Posted on 08/26/2011 10:37:32 PM PDT by newzjunkey
Don’t forget the rarely enforced co-habitation laws. I mean, when’s the last time you saw a thread specifically about enforcement of co-habitation laws or bringing sodomy laws back? I see it come up only rarely, even in the LDS threads.
Of course, one would have to trust the state not to re-define hetero sex as sodomy, or normal marriage as unlawful cohabitation. Like many have been conditioned to believe that the state defines marriage, many would accept a twisted version of sodomy or shacking up.
Freegards
That is a modern idea based on hedonistic philosophy, not Constitutional at all, that all private behavior should be protected. Incest is a private behavior, as is necrophilia and bestiality. The other point is that those who practice homosexual acts have, throughout history, been known to be pederasts, promiscuous, and have a higher incidence of sex crimes than the general population. That's just for starters of the ways homosexual behavior harms society. Laws against sodomy were never used to kick in doors, they kept the nasty and vile behavior of homosexuals private and in the dark, rather than the way it is now - on the public streets, on TV and in movies, in the class room, on the internet, in government agencies, and in the military.
I want states to be allowed to have sodomy laws. I don’t want the entire country destroyed which is happening as we speak. This whole “wanting the government to define marriage” is a crock of nonsense. The enemy is the left and its special tool of pushing all manner of immorality as normal and natural. The enemy is not people who are trying to fight this.
“I want states to be allowed to have sodomy laws.”
I’m not sure I am against it. But live by the sword, die by the sword. I would definitely try to imagine how our modern culture will twist anything around if given enough time. 40 years ago “gay marriage” was unthinkable by the vast majority. Now the state enforces it in several states, and the trend seems to be for it, in general. In 40 years the homosexualists and statists could very well use the cohabitation laws against those who reject the state’s ever devolving spin on marriage.
“This whole “wanting the government to define marriage” is a crock of nonsense.”
Statists and homosexualists love that many are conditioned to think the state defines the institution of marriage, it provides tremendous control of the culture. Just like they love that the state defines and regulates charity and education for many.
“The enemy is the left and its special tool of pushing all manner of immorality as normal and natural.”
I agree, the left’s favourite tool is using the state to condition and punish. That’s just basic conservative thought, and can be found in the left’s own writings, such as how Marx says to use education.
“The enemy is not people who are trying to fight this.”
I doubt I have ever voted differently than you would have, including on the subject of “gay marriage”.
Freegards
There is only one solution, two pronged.
1. The US fedgov must get pared back to Constitutional duties only.
2. The citizenry have to become a moral and religious people (in general) or no government will work. No system of government, no matter what it is, will work with a population which has a huge percentage of feral beastlike humans with no sense of religion based morality, which is the only place morality comes from. Of course, the voice of God within the heart is paramount, but godless immoral people cannot hear His voice. Unless they are sincerely seeking truth, then His voice can lead them closer to Him.
The founders knew our Constitutional form of government would never work with an immoral and godless population.
“Of course, the voice of God within the heart is paramount, but godless immoral people cannot hear His voice. Unless they are sincerely seeking truth, then His voice can lead them closer to Him.”
The good news concerning that is that some faiths aren’t ever going to change on marriage, no matter what the gov’t does because they realize they don’t have that authority. The bad news is that the state is going to punish those who disagree with it on what is a marriage. It is a shame that it has this power in the first place, in my opinion. And it is never going to remove itself from the institution now, there are too many on both sides that just don’t want it to happen.
Freegards
I don’t disagree with you. In a healthy society, with a strong moral climate, laws regulating private behavior are unnecessary because most people know right from wrong from their church, and a few perverts buggering themselves or the pets they own will find a way to avoid the law in the privacy of their homes. Instead, such laws tend to oppress eccentrical but harmless behavior. We don’t live in such society, so whatever the theoretical basis for liberalizing private behavior no longer holds.
I never argued that “blue laws” are unconstitutional, by the way.
The other bad news is that the fascist/leftist/homo promoting government will not stop until they are stopped by superior force of some kind. Tolerance becomes acceptance becomes forced association becomes mandatory training/classes/sex ed becomes anyone who doesn’t cheer when it’s Stalin’s oops I mean Harvey Milk’s birthday gets their kids taken away by CPS. No opting out of homo indoctrination K-12 and of coures the kids will hear what the non-opted out kids were exposed to; the left already hates home schooling which is illegal in most of Europe anyway.
I agree entirely. Sodomy and other such laws keep perversion in the back alleys/cesspool/etc where it belongs - private. In the dark.
Now it’s in everyones’ face. One thing that will help is a very bad economic collapse which I am sure is inevitable. The gov just won’t be able to do much of what it is doing right now, so bad fruit may wither on the vine.
Plus, nothing stays in the abyss forever. A lot of people are getting hopping mad not just about this but about much of the rest of the unconstitutional leftist agenda.
My humble advice is “buckle the seat belts - bumpy ride ahead”.
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
"I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1."
Imagine that, a justice deciding cases based on the Constitution, rather than fanciful notions of imaginary rights to privacy that weren't mentioned in the document.
Still, I think Texas and other states kept their laws on the books as statements of what they viewed to be immoral conduct. While rarely enforced (for reasons mentioned above), they served to send a message to homosexuals that they were engaging in something of which society disapproved. Lawrence v. Texas has paved the way toward homosexual marriage, and it was easy to see how it did that. Once you prohibit states from setting moral guidelines on behavior (and these guidelines should be at the STATE level, NOT FEDERAL, laboratories of change and all), you're lending an air of legitimacy to it.
