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 last
"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...just because the Constitution does not GIVE us a right to privacy, does not mean we don't have such a right."

THANK YOU. I mean, the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY give us the right to eat peanut butter on Mondays, you know? Does this mean it should be considered illegal until otherwise dictated? According to some of you, I guess so...

251 posted on 06/27/2003 7:00:32 AM PDT by RDUBOOKS (I thought Republicans supported FREEDOM, not "Big Brother" governments who peer into our bedrooms???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
And thus, there is no morally legal basis (say as opposed to a law against murder) for passing legislation against things that you merely do not like.

Thank you for your reply. When I ask what the Court's authority is to dictate cultural traditions I am making a distinction between a Federal Court and a State legislature.

It seems to me that polygamy, sodomy and incest go far beyond one's personal taste in music. None of the former have ever been traditionally regarded as moral or legal in this country. At the same time, I am unaware of any traditional jurisprudence against country music.

It is just ironic to me that libertarians will praise a de-novo fiat from a virtual soviet triumvarate who presume to have the authority to dictate such cultural and moral decisions for the rest of us. This decision does not bother you because you happen to agree with it. But the power that they have abrogated to themselves will come back to bite you.

Cordially,

252 posted on 06/27/2003 7:09:11 AM PDT by Diamond (What ever happened to the 10th Amendment?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: RDUBOOKS
Second, why are you so obsessed with where others are sticking their peepees, anyway? I have to wonder about you, and the phrase "get a life" comes to mind... RDUBOOKS This is the sort of vacuous comment that exposes the poster's hoomo-apologist leanings and/or displays the poster's lack of understanding for the true issues at the heart of this idiocy ruling.

Homos are chattering all over the threads about 'stormtroopers pounding on doors and dragging people away simply because of how they want to have sex.' You offer this juvenile comment about 'where others are sticking their peepees.' Then you pontificate 'get a life'. How very childish, belongs right up there with the homos swishing from thread to thread trying to bait folks into commenting on homos, digging for something to be famously queer and outraged over.

The community of deviants does have an agenda. They want to be defined as normal, protect as normal, as just like everyone else, and they are willing to destroy any institution of this society in order to bring the nation down to their level of deviancy else they wouldn't spend so much time, money, and emotional energy 'pushing' and getting 'in your face'.

There are very many Americans who will never accept deviants as normal. I, for one, don't want to be forced to work with or hire someone who is so obsessed with their sexual identity that they force their sexual proclivities out into the open as a badge of identity to be addressed in every aspect of life. Are you homo-apologists proud of the fellow queers who push into a Catholic Church during Mass, to shout obscenities and smear their feces on the interior of the Church, 'in protest for not being accepted as just like everyone else?' Yeah, you likley see such 'protest' as legitimate, 'the in-your-face action needed to end this obsession of where others put their peepees'. Here's a clue, homo-apologist, sex isn't that importnat, but a sex obsessed deviant cannot focus on anything else, so it oozes out even in casual comment.

There are ridiculous laws on the books in states, that need to be removed by the state legislatures. But when senile Justice Kennedy and five other liberal SCOTUS judges reach out to wipe a state law off the books, under the same false guise used to legitimize the slaughter of 42,000,000 alive human beings, this nation is in big trouble, because the SCOTUS was never designed to play 'philosopher king', to rule America. Was the Texas sodomy law in need of removal? If so, it needed to be done by the state of Texas, not the kings of the Federal bench.

You homo-apologists don't like what is about to follow, even spend energy screaming it is not true ... but it is factual and relevant in order to fully understand the agenda you support. The deviants who succeeded in getting the Texas case into the court system planned their actions and their means to entrap the LEOs, the neighbor was a fellow deviant who called in the warning that some crime was occurring in the apartment, and the deviants fudgepacking in the back bedroom made sure to continue their behavior until the LEOs stopped them when they reached the back bedroom and pushed open the door and dragged one queer off of the other. These same homos had tried to create a challenge to the Georgia state marriage laws.

The Texas deviants are part of a larger 'movement' to peck away at society's institutions and taboos ... for what purpose? To corrode the society to the point that deviancy will be completely acceptable and in fact PROTECTED as legitimate. Does that make me and millions of others angry? Damn right it does, and intolerant of deviants.

