Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban
AP via Yahoo ^ | 6/26/03 | AP

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:25:57 AM PDT by jethropalerobber

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-298 next last
To: jethropalerobber
Literally, different strokes for different folks.

You'd think this site more then most would be sympathtic to adults being allowed to live as they wish in their own home. I'm content to let God to decide what is and isn't a sin and deal with the sinners.
151 posted on 06/26/2003 9:22:29 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Actually, with the necrophilia thing, you've got a point: One can donate their bodes, or in theory even sell them. Once owned or in custody, as long as it's done in private, what's the argument?
152 posted on 06/26/2003 9:23:21 AM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: ellery
"...are minors really legally allowed to have sex with each other?"

In most states, yes. For example, New Jersey sets the age of consent at 16, and has provisions to allow even a 19 year old to have sex with minors, provided it not exceed four years difference, I believe. If you are really interested in state laws regarding ages of consent and the legality of gay sex, ageofconsent.com is a good resource.
153 posted on 06/26/2003 9:23:23 AM PDT by NewJerseyRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Actually, with the necrophilia thing, you've got a point: One can donate their bodes, or in theory even sell them. Once owned or in custody, as long as it's done in private, what's the argument [to be made]?
154 posted on 06/26/2003 9:23:36 AM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Oh really? ... go read what Justice Scalia has to say about the monumental paradigm shift this wrongheaded ruling unleashed!

Sorry, I can't agree with him.

While sounding very learned and official he makes a real hash of Roe v. Wade in the beginning that I find astounding.

How can "privacy" possibly override the right of the unborn child to life? Obviously there's no private right to murder, as the idiocy of Roe v. Wade insists. The rights of the unborn child are clearly being violated - in fact its most critical right, the right to life.

But faggotry is different. In homosexual sex no one's rights are being violated. But Scalia seems to think goobermint has a right to prescribe morality exclusive of rights violations.

Milner v. Apfel, 148 F. 3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that legislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality . . . rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms.)

I have a big problem with that.

Decriminalizing homosexual sodomy is quite reasonable to me. State sanction, "hate crime" crapola, anti-discrimination based on sexual preference, etc., etc. is not. This does not have to lead to homosexual "marriage" or celebration of faggotry. All that garbage is repugnant and should not be accepted. It has gone way too far already.

155 posted on 06/26/2003 9:24:15 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Perhaps that's for the best. Equal protection (OK for heterosexuals = OK for homosexuals) would open the door to gay marriage, yes?

Probably...I guess it would depend how "marriage" was defined. That's why communities that wish to prohibit gay marriage are on the correct legal track by beginning with the definition of "a man and a woman."

156 posted on 06/26/2003 9:25:16 AM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I thought the law would be ruled unconstitutional under the rationale of equal protection. The Texas law applied only to homosexuals, but heterosexuals could engage in the same acts without it being illegal.

Though first, by changing from homosexual to heterosexual they become different acts.

Second, an argument could easily be made that the reason for the acts to be not illegal for heterosexuals was a matter of privacy - since the acts were so similar to mating acts that the attempt to discern between them would be too invasive. That would not apply to homosexuals, since there are no acts approximating mating that they can conduct with such a partner.

157 posted on 06/26/2003 9:28:03 AM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: trebor
"Sex is morally neutral. That is man and man or man and women or women and women. There is no hierarchy. A man and women are not commit sin by enjoying each others company, nor are two men morally superior by enjoying each others company. "

You have me confused are we talking mans law or are we talking G-ds law? Using the word "sin" takes it out of the realm of the government judicial system.

158 posted on 06/26/2003 9:28:22 AM PDT by Taxbilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Thus the stage has been set for the overturning of Roe.

I don't think so.

While Scalia is right that the court overturned its own policy regarding stare decisis, the right to privacy rationale was reaffirmed rather strongly. Taken to its logical conclusion, the court could overturn Roe using the reasoning of today's case, but it would still have to overturn the right to privacy which was the cornerstone of this case.

It's a paradox, but it appears that the court values the latter more highly and probably is free to ignore it's own legal arguments in this case. After all, it's only stare decisis.

159 posted on 06/26/2003 9:28:27 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: tlb
You'd think this site more then most would be sympathtic to adults being allowed to live as they wish in their own home. I'm content to let God to decide what is and isn't a sin and deal with the sinners.

