Anti-sodomy laws violate individual liberties

The NH Sunday News ^ | 5/11/03 | Deroy Murdock

[ArGee]

Since no greater or more worthy entity has ever been proven to exist, why wouldn't a human be worthy of freedom?

You are the one who made the assertion. As for more worthy, perhaps a dolphin is more worthy, or a great ape, or a garden slug. You need to support your own assertion.

Why do you believe you are worthy of anything?

Shalom.

[ArGee]

A secular morality
Is uninformed,
Is half-informed,
A product of a merely human intellect,
With no wisdom.

I have seen no better description of the result of the French Revolution.

Does America really want to be like France?

Shalom.

[muir_redwoods]

If you were as worthy as I am you would not have to ask ;-)

By the way, logically, I don't have to prove any assertion I make. If you take issue with one that I make, it is your obligation to disprove it.

[ArGee]

By the way, logically, I don't have to prove any assertion I make. If you take issue with one that I make, it is your obligation to disprove it.

No, if I say the sky is black, you have reason to ask me to prove my statement. The only reason I would not have to prove it is if it were already agreed to by you.

But since I know you can't prove your statement I will move on to my point - your assertion that you are worthy is an assertion based on a particular worldview (or morality or religion). Any political position that you may take that is based on that foundation is a religious or moral position. Governments can't help but base their actions on a religious or moral foundation since people can't help but base their opinions and/or actions on the same.

If someone else has a moral foundation that says you are not worthy of your freedom that morality has as much place in the public square as yours and whoever can pursuade the most people will win.

Unless we can agree that there is one, universal moral foundation to which all opinions and actions must conform we are left with the tyrrany of the majority.

Shalom.

[muir_redwoods]

By your rules of discourse you are required to proves the dozens of assertions you have just made. Since neither one of us have the time or interest to endure such a thing, let me simply say, in closing, that I am worthy of freedom because I know how to be free. Too many people are slaves to addiction, error, religios blindness and other moral and intellectual handicaps and, hence, do not know how to be free. I do.

[Smokin' Joe]

I asked a legal question, you dodged with antireligious drivel.

Next thing, you will assert a Constitutional right to murder because Jesus' name isn't in the Constitution.

Even without religion, some behaviours are seen as sick, disgusting, medically hazardous, and unacceptable by society, and all you can do is muster a weak attack on religion.

Pardon me if I find it strange (as the 'walls close in' on tobacco smokers) that you assert a right to buttf*ck because you don't see a reference to Biblical scripture or the Christian deity in the Constitution.

[jde1953]

"I asked a legal question, you dodged with antireligious drivel.

Next thing, you will assert a Constitutional right to murder because Jesus' name isn't in the Constitution."

Well, as an atheist, I consider religion to be 10% reasonable philosophy and 90% mythology. I'm being nice by calling it mythology rather than drivel.

OK, let's talk legal. You say there's no right to sodomy because it's not in the Constitution. As you well know, something being a "right" and the same thing being "legal" are two different things. The Constitution doesn't say anything about a person's "right" to go into business for himself. Does that mean I can't do it? Does that mean it should be illegal? The Constitution doesn't give me a "right" to own a pet. Does that mean it's illegal for me to have a cat? (Or should those issues be left to the individual states, as the Constitution would seem to suggest?)

And as for legalized murder, well, the Texas GOP seems to want precisely that, at least if it's the murder of a homosexual. Take a look at page 8, the section about "Strengthening Families and Promoting a Freer Society" at http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2002.pdf

"We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those
who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

If the Texas GOP gets its way, you could read Leviticus, decide that, out of your deep faith, you need to oppose homosexuality by putting homosexuals to death, just as the holy writ commands -- and you would get a free pass!

[Smokin' Joe]

And as for legalized murder, well, the Texas GOP seems to want precisely that, at least if it's the murder of a homosexual

Go whine to the 40,000,000 children who haven't had a chance to choose their "orientation" since Roe v Wade.

Just because it is 'legal' does not make it right, or a Right.

But as an atheist, where do you get your unalienable (God given) rights?

[jde1953]

"But as an atheist, where do you get your unalienable (God given) rights?"

Well, first, inalienable means "cannot be transferred to another or others", not "God-given."

I prefer not to require some supernatural entity for my rights, thank you. The "divine right of kings" was also God-given, if I read the word "divine" properly.

My viewpoint on the subject is reflected quite well here: http://atheists.home.att.net/massimo/200010.htm

[nbritt]

All this is doing is opening the Supreme Court up for more law suits. Pretty soon we will have the slime of the earth suing our government so they can do other things in private. Basically this is glorifying homosexuality and making it legal for them to do their wicked acts. Now these people can go and flaunt themselves on us and we have to sit their and watch.

[garbanzo]

it would be the government taking the rightful stand that they do not have "jurisdiction" in the matter.

But to them, government has jurisdiction over pretty much all aspects of life - the idea of inherent rights of man don't mean much when homosexuals are allowed to roam free.