Get a life? That's a familiar inane deviant catcalled from behind the frame of a uniformed officer doing his or her job but being manipulated to do that job over something really objectionable. How do I know?... Because I've spoken with law officers assigned to stand guard outside an abortion mill, where a pro-abortion person called in threats to the clinic under the guise of being part of the pro-life movement.

Deviant sexual proclivities are not the important factor in this society degrading saga, the issue of states' rights to legislate and the over reaching SCOTUS are far and away more important than 'where someone puts their peepee' ... and the fact that you would try to divert the discussion to the peepee placement is evidence of your shallow, sexual driven foolishness, just like the deviants who want America to focus on anything, anything at all, except the reality of the deviancy.

253 posted on 06/27/2003 8:08:32 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 250 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Thank you for posting the links to the ruling and dissents.
254 posted on 06/27/2003 8:36:45 AM PDT by Tares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ellery
Lots of biblical heroes had multiple wives...

And they all suffered for it. Read Genesis chpt 30, look at the strife. Read 2 Samuel chpt 12, not only was Bath-sheba married, David was too, people forget that. Read the next few chapters, see what children from David's various wives did to each other and to David. Read the end of Ecclesiastes chpt 7 for Solomon's opinion.

None of the "biblical heroes" were blessed by having multiple wives.

255 posted on 06/27/2003 9:05:12 AM PDT by Tares (Christ - the only biblical hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

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

huh? if anything, this decision has made roe stronger than ever.

256 posted on 06/27/2003 10:43:14 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
It seems to assume that, for some reason, homosexuals have to be sexually active...

boy that really is odd! he assumed that humans actually engage in sex. it's almost like he thinks it's some sort of natural drive we have or something. strange!

257 posted on 06/27/2003 10:56:18 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
Natural drives need not be indulged. There have been many celibate homosexuals in history. You seem to want to cheapen their accomplishment in controlling their impulses.
258 posted on 06/27/2003 11:09:00 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Naspino
Having affinity for your "own group" is certainly your right. We all have the right to freely associate with whomever we please. Unfortunately, that is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is institutionalized bigotry. The issue is what compelling interest of the state is served by regulating the sexual behavior of a particular group. It's equal protection under the law. Just as Texas does not have the right to violate the rights of blackes, neither does it have the right to violate the rights of homosexuals.
259 posted on 06/27/2003 11:28:02 AM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Natural drives need not be indulged. There have been many celibate homosexuals in history. You seem to want to cheapen their accomplishment in controlling their impulses.

satisfying our physical drives is not 'indulgence'. do you feel guilty every time your give in to the urge to drink a glass of water?

celibacy is about as much of an 'accomplishment' as getting off 7 times in one night is.

260 posted on 06/27/2003 11:31:33 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
States rights my a$$. States do not have the right to target classes of people for different treatment. Don't you remember, we had a war over this? We also have a 14th Amendment. All this stuff happened 150 years ago buddy. Are you just now catching up?
261 posted on 06/27/2003 11:34:39 AM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Naspino
I thought that this country was founded on the faith of secular humanism.

I'm so sick of christians trying to claim our fore fathers.

Thomas Paine was no christian. George Washington never once refered to jesus christ in any of his writings, and rarely atteneded church. Thomas Jefferson has this to say:

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

262 posted on 06/27/2003 11:39:09 AM PDT by chanupi (get over it, we are all in this together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
I think you have revealed yourself to be a secular humanist. Certainly you have the attitudes of one. I hope you will have the sense to realize that you are living off the capital of a Christian civilization, and that, to the extent our civilization ceases to be Christian, it will have a very limited lifetime. That is to say, people like you can only live humanist lives to the extent that you allow the bulk of society to remain Christian. If you end that, you not only doom us, you doom yourselves.
263 posted on 06/27/2003 11:53:17 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: chanupi
I'm so sick of christians trying to claim our fore fathers.

Thomas Paine was no christian. George Washington never once refered to jesus christ in any of his writings, and rarely atteneded church. Thomas Jefferson has this to say:

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

You need to educate yourself regarding the history of this nation. Numerous previous threads here have dealt extensively with this subject with extensive quotations from the founders. Bless his heart, Thomas Paine, while influential in the Revolution with his pamphlet, "Common Sense" cannot be considered a founder in the sense the others were. Sorry. It's a fact of history. If you feel like being suprised sometime, investigate the denominational affiliations of the signatories to the Declaration and the Constitution.

