SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[Xenalyte]

What does the fifth dentist think?

[Clint N. Suhks]

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

Ok smart guy, why is the the power to determine the extent any right may be exercised not in the 10th?

[HumanaeVitae]

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".

Great. Then people will vote to remove that taboo by electing people to state legislatures who vow to remove laws reflecting that taboo. Pretty easy this voting stuff.

[Cathryn Crawford]

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

LMAO

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/934239/posts?page=22#22

[Cathryn Crawford]

No! I've been away from FR mostly the last few days. Where is it?

[Sandy]

Have you walked down any city street recently and looked at anything going on above shoe level?

You've seen people doing sodomy on city streets? Just a thought Kevin, but maybe you should consider hanging around more reputable locales.

[spunkets]

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

They were smokin' dope downwind of the judges chambers instead of tending to their usual activities of causing rust, pits and raising clouds of dust.

[jmc813]

And no, neither.

So, you're against this ruling because of a religious/moral standpoint, not a public health standpoint.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I don't cheer the decision. But it's not unexpected.

[Dead Corpse]

And plaque. Can't forget the plaque. Right now, I'm also causing stock clerks to put the wrong expriation date on bags of puppy chow.

[Xenalyte]

I just rearranged all the cigarettes in the rack. Now the Marlboros are where the Kools should be.

[gdani]

Great. Then people will vote to remove that taboo by electing people to state legislatures who vow to remove laws reflecting that taboo. Pretty easy this voting stuff

Sounds like you're saying that whether something is "taboo" or not depends on whether or not there is a law against it. I, for one, do not need laws to make such judgments.

By the way, I'm not aware of any laws that prevent people from engaging in sex for reasons other than procreation. (And while there are adultery laws on the books they are never enforced).

[jethropalerobber]

I am not asking anyone to live according to my particular religious views.

riiiight, you're not asking anyone, you're just telling them that if they don't they could be fined or thrown in jail.

The Constitution doesn't say there must be a separation of morality and state.

since you use 'morality' as a code word for 'religion' i would say your claim about the constitution is wrong.

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

naturally i am.
what a strange question. i'm not 100% sure, but i don't think our government has ever spent taxpayer dollars funding oral or anal sex.

[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 in this case you're OK with the SCOTUS making new law because it runs parallel with your ideology.

Were you OK with O'Connor's replacing diversity for "equal protection"?

I'm not OK with either one and I'm not OK with the feds imposing pot laws on states either.

If California wants to de-criminalise weed, it's up to them not DC.

You see, even when results run counter to my social conservatism, I recognise that either we have a Constitution or we don't. At this point, we don't.

[fooman]

yep. No problem with gays at all.

When you have gays in the military, young soldiers will get raped.

[Cathryn Crawford]

m not OK with either one and I'm not OK with the feds imposing pot laws on states either.

I personally would like to see the federal government keep their f*ck*ng noses out of the states' business.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I don't cheer the decision. But it's not unexpected.

It should be, it’s taken power from the state and what was thought to be obscure slippery slope arguments are know very realistic.

[gdani]

I'm not OK with either one and I'm not OK with the feds imposing pot laws on states either

Or "assisted suicide" laws, for that matter.

(Many of the same people who hate that SCOTUS struck down this law would have no problem with SCOTUS doing the same to assisted suicide laws).

[Dimensio]

Ah, geez, I think that I know the person to whom he's referring. She's a Catholic (I only mention that because she uses her religion to justify her assertions), and she comes out strong against legalized sodomy even when involving heterosexuals who are married to one another. I think that she's even spoken out against contracpetion. I'll try to remember her screen name.

[Cathryn Crawford]

it’s taken power from the state

And therein lies the problem.