Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
SCOTUS sided with the perverts.
I don't know why, maybe for cultural reasons and the slippery slope that homosexuals might want to compare themselves to heterosexuals?
Is that a compelling state interest?
Do you have a source for that? Or are you just pulling silly arguments out of your hat?
Uh-oh.
There's also no "right to privacy" a la Roe which, unbelievably Kennedy cited as precedent.
The Constitution doesn't mean crap any more and states have become superfluous.
You may well be right about the Valley but "this continent" Come on! Every now and again I receive a spammed e-mail with links to all sorts of "explicit - woman loves horse" links. Are you telling me that all this sick s*** is made overseas? Please.
Notice that bestially was prefaced with 'commercial'. Depiction and production of bestiality for commercial purposes (and others as well) is illegal in Canada, the US and Mexico. Most likely, if you get one of those emails, all servers storing data that they advertise will be outside of N. America.
Try building a machine gun in your basement (easily done) and you'll find out about "enforcement" against actions in your own home which harm no one. Assuming you survive said "enforcement action", that is.
I'm not aware of any such law.
That's why the Texas sodomy law was ripe for overturning.
Sodomy laws applied only to homosexuals and bisexuals was a novel idea not grounded on our traditions, or our common law, or our Constitution.
LOL! Sinkspur is most definitely NOT a libertarian, nor do I think is he a big fan of them.
If people have changed their opinions so greatly, then there should be no problem with voting on this, should there.
No, I still would. Homosexuality is immoral now and forever. Having said that, I'm consistently amused by you libertarians always instantly promoting social conservatives to positions of super-authority. Gotta be Freudian. Anyway, if society has descended to that point and people have no problem with it, there's not much one guy banging away on a keybord on the North Shore can do about it.
Are you saying that it's right??
That is absolutely ridiculous. Just when I think the logical contortions can't get any more disingenuous...
No one is mandating amorality. You're free to be as moral as you please.
Yes they were, well aparently their own apartment. The cops *did not* know they were having sex. A neighbor reported someone "going crazy", and they broke in on probable cause of a crime in progress. Just not the crime they arrested the men for. But that apparently doesn't enter into the decision. If it did, all drug busts at "seatbelt" checkpoints would be invalid, and they're not.
That argument has all the veracity of a trial lawyer working on a contingency fee.
Completely irrelevant. Under the libertarian construction of things, if people voluntarily agree to organize society in any way they wish, that's kosher with libertarians. Doesn't matter if the land is communally owned or privately owned. The small society has to agree, voluntarily, on social organization. However they do that is irrelevant to the argument, because whichever way they do it, it's voluntary. Perfect libertarianism.
Are you asserting that the gay men are breaking a rule they consented to? This is a profound breakdown of logic on your part
I stated that there was a pre-existing taboo (social rule) on sodomy. It was well established. By living in that society, they agree to abide by it.
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.
Sure they did. They initiated fraud. There was a pre-existing, informal, covenantal agreement forbidding homosexuality. They broke it.
I can understand why you're arguing specifics. You've pretty much lost the broad point.
Your obfuscation is well noted pain...
What? I think they deserve a fighting chance to either run away or to turn on their assailants and bite, kick, peck or claw the snot out of them, don't you? :)
Your obfuscation is well noted pain...
Ya'll's devotion to one another is admirable. It brings tears to my eyes, it does...
I love debating libertarians. Nothing like giving Randians good, old-fashioned Tom and Jerry-like upside-the-head whoppings with the logic stick.
It applied to homosexuals, bisexuality is homosexuality. I contend sodomy laws pre 1960 were for homosexuals because no right minded person thought any different and yet here we are.
Why don't you whip out the ol' logic stick on this Randian?
Do you think Texas should have the right to make marijuana legal? Gay marriage?
I gave you the reasons why your example failed. The characters in your story did not adhere to libertarian principles.
"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.
You were told that's fine. No one will force you, to be around them. It's up to you though to isolate yourself sufficiently.
"I assert it to the point that I do not wish to be in the same society as people who practice it."