Cordially,

264 posted on 06/27/2003 12:04:16 PM PDT by Diamond (What ever happened to the 10th Amendment?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

Comment #265 Removed by Moderator

To: trebor
should divorce and premarital sex be illegal too?

That should be up to the state.

266 posted on 06/27/2003 12:41:44 PM PDT by Taxbilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: chanupi
Your evidence is pretty sparse -- given that God appears just about everywhere in our government. The principles of this country were founded upon the faith of those that comprised it at the time. You cannot deny that the Christian faith and this country are intertwined and have been since its foundation. Just because one or two guys that were involved in its foundation didn't mention the name of Jesus doesn't mean they didn't realize what was the predominate belief at the time.
267 posted on 06/27/2003 12:56:43 PM PDT by Naspino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: jayef
I was just responding to your attack on the previous poster. Your argument against bigotry was not relating to the state but to her in particular. What the states can legislate and what people are allowed to do are two different things. However with that said if the people elect a bunch of bigots that pass a law that is perceived as bigotted then that is within their rights as a state so long as its constitutional. What is at issue is was the law constitutional not was it a just law. When the courts can deem whether or not a law is just then we should just abandon the legislative branch and leave it up to 5 justices on the supreme court to decide the course of history for this nation.
268 posted on 06/27/2003 1:00:40 PM PDT by Naspino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Naspino
You are correct. That is exactly what the Supreme Court must judge. I believe the "equal protection" case is strongert than the "privacy" case. The Texas law is clearly unconstitution on an "equal protection" grounds.
269 posted on 06/27/2003 2:06:17 PM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: jayef
There you go again, worrying about your body parts. Why are homo-apologists so worried about their body parts?
270 posted on 06/27/2003 2:30:21 PM 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 261 | View Replies]

To: jayef
Well! Now you're starting to make sense! Read Sandra O'Connors message in support of the majority ... she had it right, as far as she took it. Sadly, the wrongheadedness of the Texas law should have been addressed by the Texas elected representatives, not the SCOTUS. Had they taken O'Connor's route, I believe they would have addressed the particular behavior without opening the door to 'ANY private activity between consenting adults', which is an invitation to nullify a spouse's protection in the law to sue for divorce based on adultery (a degeneration of the marriage contract) since the activity will no longer be proscribable as a breach of the marriage contract because it is done bewteen consenting adults in private.
271 posted on 06/27/2003 2:40:50 PM 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 269 | View Replies]

Comment #272 Removed by Moderator

To: trebor
Do the states have the right to make laws? 10th Amendment
273 posted on 06/27/2003 8:34:28 PM PDT by Taxbilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: d-back
Fools both.

Right there you show that you aren't interested in discussion.

Read Scalia's dissent; read Kennedy's decision. Your comments show that do not understand the stakes of the game being played. This is not a libertarian decision--it is a pro-homosexual, pro-Leftist agenda decision.

I haven't yet read the dissents. Those dissents wont' change my mind about the morality of homosexuality or the origins of it. And I know very well what the stakes are. This fight needs to be fought with believers, not the courts.

And when they're done inventing a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, they'll move against other "antiquated" rules on sexual matters, like those barring sexual congress with your children.

The Constitution doesn't restrict people, but government. The amendments only enumerate SOME of the rights that citizens have. Look at the 9th and 10th. You tell me what the unenumerated rights are and what they are not. I don't think that you can.

Wake the f!@#$ up.

You know what they say about people who need to curse to make a point, right?

274 posted on 06/28/2003 5:00:54 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excessive legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

Deviants. I notice homosexuals being described as deviants here. How so?

Becuase they do not act the way they do- because they are attracted to members of the same sex? That, is, apparently, against nature. Well how can anything be against nature? Nature is by very definition is everything- we do what is in our nature, and if it is in ones nature to love someone of the same sex, then that is what happens.

Equally, homosexuals do not go against evolution. How could they? Evolution is a natural force. If having homosexuals within our population was detrimental to the survival of our species, then they would not exist anymore. Thats how it works. Maybe they are slowly dying out- in which case we need to do nothing to encourage or discourage as it will happen anyway. Homosexuals could promote survival of the species, incidentally, because they do not have natural offspring, and therefore do not increase the numbers of people on this planet, which is straining to cope with so many of us.

Maybe, of course, you could cite the Bible. But if you take the Bible on face value as the direct word of God then you are naive. Check out http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html for all those contradictions. If the Bible was direclty the word of God would it be so confusing? I doubt it. And if it has been written like that deliberately by God, or, more likely, people with their own agenda, there is no way you can trust the Bible as an absolute book of morals. Certainly you can take it as a rough guide, but not as a totalitarian pointer. And, of course, you have to deal with mistranslations within the book which have happened over the past 3000 years or so.

Finally, while gays all want to be accepted for who they are, they all have different methods of goign about this goals, and different ideas. To say one homosexual represents every single one is idiotic to say the least.
275 posted on 06/28/2003 6:10:37 AM PDT by thakil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Coronal
The Court cannot review the constitionality of laws that have been struck down. (Unless an amendment is added to the constitution OR another ruling creates ambiguity OR when Supreme Court Legislators or the Senate change the rules).


Who, now, has the power to stop the Supreme Court? They have been granted supreme authority.

The nine Supreme Court justices are the appointed heads of the United Oligarchy of America.

There is no force that can stop the justices from doing anything that they choose to do. Considering the fact that the current Court is now legislating (dictating?) from the bench, future Courts will be compelled to find ways to reverse rulings [that have struck-down laws]: The justices will cite the unconstitutionality of previous rulings. Eventually it will become common practice for the laws of the land to yo-yo depending on who is sitting on the bench.


Is there a flaw in this logic?

276 posted on 06/28/2003 8:17:10 AM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

Comment #277 Removed by Moderator

Comment #278 Removed by Moderator

To: trebor
If a state voted to put scocrates to death?

Do states execute people?

279 posted on 06/29/2003 11:05:49 AM PDT by Taxbilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: jayef
The point is that YOU don't have to observe anything. As a heterosexual you were not the target class. Don't worry about it. Tomorrow you can wake up and your life will be completely unchanged. Of course now the gay couple down the street doesn't have to worry about the state busting down their door to see what kind of sex their having. That's not what you're worried about, is it, really?

The state you're worried about was the legislation passed by the representatives of the citizen's majority here in the state of Texas, not some federal executive agency. Our right to self-rule includes the right to prohibit immoral sexual behavior.

I'm not the least bit interested in busting someone's door down to inspect their genitals. I simply prefer, in common sense fashion, sexual deviants to feel the pressure of a just society and live their lives with one eye over their shoulder, watching their backs and concerned with the consequences.

Instead of my children, that is.

280 posted on 06/29/2003 12:21:25 PM PDT by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
Should society not be moral? Que?
281 posted on 06/29/2003 12:22:49 PM PDT by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

Comment #282 Removed by Moderator

To: Abbie Hoffman
Bwahahaha
283 posted on 06/29/2003 4:14:34 PM 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 282 | View Replies]

To: Churchjack
Should society not be moral? Que?

Society does not exist. It's an abstract concept with no physical presence.

Individuals should be moral.
But laws forcing individuals to OBEY do not make moral men.
They make sheep who have lost the capacity to judge.

284 posted on 06/29/2003 4:37:17 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Churchjack
You can prohibit immoral behavior, but you cannot violate the 14th Amendment . . . or are you of the opinion that The Constitution protects everyone except homosexuals? The Texas law targets a class of people for discrimination and is a violation of equal protection. As a South Carolinian, I am very much interested in that and am glad that the same archaic laws are being struck down in my state by this ruling.
285 posted on 06/29/2003 6:12:18 PM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: jayef
Homosexuals--sodomists--are not a "class" of people. They are individuals engaging in immoral--and until recently, illegal, activity. Unlawful discrimination, in the sense of the 14th, is to prefer or prejudice on the basis of their intrinsic condition, not behavioral preferences.

No, the Constitution does not enumerate protections, explicit or implicit, to the homosexual act.

