Grow up.
Every state had sodomy laws and enforced them before the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s brought with it tens of millions of AIDS victims, tens of millions of aborted children, the scourge of other aggressive STDs including anal gonorrhea and hepatitis B, the meltdown of the traditional family, and armies of fatherless young men forming criminal gangs in every major American city.
The dismantling of the sodomy laws--which had been in place since the founding the Republic--has been a powerful abrasive in the larger erosion of the quality of life in America. This erosion has resulted, and will continue to result in massive socialism to pay for the self-indulgent, irresponsible excess.
And yet the bogeyman of "bedroom police" cannot be found anywhere in this puzzle other than in the frenzied, fevered minds of swooners such as yourself. In Texas (as in the case now before SCOTUS), the sodomites were so hard-pressed to find "bedroom police" they had to resort to lying to the police to get them into the bedroom for the premeditiated purpose of having the police arrest them so they would even have a test case.
At any time before this case became debated in public--at any time in the more than 150-plus years of Texas history--did you or any other Texan ever fear "bedroom police" coming into your bedroom? Absolutely not. This bogeyman is a recent creation, tailor-made to advance the gay activist agenda--which will culminate in pro-gay federal hate crime legislation (and entitlements) and gay marriage. You are helping to midwife these abominations into existence.
Lies and bamboozlery, Luis. Like Clinton, that is all that you sodomy lovers and enablers have in your armory. The lies are fairly effective though. You've conned otherwise level-headed FReepers such as Iron Jack and sinkspur into supporting the aim-for-the-anus crowd; you've got them cowering in fear of your bogeyman bedroom police.
What you preach isn't the gospel of conservatism. It is a decaying, disease-ridden corpse that you fob off as conservatism.
Hey Kevin, there were laws against fornication (pre-marital sex) and adultery as well.
Why do you not consider re-enacting those as well?
What do you think?
A big "A" in scarlet on the clothing of the offending parties?
Kevin...you've never enjoyed oral sex withn the wife or girlfriend?
Have you ever indulged in fornication?
If you answer is no, I know you are a liar.
[Hasty generalization] Statistics? Numbers? How many cases were enforced? Against whom? Keep in mind that sodomy laws are not exclusive to homosexuals. And whether the Bedroom Police are actually kicking in doors or peeping through windows, the laws imply they have the RIGHT to. I challenge that right.
tens of millions of AIDS victims, tens of millions of aborted children, the scourge of other aggressive STDs including anal gonorrhea and hepatitis B, the meltdown of the traditional family, and armies of fatherless young men forming criminal gangs in every major American city.
[Oversimplification, specious causality] Yeah, all these happened because restrictions on sodomy were relaxed. None had ever occurred before. (By the way, how can acts which, by definition, cannot result in pregnancy, create "armies of fatherless young men"?)
The dismantling of the sodomy laws--which had been in place since the founding the Republic--has been a powerful abrasive in the larger erosion of the quality of life in America.
[Specious causality] Utter bilge. While easing or recision of sodomy laws may be a symptom of declining morality, or at least the role of the state in regulating morality, there is no causal relationship between restrictive laws on sodomy and elevated quality of life. For those who enjoy the activity, the quality of life is substantially lessened by its exclusion.
This erosion has resulted, and will continue to result in massive socialism to pay for the self-indulgent, irresponsible excess.
[Slippery slope] What "excess?" Your whole argument rests on the notion that passing laws actually prevents certain activities. Prohibition should have been enough to disprove that. For a law to be effective, it has to have a substantial degree of popular support, something that is lacking in laws forbidding sodomy. So sodomites, as you like to call them, will flourish, laws or not. And whatever the costs are will remain about constant regardless of how many invisible laws are on the books.
At any time before this case became debated in public--at any time in the more than 150-plus years of Texas history--did you or any other Texan ever fear "bedroom police" coming into your bedroom? Absolutely not!
[Unsubstantiated presumption] Maybe you should have. And the fact that the law is at best selectively enforced makes it even more ludicrous, not to mention unconstitutional.
This bogeyman ... will culminate in pro-gay federal hate crime legislation (and entitlements) and gay marriage. You are helping to midwife these abominations into existence.
Too numerous to list] Hardly. You're making a logical leap that is unsupported by anything but conjecture.
Lies and bamboozlery, Luis. Like Clinton, that is all that you sodomy lovers and enablers have in your armory.
[Ad hominem attack] Now comes the name-calling.
The lies are fairly effective though. You've conned otherwise level-headed FReepers such as Iron Jack and sinkspur into supporting the aim-for-the-anus crowd; you've got them cowering in fear of your bogeyman bedroom police.
[Emotional appeal, charged language] Again, your conjecture isn't borne out by the facts. I haven't even read Luis' posts on this thread, with one exception. So if I'm cowering from bogeymen, they're bogeymen of my own creation.
What you preach isn't the gospel of conservatism. It is a decaying, disease-ridden corpse that you fob off as conservatism.
[Ad hominem attack, red herring] Sorry, Kevin, but you don't get to define "conservatism."
For those who would like to find some redeeming value in this jeremiad, I have taken the liberty of listing the author's propaganda technique in bold before my rebuttal. Many of these techniques are also known as logical fallacies, and should prove valuable to people who would refine their debating skills beyond mere inflammatory rhetoric.