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 ... 1,151-1,2001,201-1,2501,251-1,300 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: LanPB01; Lazamataz
What does the fifth dentist think?
1,201 posted on 06/26/2003 2:14:42 PM PDT by Xenalyte (I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"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?

1,202 posted on 06/26/2003 2:14:51 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1162 | View Replies]

To: gdani
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.

1,203 posted on 06/26/2003 2:15:16 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1185 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
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

1,204 posted on 06/26/2003 2:15:19 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1196 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
No! I've been away from FR mostly the last few days. Where is it?
1,205 posted on 06/26/2003 2:15:46 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1198 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
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.

1,206 posted on 06/26/2003 2:15:51 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
" 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.

1,207 posted on 06/26/2003 2:16:39 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1194 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
And no, neither.

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

1,208 posted on 06/26/2003 2:16:45 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 1200 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I don't cheer the decision. But it's not unexpected.
1,209 posted on 06/26/2003 2:17:10 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1197 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
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.
1,210 posted on 06/26/2003 2:17:39 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1207 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I just rearranged all the cigarettes in the rack. Now the Marlboros are where the Kools should be.
1,211 posted on 06/26/2003 2:18:34 PM PDT by Xenalyte (I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1210 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
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).

1,212 posted on 06/26/2003 2:19:04 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1203 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
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.

1,213 posted on 06/26/2003 2:19:56 PM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1171 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
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.

1,214 posted on 06/26/2003 2:20:00 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1193 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
yep. No problem with gays at all.

When you have gays in the military, young soldiers will get raped.
1,215 posted on 06/26/2003 2:20:35 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1151 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
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.

1,216 posted on 06/26/2003 2:21:32 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1214 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
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.

1,217 posted on 06/26/2003 2:22:12 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1209 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
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).

1,218 posted on 06/26/2003 2:23:12 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1214 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
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.
1,219 posted on 06/26/2003 2:23:18 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
it’s taken power from the state

And therein lies the problem.

1,220 posted on 06/26/2003 2:23:26 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1217 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
I don't cheer the decision. But it's not unexpected.

That's not good enough. They could have written a decision based on "equal protection" because the law did not apply to heterosexuals as well. I would have understood that.

They didn't, they used Roe, bad case law, as a precednt for a privacy right nowhere to be found in the COnstitution. The Constitution is amendable, taht's how you change it.

I can't stand judicial activism, it reeks of elitisma nd hubris and pisses me off.

1,221 posted on 06/26/2003 2:24:17 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1209 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"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."

Almost. Not all. There's a nice map upthread.
1,222 posted on 06/26/2003 2:24:33 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1181 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I don't like it simply because I think they interfered where they had no right to. As a Texan, I can say - we're capable of handling it ourselves. Leave it to the states.
1,223 posted on 06/26/2003 2:25:42 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1221 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
Now the Marlboros are where the Kools should be.

That's not bad for a beginner. Let us know when you reach truely "New Kids on the Block Christmas Album" type Eeeevvil.

1,224 posted on 06/26/2003 2:25:51 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1211 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Nice try, but it fails in several counts.

1. Who owns the land? You never say. If the land in your small society is privately owned, those who own it can tell gays or anyone else to leave for any reason, or no reason at all.

If the gays own some of the land in the city with no pre-existing contractual restrictions against their behavior, they have a property right to stay on their land. Under libertarianism, they cannot be forced to leave their own property for actions that do not initiate force or fraud.

2. And by doing so they insult the informal, voluntary rule-structure of society.

Are you asserting that the gay men are breaking a rule they consented to? This is a profound breakdown of logic on your part.

3. A libertarian society cannot have laws that initiate force or fraud, no matter if everyone there agrees to them. The gay people in your example never initiated force or fraud in their actions. Exiling them by force is initiation of force, hence your theoretical society was never libertarian to begin with, and its failure cannot be attributed to libertarianism.

