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

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0amanreapswhathesews; 0bedroomkgb; 0godwillnotbemocked; 1aslimmeyslope; 1scrotus; 1slimmeyslope; 3branchesofgovt; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; aides; aidesincreasetaxesup; aidesintheusa; aidesupinsuranceup; aidsalert; antibiblecountry; antichristiantrolls; antirelgiontrolls; antireligion; antireligionbigots; antireligiontroll; aregayapparel; arroganceofscotus; ascrotus; assthumpingidiots; biblethumpingmorons; biggovernmentcorrupt; bluenose; blueoyster; bohica; bowtothesecularstate; bowtothewelfarestate; bugger; buggered; buggerer; buggery; busybodieslose; buttpirate; buyvaselinestock; catsdogsmice; celebratesin; chickenlollipoppers; christianbashing; civilrights; clintonlegacy; constitutiontrashed; crazyfundies; culturewar; davidsouterisafaggot; deathoftheusa; deathofthewest; degeneracy; depravity; destructionofusa; devianceuptaxesup; deviantsex; donwenow; downourthroats; downwenoware; druglaws; endofcivilization; evilinactivistcourts; evilinrighttoprivacy; falalafalalalalala; falalalalalalalala; farkinqueers; fecalcontact; fools; fudgepackersdelight; fundiesinthecloset; fundyhysteria; gay; gayagenda; gayarrogance; gaybashing; gaycheese; gaycivlrights; gaydar; gaygestapo; gaykeywords; gaymafia; gaymarriage; gaymoose; gaynarcissist; gaypride; gayrights; gaysarevictimtoo; gayscelebrate; gaysholdusacaptive; gaysoutofcloset; gaysremakeamerica; gayssuppressthetruth; gaystapo; gaytrolldolls; gaytyrants; gayvote; getoutofmyroom; goawaymrsgrundy; godless; godsjudgement; godswrath; governmentschoolsex; hatecrimelegislation; himom; hitlerywins; homeschoolnow; homoapologists; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualagendawins; homosexualvote; hyperventilating; ihavearighttosin; ihaverights; incestlaws; indoctrination; itsjustsex; itsunatural; jeebuslovesgays; keywordwarsaregay; kitcheneducation; kneepadbrigade; lawrencevtexas; legislatinghate; legislatingsin; legislaturemakeslaws; lewinksys4all; lewinsky; lewinskys; liars; liberalagenda; libertariansareevil; libertines; lotsdaughters; lpcausesbo; makejeebuscry; manboylove; manboyloveassoc; manholeinspectorjoy; menwithmen; moralrelativism; moralrelativistinusa; msgrundypatrol; mycousinknowsclay; nambla; namblawillwinnext; onepercentrulesusa; oralsex; ourgayapparel; paulwellstone; pcdecision; pederasty; peepingtomgovt; perversion; perverts; preverts; prisoners; privacyprotection; prostitutionlaws; publichealthhazard; puritanslose; readtheconstitution; relgionbashing; religionbashing; romans1godswrath; rosieishappytoday; rosietypes; rumprangers; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; samesexmarriages; scotusknowsbest; scotusmakeslaw; scotustrumpsgodslaw; scotustrumpstate; scotustyranny; scrotus; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; sexpolice; sin; singlorified; slimmeyslope; slipperyslop; slipperyslope; slouching; slurpslurp; snitchonyourneighbor; sodomandgomorrah; sodomites; sodommites; sodomy; sodomylaw; sodomylaws; spyinthebushes; statesrights; stronginthesouth; supremecourt; swalloworspit; talibanintheusa; talibannedtrolls; texassodomylaw; thefunpolice; thegayelite; thegayvote; thisisevil; tisseasontobeunhappy; tistheseason; tobejolly; usathirdworldcountry; vicesnowvirtues; victimlesscrime; victimsofaids; victimsofhepatitus; weakinthehead; whatstatesright; womenwithwomen; zscrotus; zslimmeyslope; zzgoodruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,101-1,1501,151-1,2001,201-1,250 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: All
What will the Supreme Court's decision mean for the military?

Today, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution protects the liberty of homosexual persons to engage in "intimate conduct" in accordance with their personal preferences. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy effectively demolished the Court's precedent from Bowers v. Hardwick, expressly overruling it and its holding that states could regulate the conduct of homosexual persons.