I personally agree with you -- but what most of us are discussing here is Constitutional process. It's very dangerous to simply bypass the way the Constitution means our republic to work, just because we see a law as unfair. Unfair laws should be pursued at the state house, in congress, and in Constitutional amendments. The only thing standing between our republic and totalitarianism is adherence to the Constitution.

160 posted on 06/26/2003 9:31:20 AM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Where do you and other posters on this thread get the idea that a right, such as a right to privacy, must be specifically given to us by a provision in the Constitution? The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, do not GIVE any rights. We don't need the Constitution to assert that we have any particular right. As the Declaration of Independence states, we are born with rights given to us by the Creator, and no act of Congress or of any state legislator can take them away. Just because the Constitution does not GIVE us a right to privacy, does not mean we don't have such a right.
161 posted on 06/26/2003 9:31:35 AM PDT by DryFly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyRepublican
Very interesting -- thanks!
162 posted on 06/26/2003 9:32:52 AM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: jimt
he was discussing the overulling of precident by whim.
163 posted on 06/26/2003 9:33:35 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
"Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban"

A clear conflict of interest......

164 posted on 06/26/2003 9:35:45 AM PDT by tracer (/b>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DryFly
Just because the Constitution does not GIVE us a right to privacy, does not mean we don't have such a right.

Important point -- but I believe that if it's not mentioned in the federal constitution, states have a right to regulate it, right?

165 posted on 06/26/2003 9:37:26 AM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: jde1953; RJCogburn
ANd now the elected representatives of the people will not be able to make it illegal, either. We are ruled by nine unelected dictators.
166 posted on 06/26/2003 9:39:54 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Scalia's dissent reads as if it is Roe v Wade, for all intents.
167 posted on 06/26/2003 9:52:32 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: jayef
BTW, honey, if you're a homo, I assure you that God loves you ... but I also assure you--by His words--that He cannot abide your sinful behavior. I'm not God, so I don't really care that much about you, but I assure you that I am all for you rejecting your sinful behavior. Hate?... Waste of energy, sweetums.
168 posted on 06/26/2003 9:53:16 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
But the fact that the court based the ruling on the "constitutional right to privacy", rather than equal protection is troubling.

On constitutionalist grounds, agreed. On practical grounds, no. Had they found equal protection basis for homosexual sodomy, the next step would be equal protection grounds for gay marriage, adoption, etc.. However, a ruling based on privacy, however nebulous, can't reasonably be applied to marriage or adoption.

I've been sneering all week at conservatives who try to find a silver lining to the AA decision. But there really may be a silver lining to this one.

169 posted on 06/26/2003 9:53:38 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: tracer
Only one of the nine, surely?
170 posted on 06/26/2003 9:54:47 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
To do that they must be able to keep things private, or hidden from the government, and everyone else too. It's not all that hard to grasp.

You're twisting the meaning of the passage, which was prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. The so-called right to privacy does not begin or end at someone's house. The court didn't say that the sodomy law could not be enforced only inside someones home, it cannot be enforced anywhere. If 2 homos engage in a sex act in a public park, there is no expectation of privacy, yet this ruling would protect them from the sodomy charge.

171 posted on 06/26/2003 9:55:31 AM PDT by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: lepton
so what's your point?
My point is that you claim the following: "Upholding laws that existed from the start of the country should have been a no-brainer. Like the laws or not, they were supported by the Founders and the original 13 states." So are all the laws enacted with the founding of the United States government in 1788 (or 1790, if you want to wait until the last of the original 13 states ratified the Constitution) supposed to be in force today--like them or not? By the way, do you have any idea when the law that the Supreme Court just found unconstitutional was enacted?
172 posted on 06/26/2003 9:56:34 AM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: DryFly
The Bill of Rights -- added as a deal-closer to the Constitution. The Constitution, up to that point is our Charter to a Federal government. The Bill of Rights is something else -- it says, it said then, sure "We the People and the States Ratifying" agree to the Constitution but only if the Government particularly recognizes these Rights, (not to exclude the claim of all others not mentioned).

Some argue that just meant the Federal government orginially, others -- the winning majority -- hold that it includes ALL levels of government in the Nation and States.

So sure there is right to privacy, a right to drive on the public road, a right to conduct business -- yet the STATES can and do restrict and regulate those rights, and are empowered to do so as we have established the state charters and state constitutions, and elect the state legislators.

173 posted on 06/26/2003 10:03:01 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"look for an STD occurance spike in six months."

