 last
To: DAnconia55
Should society not be moral? Que?
Comment #282 Removed by Moderator
To: Abbie Hoffman
Bwahahaha
283
posted on
06/29/2003 4:14:34 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
To: Churchjack
Should society not be moral? Que? Society does not exist. It's an abstract concept with no physical presence.
Individuals should be moral.
But laws forcing individuals to OBEY do not make moral men.
They make sheep who have lost the capacity to judge.
To: Churchjack
You can prohibit immoral behavior, but you cannot violate the 14th Amendment . . . or are you of the opinion that The Constitution protects everyone except homosexuals? The Texas law targets a class of people for discrimination and is a violation of equal protection. As a South Carolinian, I am very much interested in that and am glad that the same archaic laws are being struck down in my state by this ruling.
285
posted on
06/29/2003 6:12:18 PM PDT
by
jayef
To: jayef
Homosexuals--sodomists--are not a "class" of people. They are individuals engaging in immoral--and until recently, illegal, activity. Unlawful discrimination, in the sense of the 14th, is to prefer or prejudice on the basis of their intrinsic condition, not behavioral preferences.
No, the Constitution does not enumerate protections, explicit or implicit, to the homosexual act.
To: Churchjack
Actually, the 14th Amendment says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything about intrinsic condition. I see that all citizens are guaranteed due process and equal protection. What am I missing? ALL CITIZENS. Is that not clear to you?
287
posted on
06/29/2003 9:15:42 PM PDT
by
jayef
To: jayef
You're right. Wrong amendment.
All citizens are guaranteed due process. Sodomy is not, however, a privelege nor an immunity--it was an illegal act. They're right to due process was not abridged in any way. There was no house-to-house rectum inspection, no roadside checkpoints set up. Someone (whatever the reason) had suspicion of illegal activity and called the cops on'em.
They were subsequently caught in the act.
To: Churchjack
You might say six judges sodomized the constitution.
289
posted on
06/30/2003 5:10:54 AM PDT
by
Rodm
To: aristeides
...to the extent our civilization ceases to be Christian, it will have a very limited lifetime. imho, our nation has succeeded exactly to the extent that it has turned its back on chirst's teachings. are the neocons hawks, with their 12 step plan for american dominance of the 21st century world mostly through military means, are they your idea of good christians?
That is to say, people like you can only live humanist lives to the extent that you allow the bulk of society to remain Christian.
right - care to tell me just how i depend on you good christians for this so-called "humanist" life i am living?
i work, pay taxes, raise children, and obey the law just like everybody else. all i said is that i don't view lifelong celibacy as a badge on honor. extreme self denial is no less self-centered than gluttony.
To: jethropalerobber
For homosexuals to lead celibate lives is extreme self-denial, and somehow wrong? Homosexuals have a moral duty to commit homosexual acts? What planet are you coming from?
To: jayef
What about the class of psychopathic cannibals? Aren't they permitted to have their basic, internal desires fulfilled, not hamstrung by the wacko religious right?
Should they remain "celibate"?
Protect all classes! Equal Due Process under the Law!
292
posted on
06/30/2003 11:12:29 AM PDT
by
bvw
To: aristeides
to answer your question, on the planet i come from, earth, anyone who reamins celibate for life despite having the freedom and opportunity to engage in a sexual relationship is demonstrating extreme self-denial. but then again, perhaps that is just their orientation - in which case there is even less cause to praise them.
but i feel in some sense you mistake my attitude toward these people. if they want to experiment with seeing how their bodies and minds respond to unnatural sexual behaviors like life long celibacy, i say more power to them. we may yet learn something valuable from these trials.
btw, you didn't answer my question:
how exactly do i depend on "christians" for this "humanist" life i am living?
that was a pretty bold claim you made, so i'm sure you've got something to back it up.
To: Churchjack
Again, you've called homosexuals deviants, yet failed to respond to my argument suggesting that they're not. At least try and back up your point.
Homosexuality is no more immoral than heterosexuality.
294
posted on
07/01/2003 5:27:31 AM PDT
by
thakil
To: bvw
Nice straw man. That you would compare the behavior of two consenting adults to that of persons who would harm others to fulfill their desires tells me all I need to know about you.
295
posted on
07/01/2003 3:10:29 PM PDT
by
jayef
To: jayef
It is an actual case of "c.o.s.e.n.t.i.n.g . a.d.u.l.t.s"? Do you find their actions immoral?
296
posted on
07/01/2003 3:18:39 PM PDT
by
bvw
To: jayef
Hmmm ... thought I was reponding to a response to this:
Is there a RIGHT to cannibalism if both adult parties agree? As weird and strange as that sounds that actually happened in Germany last year. (Under the Lawrence Ruling's folly surely it is a protected RIGHT today.) A man placed an ad in a homosexual newsletter or some such asking for someone to volunteer for sex that would include intra-coital-murder and follow-on cannibalism. Someone answered (iirc, multiple respondents) the homosexual cannibal followed through the whole offering with at least one.
Which I had posted up today on another thread.
297
posted on
07/01/2003 3:23:23 PM PDT
by
bvw
To: DAnconia55
Individuals should be moral. But laws forcing individuals to OBEY do not make moral men. Morality is an abstract concept; as in, only it's expression is seen, not the actual object. Society is not abstract in that sense, it's a group of people living in agreement to principles or mechanics or whatever.
Individuals should be moral, but if they ain't, then ya gotta make'em OBEY for the good of the group.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280, 281-298 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