What does this mean for the current law banning gays in the military?

That ban exists as a matter of federal law -- 10 U.S.C. 654 -- and presumably can be overruled by a decision of the Supreme Court. I think that one of the first effects of Lawrence will be to trigger a challenge in U.S. District Court to the current policy banning gays in the military. That challenge will essentially cite Lawrence for the proposition that homosexual conduct is a fundamental right that the state cannot burden without some compelling interest -- and that the restrictions must be narrowly tailored to that compelling interest. The plaintiffs will argue that this policy (the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy) burdens the right of gay soldiers to engage in the conduct they want to, and that such a burden on a fundamental right is unconstitutional. Given the Court's holding today in Lawrence, I think that a lower court would almost certainly side with the plaintiffs.

The only possible savior for the military's ban will be the "national security" deference sometimes given to the Executive Branch and the military by the courts. In recent cases, such as challenges to President Bush's war on Iraq, the courts have expressly deferred to executive judgment on military matters, and left such issues to be decided by the political branches. Such "national security" deference was also invoked by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, where the Court upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

However, I don't think such deference will save the ban on gays in the ranks. The Court has held in religious freedom cases that the military can curtail certain personal freedoms, such as the right of Jews to wear certain religious garb. However, this is different. This ban places much more of a burden on the rights of gays than the military's uniform policies do, and this ban has a much more drastic effect (automatic discharge). After reading the Court's opinion in Lawrence, I think it's likely that this ban will be struck down as unconstitutional.

posted by Phillip at 8:21 AM

http://philcarter.blogspot.com/2003_06_22_philcarter_archive.html#105664089655662077

1,151 posted on 06/26/2003 1:45:54 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1139 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
O'Connor seemed to have changed her mind about her vote in the 1986 Bowers case

She didn't. She wanted to let Bowers stand and strike the Texas law on equal protection grounds.

1,152 posted on 06/26/2003 1:45:55 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Define patently, please.

No problem.

patently
SYLLABICATION: pat·ent·ly
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: ptnt-l, pt- KEY
ADVERB: In a patent manner; openly, plainly, or clearly: a patently false statement.

1,153 posted on 06/26/2003 1:46:17 PM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1112 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
A country of libertinarian(sic) would have been easy prey for the Nazi war machine and would have ended up under Nazi domination.

How is anyone going to conquer a nation where EVERYONE carries their firearms with them everywhere whenever they want? You really don't know much about libertarians, do you...

1,154 posted on 06/26/2003 1:48:37 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1132 | View Replies]

To: bk1000
Not in my book.
1,155 posted on 06/26/2003 1:49:49 PM PDT by wardaddy (DIVERSITY IS BEST SERVED EARNED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: rintense
you seem to know a lot about what "most" gays want. and you came by that info how?

a lot of heteros believe they can have sex anywhere as well.

let's burn them all at the stake.
1,156 posted on 06/26/2003 1:49:55 PM PDT by dmz (did i forget the /sarcasm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: OWK
This is my cue to exit. Have a nice day.

Come back when you can handle the truth OK? Maybe then you can answer why Madison and Jefferson disagrees with you, maybe why the state doesn't have the power to determine the extent any right may be exercised. Looking foward to seeing you again.

1,157 posted on 06/26/2003 1:50:21 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1146 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"You really don't know much about libertarians, do you..."

Could be he/she thinks libertarians are all a bunch of stoners. That thinking seems to be going around.
1,158 posted on 06/26/2003 1:50:28 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1154 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Come back when you can handle the truth OK?

I'll be sure and do that.

Nuthin like a good brow-beating by Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel, to put the fear of God in ya.

1,159 posted on 06/26/2003 1:52:33 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1157 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The Liberals and Libertarians are both in bed on this issue, cheering judicial legislation.

That's why they are Liberaltarians. Change society for their selfish needs.

