[gogeo]

He clearly addressed the issue of privacy when it came to sex between consenting adults in the context of the sodomy case...and warned about the "dangers" of saying adultery and homosexuality were OK. Now unless he was advocating the sex police busting down the bedroom doors of consenting adults and arresting them for acts of adultery and homosexuality, then his point is moot. And he should have thought before he spoke.

Not true, Jorge...his comments were aimed at the anticipated Supreme Court ruling. It was speculated that, much as Roe V Wade was decided upon a "constitutional right to privacy," anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the same basis. He correctly said that if anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the basis of a "privacy right," then no law limiting sexual activity could pass constitutional muster. That includes pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and animal sex.

This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.

[Jorge]

Not true, Jorge...his comments were aimed at the anticipated Supreme Court ruling. It was speculated that, much as Roe V Wade was decided upon a "constitutional right to privacy," anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the same basis. He correctly said that if anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the basis of a "privacy right," then no law limiting sexual activity could pass constitutional muster. That includes pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and animal sex.

This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.

Please. Everybody's read these arguments 100 times.

And I'm not saying there is no merit to them. I am merely addressing the obvious and practicle implications of his arguments.

There is no need to hide them behind all these entangled and convoluted complications.

[Jorge]

Not true, Jorge...his comments were aimed at the anticipated Supreme Court ruling. It was speculated that, much as Roe V Wade was decided upon a "constitutional right to privacy," anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the same basis. He correctly said that if anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the basis of a "privacy right," then no law limiting sexual activity could pass constitutional muster. That includes pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and animal sex.

This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.

Please. Everybody's read these arguments 100 times.

And I'm not saying there is no merit to them. I am merely addressing the obvious and practicle implications of his arguments.

There is no need to hide them behind all these entangled and convoluted complications.

[Jorge]

Not true, Jorge...his comments were aimed at the anticipated Supreme Court ruling. It was speculated that, much as Roe V Wade was decided upon a "constitutional right to privacy," anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the same basis. He correctly said that if anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the basis of a "privacy right," then no law limiting sexual activity could pass constitutional muster. That includes pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and animal sex.

This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.

Please. Everybody's read these arguments 100 times.

And I'm not saying there is no merit to them. I am merely addressing the obvious and practicle implications of his arguments.

There is no need to hide them behind all these entangled and convoluted complications.