Which god or gods do we have to hear? Jesus Christ? One of the many Muslim gods? Or is it the Jewish god, who I know as simply God. I like him myself, and he’s the best and only one, at least in my opinion. I realize he’s not the most popular God in this country, and he’s becoming less and less popular every day as the Jewish population shrinks in this country, but yeah.
There’s only one God, He has many names. Every religion in the world condemns sodomy and every religion in the world has remarkably similar moral codes.
Not to be crude, but there are plenty of Christians that are quite gung-ho about sodomy in this country. Look at some of the mainline Christian denominations in this country. The Presbyterian Church USA blesses homosexual unions. Evangelical Lutheran Church of America has done it since 2009. The Protestant Episcopal church leaves it up to individual bishops to decide whether or not homosexual unions will be blessed. Interestingly, these three churches are also quite upfront about their pro-Palestinian views. While I agree with you that the evangelical strains of Christianity in this country remain opposed to societal acceptance of homosexuality, the general trend among at least some Christians in this country (at least from my perspective) seems to be clear.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at. Sure, there are people of various religions with a label pinned on who don’t believe or practice what their religion teaches. I don’t know what that has to do with the discussion.
And most people who think being “gay” is fine, would NOT think it was fine if they knew the truth about the dangers, filth and criminality associated with the “gay” life. Most people if they were fully informed would not be so positive.
With laws against sodomy, it stays private. Now with a stupid/evil SCOTUS decision taking that right away from states, sodomy is practically speaking forced upon everyone, one way or another.
Swirling down the dreain.
The problem with unconstitutional decisions like this (besides the fact that they're unconstitutional), is that they are obviously very hard to overturn. Roe v. Wade could be overturned if Kennedy resigned and was replaced by a pro-life justice, which would return the matter to the states. When it comes to Lawrence, however, I think that's probably a lost cause. I think that most state legislatures with sodomy laws on the books repealed them after Lawrence. Some state courts also struck them down, citing Lawrence as binding precedent. I don't think there is the political will in this country to recriminalize sodomy, even in very conservative states. By my count, only 14 of the 50 states still had sodomy laws on the books by the time the court decided Lawrence. State legislatures in conservative states like Wyoming, South Dakota and Nebraska had already voluntarily repealed the laws before Lawrence. Your state of Oregon repealed it in 1972. Conservative politicians have already shifted their focus to the fight to stop homosexual marriage -- they have given up on sodomy laws. Who can blame them? With all of the homosexual stuff on TV these days, it seems like everyone has exposure to at least the good and sunny parts of the lifestyle.
I've said it many times before, but the focus should be on restoring a constitutional form of government -- one that respects the rights of states to regulate these moral issues and lets people vote with their feet. If you don't want sodomy laws, don't live in Texas. If you don't want legalized marijuana, don't live in California.
I will say though, I’ve gotta give the homos their due. They constitute less than 3% of the country’s population and they’ve managed to redefine marriage in half a dozen states. Marijuana users are 6-7% of the country and they’re the ones that are viewed as deviants.
“Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests
of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in
which all religions agree.” —Thomas Jefferson
Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public
liberty and happiness.”
— Samuel Adams (letter to John Trumbull, 16 October 1778)”
Of all the dispositions and habits which least to political
prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should
labor to subvert these great Pilliars of human happiness.
— George Washington (Farewell Address, 19 September 1796)
“[O]ur ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits.”
— Daniel Webster, American Jurist and Senator
“[W]hen People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners,
they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign
Invaders.” —Samuel Adams
Patrick Henry said “Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom.”
And my favorite:
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites—in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
— Edmund Burke
My favorites: “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
-Thomas Jefferson
You’re not a bad guy. We just need to work on your stance on the WOD at the state level. :)
“...and they’ve managed to redefine marriage in half a dozen states.”
They have managed to convince people that the state defines marriage, so that many automatically accept whatever the state recognizes as marriage. They have no more actually changed the definition of marriage as a law or court ruling declaring the Moon is made of cheese actually makes it so.
But I know where you are coming from, and it is really impressive, in a sickening way. If I recall, the average of the pro-marriage amendments passed by 67%, and most of them passing in the middle of the last decade. Some came from very liberal states like Hawaii that decided the issue very early on in the wave of state amendments, and passed it by 68% in’98. By how much would it pass now? Or would it even pass?
Freegards
I already explained that I want the fedgov pared down to only what is directed as its duties in the Constitution. That leaves any or all drug laws up to the states. If the states want to make drug dealing a captial offense, it’s up to them.
IMO the WOD is to keep the price high so the cartels will make tons of money, the banks will make tons of $ laundering it, and the bribes and payouts to the politicians will keep flowing. And the prisons will be stuffed with prisoners, and more prisons are now money making operations.
It’s all a sick hateful show.
Let the states deal with it however they like. Or even counties, what the heck.
IMO anything to do with meth should be capital offense, and I bet (I don’t gamble but if I did) that many states and counties would happily make meth production or selling a capital offense.
And no 20 years of appeals.
And with no welfare of any kind, no FS, no AFDC, no SSI, no HUD, no subsidization of people who don’t want to work - drug users would die or quit, since drugs make people useless for the main part. So that’s all another plus.
For the real poor and disabled who need help, private charity is the answer, and they can make any kind of rules about who is eligible that they want.
Anyway, I think the above will all eventually happen because financial/economic collapse is inevitable.
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.