1,160 posted on 06/26/2003 1:53:02 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1150 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I've got a whole repertoire I know by heart. Patsy Cline, Hank Williams, Sr., Marty Robbins, George Jones--all my dad's favorites. Don't make me have to use them.
1,161 posted on 06/26/2003 1:53:03 PM PDT by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1131 | View Replies]

To: OWK; Clint N. Suhks


Had you only ended it with something profound like "nyah nyah"... it might have been one for posterity.
1,114 -OWK-


"Neener neener" is prefered by the smart suhks set..

1,162 posted on 06/26/2003 1:53:25 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1114 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Don't bring that up. The Christian Socialists don't like to talk about the pesky facts of heterosexual sodomy.
1,163 posted on 06/26/2003 1:53:59 PM PDT by jmc813 (If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1144 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The Liberals and Libertarians are both in bed on this issue, cheering judicial legislation.

And laughing at you and all the rest of you busybodies with your knickers in a knot. Your panic, ranting and raving is music to my ears. Please continue.

1,164 posted on 06/26/2003 1:54:06 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1150 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Stoners? Could be. I haven't actually met a (L)ibertarian in person who openly claimed to smoke dope. Most of 'em are actually democrats.
1,165 posted on 06/26/2003 1:54:29 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1158 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Of course you do. Nobody owns you. You don't even need a reason. Secede all you want.

Congratulations freeee. You have just refuted libertarianism for me.

Effectively what you have just conceded is that people have a right to associate with people they wish, which should be obvious for a libertarian, right? Actually, this is a huge problem for strict libertarianism. Case in point:

Let's build a primitive society. A thousand people. They're all living together because they agree on basic standards of conduct, speak the same language, and so on. In other words, they like associating with each other. They share a small public infrastructure, a system of laws and so on. They are living together, of course, because people cannot live in a state of nature by themselves. They need to cooperate. Libertarians would obviously agree with this, because one of the fundamental truths of capitalism is the division of labor, i.e. people specialize in what they are good at. So you have this small, homogenous, cooperative society that is surviving pretty well.

Now, let's say that two percent of the society starts engaging in homosexuality. All men. And by doing so they insult the informal, voluntary rule-structure of society. This society has deemed homosexual sodomy to be taboo because it is a) dangerous to those participating in it, and thus costs this society in terms of having some of its members sick (lowering productivity and thus making everyone work harder, kind of like homosexuals today spread the cost of their perversion over society), and b) represents a violation of the informal understanding amongst this small society that heterosexual marriage and monogamy is the norm. This behavior damages society in that way because it breaks a taboo of society, namely that sex is for procreation inside of monogamous marriage. And the 'village elders' know from experience that if that taboo is broken, then heterosexuals will start engaging in non-marital, non-monogamous sex, and cause all kinds of other problems such as adulterous relationships, children born out of wedlock and so on. Therefore, the society itself has put it's own taboo on homosexuality (voluntarily) because it is detrimental to the whole.

So, the 'village elders', along with the rest of the 'village', come to these 30 homosexual men and tell them that their behavior is negatively affecting the community. It is causing problems, and the village wants them to stop. The men say, 'no, we have a right to engage in this behavior, and we don't think we're hurting anyone'. The village elders reply, 'Well, we think you are hurting us, by hurting our society. We don't want to punish you, but we don't want you around. We don't want to freely associate with you. Either you stop doing what you're doing, or you leave the village'.

So, the homosexual men have a problem here. They don't want to stop buggering each other, but they know full well that if they continue, they will be thrown out of society. They could choose to leave the society, and go it alone, but they also know that they'd probably die because the behavior that they engage in is inherently destructive. So, they know that they can't live without society, and society can live without them and their destructive behavior that is hurting society. Society is asking them to make a voluntary choice. If they choose buggery, they get banished to the wilderness to die. If they choose to give up buggery, they get to live.

Note, society is coercing these 30 homosexuals into stopping their behavior. Their choice is either heterosexuality and life, or going out into the state of nature to continue their homosexuality and death. But, they also have a free choice. It's up to them. Society has already spoken. Under the libertarian construction of things, the society--as a voluntary association of individuals, freely making the choice to associate with one another--has a perfect, libertarian right to determine who has 'membership' in the 'club'. They've decided that homosexuals do not qualify for membership. Homosexuals desperately want in the 'club', primarily because being in the club means safety and security, but they don't want to give up their homosexual behavior.