Sufficiently far.
" The people who practice it cannot survive by themselves and thus need people to support their behavior."
That's not true at all.
"I do not wish to support their behavior."
Fine, don't.
"There is a conflict between the "right to homosexual sex" and the "right to free association".
None whatsoever. You can associate with whom you please and they can do what they please without anyone violating another's rights.
" What homosexuals really want is the "right to homosexual sex while violating everyone else's right to free association".
No! You are confusing free association with your urge to sanction their behavior. You have no right to dictate to them what is tasteful, anymore than they have a right to do that to you. That is the truth!
"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.
It hurts people in their imaginations only. It consumes some people, but the homos aren't consuming. It's those that dwell on the thought that do the comsuming.
"They want to have their cake and eat it too."
That's a perfectly natural and good thing.
"So, they have to "initiate judicial coercion" against non-compliant heterosexuals via the SCOTUS.
Non-compliant heterosexuals? No one was attempting to force anything on them. It was the other way around. The law was rotten to begin with and they're using the manifest viciousness of those that consume themselves with images of what they are upset by as propaganda. The law is a flagrant rights violation. They know it and so do most Americans. The State of Texas set the stage and baited it.
"Because if the state of Texas ignores this decision, there will be consequences. Financial and so on."
The consequences they will face are not, because of this SCOTUS decision, but because they chose to violate the rights of these people before and created allowed the rights of others to be violated by coercing charity.
"The SCOTUS just violated the "force, fraud, coercion" principle of libertarianism by initiating coercion against the people of Texas."
The SCOTUS is not composed of libertarians. They performed a feat of illogical construction to defeat one element of TX law. The people of TX aren't adherents of libertarianism either.
What you just witnessed was a skirmish in the war between left and right authoritarians. Both are determined to fight to the death to gain enough power to force their will, their vision on the world. Neither side gives a damn about rights. Freedom lost under a SCOTUS that imposed their abitrary will under the cover of BS.
"Happy Day, huh libertarians?"
Sure, BS reigns, so we're all happy.
Homos aren't going to ever be anything other than queer. That's the way they are. They are never going to get married, so there's no point in saying they are a threat to the institution. They are a minority. As long as free speech reigns you can counter any claim they make that says gay's OK. Once the 2 differing sides war and attempt to force their will on the other, they both become evil. What the libertarians will see are 2 groups at each others throats attempting to coerce each other into submission. The left authoritarians got their way, because the right authoritarians challenged them with pettiness.
Your battle has furthered the authoritarian cause that limits free speech. SCOTUS said, the law demeans the homos. Now I'm risk attack from these morons if I give my take on being a homo as advice and council.
I'm a lawyer (never practiced, almost certainly never will), but the last time I got paid by someone it was by straight commission (sales). That's a more honest way to make a living than chasing ambulances, I think.
In my example, the society would determine the scope of property rights. Voluntarily. This argument fails.
Not if it’s, now say it with me, C-O-N-S-E-N-S-U-A-L.
??? Adulterors may very well be consenting adults, usually are in fact. Of course it's not a crime in most, if not all, states. Grounds for divorce it is, but not a crime.
I know. That's my point. I laugh at how many people on FR deride San Francisco when probably 90% of them have never been there. They must have images in their head of rampant orgies in the parks and bodily fluids covering the sidewalks.
I guess under this ruling, as long as it's in a situation with an expectation of privacy, such as motel room, a home, a rented hall, or such, it's just fine.
You're so wrong, but I will concede the point since it's irrelevant to this case.
I contend sodomy laws pre 1960 were for homosexuals because no right minded person thought any different and yet here we are.
Are you saying that heterosexuals have not been punished for becoming involved in oral or anal sex?
On gay marriage, I believe that Gov. Rick Perry just signed a Defense of Marriage act, but yes, if the people of Texas were somehow insane enough to want that, sure. That's why social conservatives like me want to amend the Constitution with a Federal Marriage Act to stop that from happening in every state (I'm not worried about it being passed into law by a legislature; I'm worried about the kind of judicial activism we saw today).