You think that this decision will cause an immediate increase in risky sex? Planning to go out and have some gay sex tonight, yourself, just because it's legal now?
174 posted on 06/26/2003 10:03:56 AM PDT by Kahonek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Personally, the thought of going in through the out door is a major turn off.

Remember that sodomy also includes oral sex under many sodomy statutes. Some states' statutes, including Louisiana's (I know because I used to live there), also apply to such relations between heterosexual couples. (Too bad Mr Clinton never took Miss Lewinsky with him to New Orleans. I'd trust Cajun jurors more than the US Senate for a fair impeachment trial.)

Let me add that as a Texan, I'm not too pleased that activist judges have invoked the Fourteenth Amendment in a case which should've been judged on the Tenth Amendment. Today's majority opinion and Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion rely on two separate clauses emanating from the Fourteenth Amendment; the former is based on due process, the latter is based on equal protection. The Court's incessant invocation of the Fourteenth Amendment -- which was also raised in the University of Michigan Law School affirmative action case -- is a massive loophole that liberal appelants are using at every turn with great success (thanks to activist judges like Mr Kennedy).

Justice Scalia hit the nail on the head in his dissent, writing:

Having decided that it need not adhere to stare decisis [i.e., letting previous decisions stand (following citations of Casey)], the Court still must establish that Bowers was wrongly decided and that the Texas statute, as applied to petitioners, is unconstitutional.
Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery. But there is no right to "liberty" under the Due Process Clause, though today's opinion repeatedly makes that claim...

Justice Scalia also warns that Justice O'Connor's consenting opinion "leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples" as she "argues that the discrimination in this law which must be justified is not its discrimination with regard to the sex of the partner but its discrimination with regard to the sexual proclivity of the principal actor." The majority decision also leaves an opening (I sure do hate using that phrase when discussing sodomy).

Now that they've overruled the wishes of the Texas electorate, I hope Justices O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Stevens will soon retire.

175 posted on 06/26/2003 10:04:58 AM PDT by the infidel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: the infidel
Doesn't Louisana also have an anti-vibrator law? Seriously.
176 posted on 06/26/2003 10:05:53 AM PDT by rintense (Thank you to all our brave soldiers, past and present, for your faithful service to our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: DryFly
Where do you and other posters on this thread get the idea that a right, such as a right to privacy, must be specifically given to us by a provision in the Constitution?

You're missing the point. Whatever "constitutional rights" the Supreme Court finds serve as a very real limit on the actions of the government.

We may all have inalienable rights not enumerated in the Constitution or anywhere else, but the ones the government are going to recognize and protect or enforce are going to come from this document.

177 posted on 06/26/2003 10:10:46 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Doesn't Louisana also have an anti-vibrator law? Seriously.

Yes ma'am, and the same goes the sale or distribution of any other artificial device resembling genitalia or designed or used for sexual stimulation. So don't pack your "toys" if you go to Mardi Gras. ;-)

178 posted on 06/26/2003 10:15:18 AM PDT by the infidel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: the infidel
Yes ma'am, and the same goes the sale or distribution of any other artificial device resembling genitalia or designed or used for sexual stimulation. So don't pack your "toys" if you go to Mardi Gras. ;-)

Does that include a condom? Sorry couldn't resist asking.

179 posted on 06/26/2003 10:17:21 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Sci Fi Guy
" You're twisting the meaning of the passage, which was prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. The so-called right to privacy does not begin or end at someone's house. The court didn't say that the sodomy law could not be enforced only inside someones home, it cannot be enforced anywhere. If 2 homos engage in a sex act in a public park, there is no expectation of privacy, yet this ruling would protect them from the sodomy charge."

The prohibition is a limit on the legal mode of infringement of the right. The right regards privacy, a search is infringement on that right.

The court erred when it nullified the TX law on privacy grounds, because the law didn't infringe on privacy, it forbade an act unrelated to the matter of privacy. The court also erred in the '70s when it negated state abortion laws on privacy grounds. That line of reasoning also would negate all laws, as long as the criminal activity was a private matter for the criminals. The court was acting to install their vision, nothing else.

The reason the right to privacy exists as an enumerated right is that the founders valued it. Their privacy was important and they realized, that w/o that enumeration and limit placed on it's infringement, the whim of the rulers to search at will would reign. The idea that the people should open up their lives to demonstrate to the govm't that they had nothing to hide would quickly end up the norm of operation and the establishment of a stubborn and oppressive tyranny.

180 posted on 06/26/2003 10:19:17 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
he was discussing the overulling of precident by whim.