So, on one side of the debate, we have the 'right to free association', and on the other side of the debate we have the 'right to homosexual sex'. The homosexuals can't live without the heterosexuals, but the heterosexuals can easily live without the homosexuals. And the heterosexuals don't want to be around homosexuals. And this, my dear, is where libertarianism collapses. Because just as you can assert the 'right to homosexual sex', I can just as easily assert the 'right to free association', i.e. not be affected whatsoever by homosexuals. And both are equally valid, under the libertarian construction.

So, really if the homosexuals want all the great benefits of society, they have to give up their behavior. But the heterosexuals don't need to do anything. They'll just keep on keepin' on and not think a thing of it. The way this plays out in this debate today is that homosexuals tell us they have a 'right' to engage in their behavior, which is uniformly destructive and anti-social. I would like to assert my 'right' to tell them otherwise, but unfortunately what the SCOTUS told us today is not that homosexuals have a 'right' to engage in their behavior, but that society doesn't have a 'right' to stop it. And how would we know if the village (the people of Texas) approve or disapprove of homosexual sodomy? By voting, of course, through the elected representatives of the state of Texas. Basically, all the SCOTUS did today was disenfranchise Texas voters to please the PC cops.

Libertarianism is untenable. You assert a 'right' pro, I assert a 'right' contra. And because there's no way to know who's right and who's wrong in any objective way, it all comes down to power. In my example above, society had the power to dictate to the homosexuals. In Lawrence v. Texas, a pro-homosexual SCOTUS used their power to dictate to the people of Texas on behalf of the homosexuals. In other words, the homosexuals just hired some muscle. That's it.

Cheer your 'win', libertarians. It is suitably appropriate that the libertarian version of 'liberty' only works when it's being shoved on people by autocratic judicial diktat.

1,166 posted on 06/26/2003 1:54:45 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 992 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Change society for their selfish needs.

Yeah!!! Who the hell needs all that "freedom" stuff anyway.

Moron...

1,167 posted on 06/26/2003 1:55:40 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1160 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Nuthin like a good brow-beating by Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel, to put the fear of God in ya.

Mark of the true liberal, name calling on the way out, thanks for not disappointing.

1,168 posted on 06/26/2003 1:55:41 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1159 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
A fine point I guess. The fed said they would ignore state law and arrest anyway. And you cheer. But I concede the SCOTUS has not heard the case yet. I do love to see you WoD cheerleaders pick and choose when you worship Fed power, though.
1,169 posted on 06/26/2003 1:55:56 PM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1140 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
"Don't bring that up. The Christian Socialists don't like to talk about the pesky facts of heterosexual sodomy."

Some do. There's one person here who claims that all oral sexual activity is sinful and against his deity's will. I can't seem to find any support for that point of view in the Bible, but that doesn't stop them.

Still, there are a lot of good ol' boys down in the Bible belt who are committing these heinous felonies with their own wives. Now, if they knew that they could lose their right to own firearms if tried and convicted of sodomy, maybe some of those laws would get repealed.

I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored, eh?
1,170 posted on 06/26/2003 1:57:20 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1163 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
let me just put it this way - your desire to use the apparatus of the state to force others to live by your particular religious view of sexual morality is bad.

Clever, though terribly hypocritical. At least you are admitting that there is at least one moral absolute and it is bad. What gives you the right to say that?

BTW, I am not asking anyone to live according to my particular religious views. Nice try at changing the subject. The Constitution doesn't say there must be a separation of morality and state. Our Founders wanted moral laws.

Are you for banning taxpayer dollars from being used to research, fund, educate, etc...about these bedroom activities?

1,171 posted on 06/26/2003 1:57:30 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1100 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
You must be thrilled that Jim Robinson considers Libertarians "our good friends".
1,172 posted on 06/26/2003 1:57:36 PM PDT by jmc813 (If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1160 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
The Christian Socialists don't like to talk about the pesky facts of heterosexual sodomy

The decision wasn't based in "equal protection", it was based in policy and the right to privacy found in the Roe and Doe penumbra.

Overall, a good day for judicial activism and proponents of a strong central government.

A bad day for federalists and freedom.