Regarding marijuana, it gets a little more complicated. Again, I'm arguing from the 'original conception' of the Constitution that libertarians love to 'defend'. Under that regime, with a very narrowly interpreted ICC (interstate commerce clause) then yes. Today, no way. One state legalizing marijuana would never pass muster. You might want to note here that banning alcohol took a Constitutional Amendment (18th), but ever since roughly 1937 that kind of narrow interpretation of the ICC has kind of gone by the boards.
That is of the utmost importance. The property rights of privately owned land are the basis of the libertarian nature of the rules established by the owner.
If it is publicly owned land, there are no property rights to enforce your personal preferences as to what occurs on that land. The only rules that would apply there would be from the governing body, and that body by definition cannot initiate force or fraud and still be classified as libertarian.
The small society has to agree, voluntarily, on social organization. However they do that is irrelevant to the argument, because whichever way they do it, it's voluntary. I stated that there was a pre-existing taboo (social rule) on sodomy. It was well established
A 'preexisting taboo' is most certainly not even close to a binding contract upon any individual. You do know what a contract is, don't you?
By living in that society, they agree to abide by it.
You are describing democracy, not libertarianism. A libertarian society has no legitimate power under to enforce any law through initiation of force, no matter what 'society' wants. If it does, its not libertarian.
They initiated fraud. There was a pre-existing, informal, covenantal agreement forbidding homosexuality.
There is no such thing as a pre-existing agreement. That is a meaningless, fictitious term What does pre-existing mean, exactly? It existed before it existed? An agreement either exists or it doesn't.
If they have made no agreement, then no agreement exists.
I can understand why you're arguing specifics. You've pretty much lost the broad point.
Yes, why bother with the minor details like what actually is a libertarian society, rather than the democracy you use in your example. Silly me.
There’s no part time pathologies, either you have the disorder of same sex attraction or you don’t…either you have child sexual attraction you don’t, there’s no such thing as a hetero-pedo-sexual.
Are you saying that heterosexuals have not been punished for becoming involved in oral or anal sex?
Outside of public sex, I think not but those legislatures that make that distinction in their law clearly did so to avoid what happened today. And I would presume put the “equivalence” laws on the books post 1960 and probably since 1980.
Rights are not up for popular vote. If they are they're not rights to begin with.
You keep describing unlimited democracy when critiqing libertarianism. I don't think you know the difference.
Let me help:
Libertarianism = No initiation of force or fraud by anyone, even a supermajority. Rights are inherent, and are not up for a vote.
Democracy = Majority rule. There are no rights, only privilidges bestowed by the whims of the majority.
I don't think we are. Either that or the author of the 14th amendment was similarly confused. Rights, as the term is used in the constitution, are nothing more than "imunities" from government action. "privileges and immunities" was a term of art used to describe rights protected from infringment, The drafter of the 14th amendment, Representative Bingham, , stated : "that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." He then proceeded to read those eight amendments. See Halbrook
The opponents of the 14th amendment also understood the clear meaning, and that it did indeed restrict some powers of the states.
Outside of public sex, I think not
but those legislatures that make that distinction in their law clearly did so to avoid what happened today.
Just as recently as 2001, there were heterosexuals punished for getting involved in oral or anal sex.
A man convicted of sodomy with a woman has joined the suit challenging Virginia’s sodomy law.[snip] Fred Leslie Fisher, who was convicted of sodomy with a woman in a hotel room in Frederick County, is now joining the suit, says attorney Sam Garrison, who is leading the challenge.
Ok, let’s take the easiest one first shall we? Why is consensual incest, and let’s make this real easy, homosexual incest, not a (9th) right devoid the power of the state (10th)?
Waiting for your obfuscation with high boots and shovel in hand.
Quickly I gotta go.
They failed to heed Hayek, they are a nation of serfs, like Canada where the lords in Ottawa reign.
Marriage is still the beautiful, natural institution of love, family and companionship. The thoughts and effect of all the morons that have ever lived will not change that.
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.