Certainly there is a long term precedent for sodomy laws. While precedent is a major factor in law, it shouldn't be the only factor.

The irritating thing about Roe v. Wade is that it elevated the mother's right to privacy above the child's right to life. That seems nonsensical on the face of it. As well as whimsical.

Today's ruling does overturn long term precedents.

181 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:17 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
he was discussing the overulling of precident by whim.

Certainly there is a long term precedent for sodomy laws. While precedent is a major factor in law, it shouldn't be the only factor.

The irritating thing about Roe v. Wade is that it elevated the mother's right to privacy above the child's right to life. That seems nonsensical on the face of it. As well as whimsical.

Today's ruling does overturn long term precedents.

182 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:21 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Actually, with the necrophilia thing, you've got a point: One can donate their bodes, or in theory even sell them. Once owned or in custody, as long as it's done in private, what's the argument [to be made]?

That some acts are intrinsically evil, and that by condoning them, we as a society condone that evil.

Evil acts make evil people; even if the acts themselves are carried out in private, the people who commit them live lives that are public, and thus carry the evil into society until it becomes woven into the culture itself.

I do not wish to live in a culture where evil is condoned; therefore, I oppose the evil of sodomy, even when carried out in private between consenting adults.

183 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:48 AM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
Does that include a condom? Sorry couldn't resist asking.

Nope. The state even got into the condom business in the 1990s.

look here

184 posted on 06/26/2003 10:26:55 AM PDT by the infidel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Let's be clear. Not only gay couples engage in sodomy... I know of many hetero couples who do as well- and enjoy it.

Personally, the thought of going in through the out door is a major turn off.

Don't forget, anti-sodomy laws didn't just apply to anal sex, but oral sex as well. In 4 of the 13 states that had/have such laws, they only aply to same sex couples (Texas, the state in question in this case, being one). The other 9 prohibited anla/oral sex for all couples. Lots of guys will be glad to know their wives/girlfriends can polish their knobs without breaking th law now.

IMHO, the court should have struck down the law on the basis of equal protection under the law premieses only. If Texaas wanted to ban it for all couples fine, that's teh state's right, but they can't single out just same sex couples.

185 posted on 06/26/2003 10:27:41 AM PDT by cschroe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Scalia's dissent is great -- thanks so much for the link!
186 posted on 06/26/2003 10:35:13 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Homo marriage is the next case they will seek to push through the putrified court system.

Do read Scalia's dissent -- Aristides linked it at #23.

187 posted on 06/26/2003 10:38:23 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
If I'm a homo? That's cute.

First of all, it's none of your business and it's irrelevant. The point is that your intolerance is not what God wants. Jesus loved sinners and so should you.

Furhtermore, the law is not intended to shelter you from things you do not like. The law is intended to protect your rights. Sodomy laws do not protect your rights and are an infringement on the rights of others.
188 posted on 06/26/2003 10:42:46 AM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: cschroe
IMHO, the court should have struck down the law on the basis of equal protection under the law premieses only. If Texaas wanted to ban it for all couples fine, that's teh state's right, but they can't single out just same sex couples.

Agreed.

189 posted on 06/26/2003 10:54:30 AM PDT by rintense (Thank you to all our brave soldiers, past and present, for your faithful service to our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy
My point is that you claim the following: "Upholding laws that existed from the start of the country should have been a no-brainer. Like the laws or not, they were supported by the Founders and the original 13 states."

First, please credit the poster that actually said that.

So are all the laws enacted with the founding of the United States government in 1788 (or 1790, if you want to wait until the last of the original 13 states ratified the Constitution) supposed to be in force today--like them or not? By the way, do you have any idea when the law that the Supreme Court just found unconstitutional was enacted?

They are supposed to be in force today unless in clear opposition to the Constitution as ratified and understood at the time, unless repealed or altered in a legal and Constitutional manner since then.

Bad laws should be legislatively repealed or repaired, not simply re-interpreted.

From where I stand, there are several points on the Constitution that needed refining, and some that still do. Amending the Constitution is the proper way - just making stuff up is not.

190 posted on 06/26/2003 11:01:02 AM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Right to privacy may have been reaffirmed, but it would be quite easy for the Supreme Court to find that right to privacy trumped in the abortion context, if it had a mind to do so. All it would have to do is to find the interest of government and society in the life of the fetus is a compelling interest that supersedes the mother's right to privacy, at least after a certain stage in pregnancy. (It could also find the fetus's right to life trumps the mother's right to privacy, but it would be hard to limit that to merely overruling Roe, rather than finding abortions per se unconstitutional.)
191 posted on 06/26/2003 11:02:52 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
I do not wish to live in a culture where evil is condoned; therefore, I oppose the evil of sodomy, even when carried out in private between consenting adults.