1,173 posted on 06/26/2003 1:57:53 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1163 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; Antoninus
It was put in juvenile language, but the point remains. If you look at the map where sodomy laws include both heterosexual and homosexual couples, it's surprising. There are a lot of folks in those states who are committing sodomy on a regular basis, since sodomy definitions generally include oral-genital sexual activity.

i really don't know what antoninus thinks was juvenile about it. i *was* teasing him a bit, but i was also being very serious in pointing out that most hetero's in my conservative home state of utah do not even realize oral sex is, or rather was, illegal.

they will be much more shocked by that revelation, than to learn gays now have the same privacy rights that they assumed we all had all along (if you follow).

1,174 posted on 06/26/2003 1:57:58 PM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1144 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Yeah!!! Who the hell needs all that "freedom" stuff anyway.

We've done just fine so far, thank God you Liberaltarians are still the irrelevant 2% of the population.

Moron...

Look OWK, another liberal like you. No argument neeeded.

1,175 posted on 06/26/2003 1:58:41 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1167 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I do not believe state legislatures should pass laws against private, consensual sex when no money is involved, but I also do not believe the federal courts have the Constitutional power to regulate in this area. Even though I agree with the ends, I disagree with the means.

If the 14th amendment is meant to protect a broad continuum of rights, then who defines these supposedly self-evident rights? The liberals have since FDR claimed people have the right to freedom from want, which they have used to justify state-sponsored plunder and redistribution.

I believe if any branch of government is to define what the 9th amendment means by other rights, it should be the voters themselves and their elected representatives, not unelected justices.

I trust the people more than some elite.
1,176 posted on 06/26/2003 1:58:52 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1143 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Gibberish.
1,177 posted on 06/26/2003 1:59:58 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1127 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
That ban exists as a matter of federal law -- 10 U.S.C. 654 -- and presumably can be overruled by a decision of the Supreme Court

I believe the Constitution states that the military code of conduct is not subject to the same Constitutional restrictions as the rest of federal law, and I also believe court cases have upheld this view.

1,178 posted on 06/26/2003 2:00:22 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1151 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Some folks are so repressed they can't even spell "sucks" correctly.
1,179 posted on 06/26/2003 2:00:31 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1167 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
Don't make me have to use them.

Hank Sr? Now that is old school.

"There's a tear in my beer cause I'm crying for you,dear
You are on my lonely mind
Into these last few beers, I have shed a million tears
You are on my lonely mind..."

Everybody sing!!!

1,180 posted on 06/26/2003 2:00:35 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1161 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Still, there are a lot of good ol' boys down in the Bible belt who are committing these heinous felonies with their own wives. Now, if they knew that they could lose their right to own firearms if tried and convicted of sodomy, maybe some of those laws would get repealed.

In your haste to applaud judicial activism and edicts from the Duma, you have failed to notice that those laws have been overturned in almost every state by the duly elected legislators.

1,181 posted on 06/26/2003 2:00:41 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1170 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
The fed said they would ignore state law

False again. The state law never purported to nullify federal law, and its proponents explicitly conceded the point on the ballot.

1,182 posted on 06/26/2003 2:00:56 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1169 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
You must be thrilled that Jim Robinson considers Libertarians "our good friends".

Fiscally yes, socially no, but I serve at his pleasure.

1,183 posted on 06/26/2003 2:01:05 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1172 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
The way this plays out in this debate today is that homosexuals tell us they have a 'right' to engage in their behavior, which is uniformly destructive and anti-social.

Would you like to see smoking cigarettes be banned? What about fast food joints?

1,184 posted on 06/26/2003 2:02:01 PM PDT by jmc813 (If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1166 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
This behavior damages society in that way because it breaks a taboo of society, namely that sex is for procreation inside of monogamous marriage

FYI -- Common sense & experience shows that the overwhelming anount of people in this society do not regard sex outside of marriage or sex for reasons other than procreation as "taboo".

...if that taboo is broken, then heterosexuals will start engaging in non-marital, non-monogamous sex, and cause all kinds of other problems such as adulterous relationships, children born out of wedlock and so on.

There are millions & millions of people in our society -- and on this very website -- who have had non-marital, non-monagamous sex with no consequences whatsoever. Same with sex for reasons other than procreation.