Here is the exception: Libertarians could form a private community with voluntary rules, such as a homeowners association. If these gays previously agreed by contract with whomever they bought their land to refrain from their behavior, and they break that contract, they have committed fraud, and can be ejected from the community. Note that this is not initiation of force or fraud, it is contract enforcement, which is very libertarian.

It sounds like you have a lot to learn about libertarianism before you refute it. OWK's post #1077 covers free association in libertarian societies. I suggest you re-read it.

1,225 posted on 06/26/2003 2:25:56 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1166 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot
Ummm yeah right...

THIS IS A PRIVACY ISSUE...NOT A STATE ISSUE

It is very simple...

1,226 posted on 06/26/2003 2:26:36 PM PDT by I_love_weather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
You are mandating amorality. You take it further and call for the public condemning of morality as it has been defined for as long as history has been recorded. These words aren't that tough to define unless your name is Bill Clinton.
1,227 posted on 06/26/2003 2:26:36 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 1213 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
"Would you mind FReepmailing me the screen name of the FReeper you described? I've gotta check this out.
"

I would, but I can't remember. It was in another of these interminable threads a week or so ago. Sorry.
1,228 posted on 06/26/2003 2:26:36 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot
Ummm yeah right...

THIS IS A PRIVACY ISSUE...NOT A STATE ISSUE

It is very simple...

1,229 posted on 06/26/2003 2:26:36 PM PDT by I_love_weather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Do you, Todd, take this gerbil, Lemmywinks, to be your loving rodent...to cram and to hold, in your rectum and in health, so long as Lemmywinks can breathe...answer now, by saying, I do..."

"And do you, Lemmywinks, take this creep, to be your loving pervert...to gasp and to choke, in his rectum while you can breathe...answer now by squeaking..."

That's where we're headed...

1,230 posted on 06/26/2003 2:26:36 PM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
The marriage amendment has a shot. 2/3 of each House of Congress would be likely to pass it as presently constituted IF there were a provocation (such as the Massachussets or New Jersey decisions being handed down imposing gay marriage).

37 states would have to ratify, but they'd have 7 years to do so, and would only have to do so by a simple majority vote in each house of the state legislature.

To get to 13 states refusing to ratify, you have to start with a hard core (MA, CT, RI, NJ, NY, MD, CA) and then add six more which would never find an amenable legislature once in seven years.

Is there any doubt [marriage amendment] would pass??? imho, plenty of doubt.

in fact, i'm willing to say you will _never_ get it passed by 2/3 of the senate or 3/4 of the states. you should have tried it 10 years ago - so it goes.

1,231 posted on 06/26/2003 2:26:36 PM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 838 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
"Would you mind FReepmailing me the screen name of the FReeper you described? I've gotta check this out.
"

I would, but I can't remember. It was in another of these interminable threads a week or so ago. Sorry.
1,232 posted on 06/26/2003 2:26:36 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Different issues.
1,233 posted on 06/26/2003 2:26:36 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1218 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
I think it's right on this thread. Do a user search for Lazamataz.
1,234 posted on 06/26/2003 2:28:06 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 1205 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Very, Very well written essay.

I am all for privacy, but this behaviour has costs. We just spent 15 Billion for Africa AIDS. The people who engage in this poor behaviour demand that society pay for thier deeds.
1,235 posted on 06/26/2003 2:28:10 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1166 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
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.

Actually, no, my example does not fail. You're thinking it fails because it destroys libertarianism right before your eyes and you don't want to believe it. If you assert the right to homosexual sex, I can and will assert the right not to be around people who engage in homosexual sex. I assert it to the point that I do not wish to be in the same society as people who practice it. The people who practice it cannot survive by themselves and thus need people to support their behavior. I do not wish to support their behavior.

There is a conflict between the "right to homosexual sex" and the "right to free association". What homosexuals really want is the "right to homosexual sex while violating everyone else's right to free association". Thus they have to find a way to force people who don't want to be around them to accept them while still engaging in behavior that hurts people who do not engage in it. They want to have their cake and eat it too. So, they have to "initiate judicial coercion" against non-compliant heterosexuals via the SCOTUS. Because if the state of Texas ignores this decision, there will be consequences. Financial and so on.

The SCOTUS just violated the "force, fraud, coercion" principle of libertarianism by initiating coercion against the people of Texas.

Happy Day, huh libertarians?

1,236 posted on 06/26/2003 2:28:24 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1199 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse; Lazamataz
I emptied my granny's pantry, soaked all the labels off the cans, and put the tunafish labels on the catfood.

Then I took the tuna. Catfood is good enough for the old bat.
1,237 posted on 06/26/2003 2:28:24 PM PDT by Xenalyte (I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1224 | 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.

i imagine that within 20 years gays will have both state recognized monogamous marriages and the ability to reproduce directly with each other.

i assume you would have no problem with them at that point in time, correct?

1,238 posted on 06/26/2003 2:29:05 PM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1166 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Almost. Not all. There's a nice map upthread.

And because they won't do it or didn't do it in your timetable, you favor federal intervention from the group of 9?

Did you favor O'Connors decision regarding the finding of "diversity" embedded in the penumbra yesterday?

Or does judicial activism come in flavors?

1,239 posted on 06/26/2003 2:30:23 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1222 | View Replies]

To: gdani
"(And while there are adultery laws on the books they are never enforced).
"

Neither were those sodomy laws. But...where a law remains on the books, it can be enforced whenever someone has some axe to grind, or when it suits a political purpose.
1,240 posted on 06/26/2003 2:31:51 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1212 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
Cussing is a sign of an underdeveloped vocabulary yet your's is well devloped. Why the conundrum?
1,241 posted on 06/26/2003 2:32:52 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1216 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
But in this case you're OK with the SCOTUS making new law because it runs parallel with your ideology.

No I'm not. The funny part is that I agree with the fundamentalists on this case to the extent that the FedGov should NOT have this power over the states.

It is enjoyable, however, to see many of the same people who defend the Federal Drug War come to these threads and start spouting off about the Constitution. It exposes their hypcrisy.

Again, I'm not refering to you. You seem like you know what you're talking about Constitutionally.

1,242 posted on 06/26/2003 2:32:55 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 1214 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
But...where a law remains on the books, it can be enforced whenever someone has some axe to grind, or when it suits a political purpose

Good point. Of course, I don't think they have any business being on the books in the first place.......

1,243 posted on 06/26/2003 2:33:50 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1240 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
I practice law for a living, and constitutional law is an area in which I've practiced. If you think I, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are simpletons, so be it.
1,244 posted on 06/26/2003 2:34:05 PM PDT by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: gdani
(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).

Gay marriage too. Hypocrites.

1,245 posted on 06/26/2003 2:34:28 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 1218 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
No I'm not. The funny part is that I agree with the fundamentalists on this case to the extent that the FedGov should NOT have this power over the states.

OK good. It's nice to find principle.

1,246 posted on 06/26/2003 2:35:13 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1242 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
No, cussing is a sign of extreme anger. Sometimes simple words won't do. More emphasis must be used. I cannot yell or throw things over the internet. Therefore, I cuss.
1,247 posted on 06/26/2003 2:35:16 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1241 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
No, I'm against this vote because the people of Texas have a right to regulate their society for the greater good. As I detailed in the longer post, there are both profoundly negative public health and public morality implications for the public acceptance of homosexuality. I would try to make this case to the people of Texas or anywhere else if I could. If they blew me off and voted otherwise, there's not much I could say.

If the people want to go to Hell, they're going to Hell, sodomy statutes or no.

1,248 posted on 06/26/2003 2:36:05 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1208 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
That's one of the funniest things I've ever seen. :)
1,249 posted on 06/26/2003 2:37:10 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1234 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Gay marriage too. Hypocrites

Ahhh - I never even thought of that one.

Bu then, Free Republic (and society in general) is full of hypocritcal people who say they want limited Govt but contradict themselves through their words & actions.

While I'm definitely not a Libertarian, I have to admire them for their consistency.

1,250 posted on 06/26/2003 2:37:57 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1245 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,151-1,2001,201-1,2501,251-1,300 ... 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