Posted on 10/24/2005 12:27:04 PM PDT by Hunterb
That's just silly. If "somebone's morals" are your criteria for writing law, you'll get all sorts of goofy laws. Heck, the liberals use that as their justification for micromanaging the lives and businesses of everybody else.
I would say that if you're looking for some over-reaching basis, I'd say that all law is based on protection of property, including the property of one's person. The first laws were created to protect the property of the Sultan/Pharaoh/Chieftain/King. Each successive reformation from the Magna Carta to the Constitution extended that protection to more and more citizens.
But that's not really what we're talking about here. There is no impact on either property or person. To the extent it is a crime, it's a victimless crime between consenting adults. There is no Constitutional basis for those laws, and the 14th Amendment makes the validity of these types of laws shaky at best.
This whole issue comes down to a conflict between the rights of individuals and the powers of the state. Given this conflict, and in the absence of an impact on uninvolved parties, I'll take liberty every time. Freedom doesn't mean "the right to make the choices I want you to make."
After all, do we really want the government deciding what kind of sex people should be allowed to have? Is that what conservatism is really all about?
Now you are making me responsible for knowing about a conversation you are having with someone else?
I wouldn't dream of it, until you accused me of "bait and switch". If you didn't want me to hold you accountable for the posts, you shouldn't have challenged me on what I did or didn't say.
Not to mention the snarky DU comment - if you're going to insult the integrity of posters, please make sure you know what you're talking about first.
I suggest you quit interpreting and just read what it plainly says.
I am.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Yes and one of the rights retained by the people is to vote for representatives who will pass laws that are wanted by the people. Judges are overstepping their authority by striking down those laws. Laws that are completely acceptable under the constitution. Laws that regulate behaviour. like homosexual behaviour. If that is what the people want. Clearly that is what the people wanted however since the liberals could not sway the public they turned to judges. Unelected Judges that do not represent the people.
Yes and one of the rights retained by the people is to vote for representatives
I'm in complete agreement so far.
who will pass laws that are wanted by the people. Judges are overstepping their authority by striking down those laws. Laws that are completely acceptable under the constitution.
Still in complete agreement.
Laws that regulate behaviour. like homosexual behaviour. If that is what the people want.
Now I cannot agree. The people do not have the right to pass un-Constitutional laws. The Department of Education is extra-Constitutional, no matter how many Americans like it.
The Constitution is clear about the limits of the power of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment extended the limits on powers to the states. Doesn't matter if 100% of the people want extra-Constitutional laws, the laws are still invalid because they have no basis in the Constitution.
Clearly that is what the people wanted however since the liberals could not sway the public they turned to judges. Unelected Judges that do not represent the people.
And once again, we are in agreement. Activist judges are bad. But in asking them uphold laws that states have no basis in the Constitution passing in the first place, you're asking for your own kind of activist judges. And those activist judges are bad, too.
The Constitution limits the powers of government. It does not limit the freedoms retained by the people.
So you support torture by police toward U.S. citizens.
I am not even sure if someone was even killed considering Worldnetdaily has heavily exaggerating their reports over the past five to six years.
The propensity to paint the middle with the extreme is an unfortunate fact of social and political discourse these days.
I don't buy it.
To suggest that gays (all gays?) are "without doubt the most promiscuous amoral group of people around today" is the same as suggesting the Eric Robert Rudolph is the one true voice of the pro-life movement. It's just silly, BP.
BTW, your post could be read as someone "coming out". You are suggesting that you know the things you say are true, as they "do not hesitate to make it known to one another", followed by "Course you wouldn't know that, being a straight guy, would you now."
I'm proud of you, it's very bold what you have done. I didn't realize that you were speaking from your own personal experience (not that there's anything wrong with that). Self-loathing, though, is not at all a healthy thing.
Now I cannot agree. The people do not have the right to pass un-Constitutional laws. The Department of Education is extra-Constitutional, no matter how many Americans like it.
So what you are saying is we cannot have laws that regulate behaviour. So no laws against public intoxication, having sex with animals, public nudity, homosexuality etc...
So if those things are against what the framers wanted when they wrote the constitution then why didn't they (in their time) strike down those laws. Those laws existed when they were in power so why didn't they declare them unconstitutional then?
In this case, I support exactly what I stated.
Defining a law as 'goofy' is a subjective view. Is 'goofy' good or bad? By your post, one could easily assume you believe it to be bad, which is a moral judgment.
Thank you for proving my point, even though you didn't mean to do so.
Not in the bedrooms of normal people.
But in the bedrooms of weirdos is OK.
That was exactly my point. Laws based solely on morality are inherently subjective. I think the wearing of plaids and stripes ought to be a crime. Actually criminalizing it, however, is bad policy.
Actions should not be criminialized just because you don't want to do them.
Give the government control over some aspects of other peoples' lives, and it'll sieze control of yours. I'm surprised that so many people who call themselves "conservatives" forget that.
Poor boy, are you looking for a date, sorry but I doubt that I'm your type, being a homophobe and all. Besides it really doesn't sound all that enjoyable, but that's just me.
I didn't want to say it when you reponded, but it always seems that when someone has to tell you that they are not greedy and money means nothing to them or that they are a honest, trustworthy kinda guy the opposite is true. So your "I'm as straight as an arrow" line kinda tipped your hand. Not that I have anything against you as a person , but your lifestyle is going to kill you and those you practise it with.
So all th JR High stuff aside, I guess you would like us to believe that homosexuals are monogamous, practice fidelity with their one life partner and that homosexual activities are normal and perfectly safe?
LOL.
It must be great to live in a binary world. Life is so much simpler there.
You were the one who suggested you had the inside track to knowledge about amoral gay promiscuity, and that they don't fear to share that fact amongst themselves, not I.
You have spent your time with gays talking about amoral promiscuity, I have spent mine talking about jobs, homes, families, etc., without getting into their sex lives. I don't want to hear about that any more than I want to hear about the sex lives of the 20-something single heteros in my office. Could it be that the world is not so simple as you would have it?
Please feel free to get the last word in, as I think this exchange has outlived its humor value.
DMZ,
It pretty much outlived it's value altogether with your first post, when you decided to get involved, with no other intention than to try and get a zinger in. Thanks for playing.
Kindest Regards,
Boiler Plate
Isn't it kind of hard to exaggerate murder?
Can you name a law that is based on objective truth and not subjective opinion?
Actions should not be criminialized just because you don't want to do them.
In the same way, actions should not be DEcriminalized just because you want them to be.
In the same way, actions should not be DEcriminalized just because you want them to be.
I think you have it backwards, friend.
I expect the government to have to justify its authority on matters to the people, not the other way around.
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.