Privacy amok (Sodomy Laws)

Washington Times ^ | 6/27/03

[kattracks]

The Supreme Court turned the Constitution upside down yesterday. In a 6-3 decision, the majority struck down state sodomy laws across the country ? a move that is being celebrated as a huge victory for homosexual rights, which it is. The court used the so-called right to privacy to rule against a Texas law prohibiting sex between people of the same sex. In a brazen example of judicial overreach, the court also ruled against all sodomy laws in all states. This is bad law; the Constitution protects the rights of the states to legislate on these matters.

[LiteKeeper]

Today, there is a news report of a 17 year old boy arrested for committing incest with his sister. So why isn't their "engagement" protected by the so-called "provacy" provisions that are protecting Sodomites? Hmmm?

[RAT Patrol]

An aside: It appears my state Constitution Party is no longer functioning. I don't know what's up with that. All this drama and they've already pulled their own plug. Oh well. There must be like-minded people out there somewhere. I'll find 'em.

[tbpiper]

You're dodging the question. Is sodomy wrong?

[tpaine]

Is what kind of sodomy 'wrong' in what context to whom?

Learn to ask a specific question.

[tdadams]

If I think sodomy is wrong, I won't do it. If you think it's wrong, you shouldn't do it either. Whether or not you or I think it's wrong, we don't get to vote away someone else's rights.

Do I think it's wrong for two consenting adults to engage in a variation of sex without state approval? LOL!

[tbpiper]

Do I think it's wrong for two consenting adults to engage in a variation of sex without state approval? LOL!

Look, it's Friday, it's been a long week. Your answers have been clever and I realize it takes a lot o energy to be smart, far more than I usually have. All I wanted was a simple 'yes' or 'no'. That's not too difficult is it?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Learn to ask a specific question.

It doesn’t matter, you Liberaltarians won’t answer them anyway. But let’s try it again just for shits and grins OK? Why does the power of the state have the right to regulate consensual incest?

[Polycarp]

With ban on gay bashing on FR in effect

There's a "ban on gay bashing" in effect on FR?

[tdadams]

does this interfere with the right of freaking hippie-libertine (LP) whackjobs to snort coke, do hookers, pack fudge and whatever feels good to them?!

Spewing bellicose histrionics seems to be a good way to establish the seriousness of your intellect, isn't it?

[tbpiper]

Learn to ask a specific question.

What do you mean by 'specific'? Do you me specific as to the point of the question or specific as in directing the question to a specific person for an answer. Clarification would be helpful. By 'clarification' I mean being specific about which specificity you were specifying.

[tdadams]

Your answers have been clever and I realize it takes a lot o energy to be smart

It's not so much that my answers are clever, they're simply logical. It helps that the arguments on the other side are so baseless.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I am getting tried of this. Don't you fools realize that with the Supreme Court ruling that a person has a Constitutional right to privacy in their home, that this ruling lays the foundation to gut both the IRS and anti-drug laws of a lot of the power they have over us all.

[tpaine]

Its simple, suhks. -

- The state does not have the power to regulate consensual incest between adults.

[tpaine]

Is what kind of sodomy 'wrong' in what context to whom?

Learn to ask a specific question.
24 -tpaine-


What do you mean by 'specific'? Do you me specific as to the point of the question or specific as in directing the question to a specific person for an answer. Clarification would be helpful. By 'clarification' I mean being specific about which specificity you were specifying.
-pipe-


Can you read? - I asked you a specific question just above:

"Is what kind of sodomy 'wrong' in what context to whom?"

[Empire_of_Liberty]

Maybe this is as good a thread as any for me to throw out the stupid question going through my head in these sodomy threads (hopefully not too stupid):

Did the sodomy laws have a purpose? Is there a legitimate historical reason for them?

I ask this, because I see most in opposition to them implying that they are simply a prudish attempt to police sex through the government. I find this simplistic history of these laws to be unlikely.

I am wondering if state sodomy laws are intended to be the catch-all non-heterosexual equivalent for age-of-consent laws intended to protect young people from heterosexual abuse.

In other words, let's say an adult male is molesting boys. What can he be charged with? Would he have a good defense against age-of-consent laws in claiming that he was not involved in sex?

Please understand that I am not joking with these questions. I am thinking of the recent Catholic church scandals and wondering what actual criminal charges could be brought without legal prohibitions against sodomy, or at least sodomy with minors.

[tbpiper]

Oh, thou son of Iacoca, you have Dodged again. Let me see if I can ask the question more clearly.

IS.....SODOMY.....WRONG???

An answer in the form of:

Yes, because.....

or

No, because......

or

I don't know, because..... would be helpful to one logicly challenged as I am.

[Wolfie]

The 10th amendment is dead as a door nail. Has been for years.

[tpaine]

-- does a society (The People) have the right to pass laws, through their elected legislators, based on majority will and their traditional moral judgments...or not?
-tr76-

Nope, not under our constitution. Laws must conform to the restrictions of our BOR's. - Got it?