286 posted on 06/29/2003 6:26:43 PM PDT by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Churchjack
Actually, the 14th Amendment says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything about intrinsic condition. I see that all citizens are guaranteed due process and equal protection. What am I missing? ALL CITIZENS. Is that not clear to you?
287 posted on 06/29/2003 9:15:42 PM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: jayef
You're right. Wrong amendment.

All citizens are guaranteed due process. Sodomy is not, however, a privelege nor an immunity--it was an illegal act. They're right to due process was not abridged in any way. There was no house-to-house rectum inspection, no roadside checkpoints set up. Someone (whatever the reason) had suspicion of illegal activity and called the cops on'em.

They were subsequently caught in the act.

288 posted on 06/30/2003 3:53:01 AM PDT by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Churchjack
You might say six judges sodomized the constitution.
289 posted on 06/30/2003 5:10:54 AM PDT by Rodm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
...to the extent our civilization ceases to be Christian, it will have a very limited lifetime.

imho, our nation has succeeded exactly to the extent that it has turned its back on chirst's teachings. are the neocons hawks, with their 12 step plan for american dominance of the 21st century world mostly through military means, are they your idea of good christians?

That is to say, people like you can only live humanist lives to the extent that you allow the bulk of society to remain Christian.

right - care to tell me just how i depend on you good christians for this so-called "humanist" life i am living?

i work, pay taxes, raise children, and obey the law just like everybody else. all i said is that i don't view lifelong celibacy as a badge on honor. extreme self denial is no less self-centered than gluttony.

290 posted on 06/30/2003 10:56:03 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
For homosexuals to lead celibate lives is extreme self-denial, and somehow wrong? Homosexuals have a moral duty to commit homosexual acts? What planet are you coming from?
291 posted on 06/30/2003 11:06:40 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: jayef
What about the class of psychopathic cannibals? Aren't they permitted to have their basic, internal desires fulfilled, not hamstrung by the wacko religious right?

Should they remain "celibate"?

Protect all classes! Equal Due Process under the Law!

292 posted on 06/30/2003 11:12:29 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
to answer your question, on the planet i come from, earth, anyone who reamins celibate for life despite having the freedom and opportunity to engage in a sexual relationship is demonstrating extreme self-denial. but then again, perhaps that is just their orientation - in which case there is even less cause to praise them.

but i feel in some sense you mistake my attitude toward these people. if they want to experiment with seeing how their bodies and minds respond to unnatural sexual behaviors like life long celibacy, i say more power to them. we may yet learn something valuable from these trials.

btw, you didn't answer my question:
how exactly do i depend on "christians" for this "humanist" life i am living?

that was a pretty bold claim you made, so i'm sure you've got something to back it up.

293 posted on 06/30/2003 11:43:39 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Churchjack
Again, you've called homosexuals deviants, yet failed to respond to my argument suggesting that they're not. At least try and back up your point.

Homosexuality is no more immoral than heterosexuality.
294 posted on 07/01/2003 5:27:31 AM PDT by thakil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Nice straw man. That you would compare the behavior of two consenting adults to that of persons who would harm others to fulfill their desires tells me all I need to know about you.
295 posted on 07/01/2003 3:10:29 PM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: jayef
It is an actual case of "c.o.s.e.n.t.i.n.g . a.d.u.l.t.s"? Do you find their actions immoral?
296 posted on 07/01/2003 3:18:39 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: jayef
Hmmm ... thought I was reponding to a response to this:
Is there a RIGHT to cannibalism if both adult parties agree? As weird and strange as that sounds that actually happened in Germany last year. (Under the Lawrence Ruling's folly surely it is a protected RIGHT today.) A man placed an ad in a homosexual newsletter or some such asking for someone to volunteer for sex that would include intra-coital-murder and follow-on cannibalism. Someone answered (iirc, multiple respondents) the homosexual cannibal followed through the whole offering with at least one.
Which I had posted up today on another thread.
297 posted on 07/01/2003 3:23:23 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
Individuals should be moral. But laws forcing individuals to OBEY do not make moral men.

Morality is an abstract concept; as in, only it's expression is seen, not the actual object. Society is not abstract in that sense, it's a group of people living in agreement to principles or mechanics or whatever.

Individuals should be moral, but if they ain't, then ya gotta make'em OBEY for the good of the group.

298 posted on 07/02/2003 3:35:47 AM PDT by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]


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