1,185 posted on 06/26/2003 2:02:58 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1166 | View Replies]

To: rintense
so you advocate government intrusion in private organizations and businesses.

can you say boy scouts of america.

when the shoe is on the other foot, you'll scream bloody murder at the intrusion.

i know i should be more sensitive (gag me) but when i see 2 guys kissing on tv, i change the channel. when i see 2 women kissing, though, i hit the record button. (just kidding)

my theory on why some men are grossed out by 2 men having sex, but enjoy watching 2 women go at it...when 2 women are having sex there are 2 naked women to look at. the more the merrier. just a thought.
1,186 posted on 06/26/2003 2:03:01 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Would you mind FReepmailing me the screen name of the FReeper you described? I've gotta check this out.
1,187 posted on 06/26/2003 2:03:44 PM PDT by jmc813 (If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1170 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
LOL. But of course, the only right not enumerated by the 14th amendment in your copy of the Constitution is the right to life for the unborn.

In that instance, you become a federalist.

1,188 posted on 06/26/2003 2:03:56 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1177 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Homo-apologists fail to notice lots of things ... it makes them funny, don'tcha know!
1,189 posted on 06/26/2003 2:04:03 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 1181 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt
[The Liberals and Libertarians are both in bed on this issue, cheering judicial legislation.]

And laughing at you

Comrades.

1,190 posted on 06/26/2003 2:04:35 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1164 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
If the 14th amendment is meant to protect a broad continuum of rights, then who defines these supposedly self-evident rights?

Tpaine, of course. See 1188.

1,191 posted on 06/26/2003 2:05:47 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1176 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; Thane_Banquo
Thane_Banquo needs to be told..

- Not that he will understand, of course.
1,192 posted on 06/26/2003 2:06:47 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1149 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
As a small-l libertarian, I agree with you to the extent that I'd have much prefered Texas to scrap this law on their own. But then again, I've been having a great time watching the "God Hates Fags" crowd expose their hypocrisy and claim that they're annoyed over the Constitutional machinations. BTW, I'm not referring to you above.
1,193 posted on 06/26/2003 2:07:09 PM PDT by jmc813 (If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1173 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Libertarians are cheering.

So, explain why it's the libertarian's fault this time!

1,194 posted on 06/26/2003 2:08:40 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
If you believe everything the Founders did or said was holy and sacred and perfect, then we disagree.
1,195 posted on 06/26/2003 2:09:56 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1019 | View Replies]

To: dmz
my theory on why some men are grossed out by 2 men having sex, but enjoy watching 2 women go at it...when 2 women are having sex there are 2 naked women to look at. the more the merrier. just a thought.

There was a FReeper claiming the other day that men who enjoyed watching lesbians were in the "perverted minority". Riiiiight....

1,196 posted on 06/26/2003 2:10:09 PM PDT by jmc813 (If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1186 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
So, explain why it's the libertarian's fault this time!

It's not the "libertarians fault". It is a fault by those libertarians cheering the finding of rights in the penumbra of the Constitution once again by the 9 robes.

The same people who roundly criticised O'Connor and the 4 dwarves for replacing the word "diversity" for equal protection under the law are here today cheering her and Kennedy for again ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Two different things.

1,197 posted on 06/26/2003 2:12:41 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1194 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
Did you catch the hilarious series of posts by Lazamataz today in which he parodized Kevin? Great stuff.
1,198 posted on 06/26/2003 2:13:01 PM PDT by jmc813 (If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1194 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
"Actually, this is a huge problem for strict libertarianism. Case in point:"

Your example fails, because the folks in your case in point aren't libertarians. They're authoritarians. Your example is centered around a majority denying a right to a minority. That is not Freedom, it is authoritarian rule. There is no right to not have your sensibilities offended. (l)ibertarians understand this.

What commandment have the folks that form the minority in your case in point broken?

1,199 posted on 06/26/2003 2:13:20 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1166 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Would you like to see smoking cigarettes be banned? What about fast food joints

I always love how you libertarians reflexively appoint me Tsar. I have one vote. So do you. If you don't like my positions, vote against them. And no, neither.

1,200 posted on 06/26/2003 2:14:11 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1184 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,101-1,1501,151-1,2001,201-1,250 ... 1,701-1,734 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