Sorry. I was referring to the legal argument. The moral argument is fairly simple - but was not only discounted but dealt with in a contrarian manner by the court.

192 posted on 06/26/2003 11:06:37 AM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: jayef
You seem to be assuming that homosexuals are necessarily sinners. They aren't, if they are celibate.

And that is part of the problem with Kennedy's opinion. It seems to assume that, for some reason, homosexuals have to be sexually active, that practising homosexual acts is some necessary part of their identity.

193 posted on 06/26/2003 11:07:31 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I still haven't read Kennedy's opinion, but I have to agree with Scalia that this decision makes future decisions by the Court very unpredictable.
194 posted on 06/26/2003 11:15:26 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

Comment #195 Removed by Moderator

To: Diamond
You forgot polygamy, and a bunch of other perversions neither of us has even imagined.

Wow. I can cut and paste my replies today. The Moral Ayatollahs are pretty much carbon copies, it seems.

I could ask WHERE you get your moral instruction that more than one wife is 'immoral' (snip). I could ask you to cite it. (You won't be able to... it's a made up cultural tradition.)

That said, my standard disclaimer : Polygamy is its own punishment. Any man dumb enough to marry more than one woman deserves what he gets.

196 posted on 06/26/2003 11:28:54 AM PDT by DAnconia55 (Thumping the Moral Ayatollahs, daily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Naspino
After the court ruled that child porn was legal so long as it was conducted virtually

I don't suppose you'd care to explain how there can be a sex crime without a victim?

By your standards ancient statues of naked children, or paintings could be classified child porn. Better close them museums, Rufus.

197 posted on 06/26/2003 11:30:55 AM PDT by DAnconia55 (Thumping the Moral Ayatollahs, daily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: All
TODAY'S LINKS OF INTEREST:

PRAYER IS POWERFUL. PLEASE PRAY NOW! Amen. Today's Bible Message:
"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might...For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." -from THE BIBLE: Ephesians 5:10,12

CNS NEWS.com: "ANNIVERSARY OF ANTI-PLEDGE DECISION FINDS NATION AWAITING SUPREME COURT ACTION" by Christine Hall (June 26, 2003) (Read More...)

AGAPE PRESS.org: "HIGH COURT STRIKES DOWN TEXAS SODOMY LAW Dissenting Justice: 'Court Has Signed On to Homosexual Agenda'" By Sherrie Black, Allie Martin, and Jody Brown (June 26, 2003) (Read More...)

WorldNetDaily.com: "NURSE BACKS UP CLINTON RAPE CHARGE Attended Broaddrick's wounds after alleged assault in Arkansas" (June 26, 2003) (Read More...)

The latest edition of THE CULTURE AND FAMILY REPORT is online for your perusal!

COVENANT NEWS.com: "ABOMINATIONS"

GULF1.com - H.I.T.R.A.P. (Honesty, Integrity, Trust, Responsibility, Accountability and People): "TOLERANCE DOES NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF EVIL" -Commentary by Robert L. Pappas, Col. USMC (Ret.) (June 24, 2003)
NY POST.com: "PURV PROF FUROR" by Laura Italiano (June 24, 2003) (Read More...)

CNS NEWS.com: "CONGRESSMAN CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION OF NUDIST CAMP FOR KIDS" by Lawrence Morahan (June 20, 2003) (Read More...)

198 posted on 06/26/2003 11:31:17 AM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #199 Removed by Moderator

To: dark_lord
Your #42 is accurate. I don't think that sex with children, nor bestiality, will be legalized because in neither case can the "consenting adult" argument be made

Everything else goes. Polygamy, Incest and prostitution should be legal.

There is a cultural aversion to Incest (except in Arkansas), founded (unlike the rest the Thumpers do) in scientific realty. At one time the gene pool was too small to allow sex between relatives as reproduction would produce genetic defects (See: Klinton family tree).

Now as gross as it is.... I'm not sure there's a scientific reason for this now, considering we're all mongrels now.

And once again my disclaimer: Anyone dumb enough to engage in Polygamy has formed their own punishment.

200 posted on 06/26/2003 11:35:44 AM PDT by DAnconia55 (Thumping the Moral Ayatollahs, daily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-298 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson