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 ... 1,251-1,3001,301-1,3501,351-1,400 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: Clint N. Suhks
What was the compelling state interest to regulate heterosexual sodomy until 1960?

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?

1,301 posted on 06/26/2003 3:16:05 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1295 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
What about masturbation?

Uh-oh.

1,302 posted on 06/26/2003 3:16:09 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1282 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
No matter what phoney arguments you make, there is no such thing as "consensual pedophilia."

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.

1,303 posted on 06/26/2003 3:16:21 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1293 | View Replies]

To: All
gota take the kid to swim practice, will be back.
1,304 posted on 06/26/2003 3:16:32 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1298 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
"And since bestiality, to my knowledge, isn't commercially produced in the Valley, or on this continent, for that matter, the point is moot."

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.

1,305 posted on 06/26/2003 3:17:03 PM PDT by Pahuanui (when A Foolish Man Hears The tao, He Laughs Out Loud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1038 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
If they can prohibit things in my own home, what's next - enforcement?

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.

1,306 posted on 06/26/2003 3:18:01 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Can you cite any legislature before 1960 that defined sodomy as "heterosexual" as the distinguishing context

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.

1,307 posted on 06/26/2003 3:18:58 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1295 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Ok smart guy, why is the the power to determine the extent any right may be exercised not in the 10th?
1,202 Clint N. Suhks


Recompose your question, in some sort of context . It makes little sense [it sucks] as written.
1,266 -tpaine-


Consensual pedophilia, bestiality (personal property) and consensual incest the Liberaltarians are hypocrites on the 10th.
-Suhks-



You're getting as loony as the fruitcakes you detest, suhks..
1,308 posted on 06/26/2003 3:21:12 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1287 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks; sinkspur
That's right, you Liberaltarians hang on to that 10th amendment when it suits you, doncha?

LOL! Sinkspur is most definitely NOT a libertarian, nor do I think is he a big fan of them.

1,309 posted on 06/26/2003 3:21:28 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 1297 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
What century are you living in? Are you telling me this isn't already the state we're in?

If people have changed their opinions so greatly, then there should be no problem with voting on this, should there.

1,310 posted on 06/26/2003 3:25:31 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1299 | View Replies]

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

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.

1,311 posted on 06/26/2003 3:28:14 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1238 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Took a long time to establish this principle, but here we are.

Are you saying that it's right??

1,312 posted on 06/26/2003 3:29:15 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1278 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
You are mandating amorality. You take it further and call for the public condemning of morality...

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.

1,313 posted on 06/26/2003 3:30:37 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1227 | View Replies]

To: rintense
My question is, how did the cops know these guys were having sex? Were they in their own house?

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.

1,314 posted on 06/26/2003 3:32:17 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
The people of Texas are mandated to make amoral laws. That is not freedom. Let License Ring!
1,315 posted on 06/26/2003 3:33:10 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 1313 | View Replies]

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

That argument has all the veracity of a trial lawyer working on a contingency fee.

1,316 posted on 06/26/2003 3:34:21 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1236 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
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.

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.

1,317 posted on 06/26/2003 3:34:43 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1225 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You're getting as loony as the fruitcakes you detest, suhks..

Your obfuscation is well noted pain...

1,318 posted on 06/26/2003 3:35:47 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1308 | View Replies]

To: fooman
Better bolt down the houshold pets.

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? :)

1,319 posted on 06/26/2003 3:36:53 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks; tpaine
You're getting as loony as the fruitcakes you detest, suhks..

Your obfuscation is well noted pain...

Ya'll's devotion to one another is admirable. It brings tears to my eyes, it does...

1,320 posted on 06/26/2003 3:37:37 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1318 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
lol.
1,321 posted on 06/26/2003 3:38:04 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1319 | View Replies]

To: fooman
You are holding up pretty well here IMO, as well as others I imagine.

I love debating libertarians. Nothing like giving Randians good, old-fashioned Tom and Jerry-like upside-the-head whoppings with the logic stick.

1,322 posted on 06/26/2003 3:38:21 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1274 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Sodomy laws applied only to homosexuals and bisexuals was a novel idea not grounded on our traditions, or our common law, or our Constitution.

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.

1,323 posted on 06/26/2003 3:39:17 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1307 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Nothing like giving Randians good, old-fashioned Tom and Jerry-like upside-the-head whoppings with the logic stick.

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?

1,324 posted on 06/26/2003 3:40:04 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 1322 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
" 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.

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.

1,325 posted on 06/26/2003 3:40:07 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1236 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
That argument has all the veracity of a trial lawyer working on a contingency fee.

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.

1,326 posted on 06/26/2003 3:40:20 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1316 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
If the land isn't yours, you have no such right under libertarianism. To assert such a right on land you do not own, or is publicly owned is initiation of force or fraud.

In my example, the society would determine the scope of property rights. Voluntarily. This argument fails.

1,327 posted on 06/26/2003 3:41:50 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1253 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Pedophilia is, by definition, unwanted.

Not if it’s, now say it with me, C-O-N-S-E-N-S-U-A-L.

1,328 posted on 06/26/2003 3:41:55 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1300 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
CONSENSUAL ADULTS says nothing about animals, or children, or adultery

??? 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.

1,329 posted on 06/26/2003 3:42:18 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
There isn't one. It's something like a couple of guys holding hands or something similar.

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.

1,330 posted on 06/26/2003 3:43:31 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1270 | View Replies]

To: petitfour
Is it legal for any adult to have sex with any other consenting adult? What about orgies?

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.

1,331 posted on 06/26/2003 3:45:27 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
bisexuality is homosexuality

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?

1,332 posted on 06/26/2003 3:45:58 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1323 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
gays are married in kanada already. the sand can shift quickly.
1,333 posted on 06/26/2003 3:46:08 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1325 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
mo fo orgy!
1,334 posted on 06/26/2003 3:47:55 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1331 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Here you go: O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment
1,335 posted on 06/26/2003 3:49:13 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1290 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
Thanks
1,336 posted on 06/26/2003 3:50:14 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1335 | View Replies]

To: fooman
Kanaduh's a communist country. THere's no free speech there also. Gays can't really be married, because they are the same sex. They can only get away with changing the definition and meanings of words if folks let them. To do that, they have to become airheads themselves.
1,337 posted on 06/26/2003 3:50:53 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1333 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Do you think Texas should have the right to make marijuana legal? Gay marriage?

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.

1,338 posted on 06/26/2003 3:52:21 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1324 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Doesn't matter if the land is communally owned or privately owned.

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.

1,339 posted on 06/26/2003 3:54:49 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1317 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
You're so wrong, but I will concede the point since it's irrelevant to this case.

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.

1,340 posted on 06/26/2003 3:55:37 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1332 | View Replies]

To: All
See you later
1,341 posted on 06/26/2003 3:56:55 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1340 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
The UK is moving in this direction too. I think you have some countries on the Continent that already acknowledge gay marriage.

Basically, marriage is for gays, gold diggers and losers. Sorry HV.
1,342 posted on 06/26/2003 3:57:00 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1337 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
In my example, the society would determine the scope of property rights. Voluntarily.

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.

1,343 posted on 06/26/2003 3:59:18 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1327 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford; Clint N. Suhks
Ya'll's devotion to one another is admirable. It brings tears to my eyes, it does.
-Catty Crawford-



To: tpaine
Consensual pedophilia, bestiality (personal property) and consensual incest the Liberaltarians are hypocrites on the 10th.
1,287 posted on 06/26/2003 2:58 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1266


Quoted above is Suhks loony answer to my post 1266.

Any cool 'cat' can feel free to post my supposed "obfuscation", at the risk of being seen as a sucker for Sukhs.
1,344 posted on 06/26/2003 4:01:44 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1320 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Even though we don't agree, it seems like you have a good understanding of the constitution. I mistakenly thought that you might be one of the FReepers who wwere being hypocritical with their constitution talk.
1,345 posted on 06/26/2003 4:03:00 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 1338 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
we're confusing "privileges and immunities" in general with specific "rights",

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.

1,346 posted on 06/26/2003 4:04:28 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
America at bat...
STRIKE TWO!
1,347 posted on 06/26/2003 4:04:54 PM PDT by Macklew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
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.


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.


1,348 posted on 06/26/2003 4:08:35 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1340 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Any cool 'cat' can feel free to post my supposed "obfuscation", at the risk of being seen as a sucker for Sukhs.

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.

1,349 posted on 06/26/2003 4:11:12 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1344 | View Replies]

To: fooman
"The UK"

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.

1,350 posted on 06/26/2003 4:11:32 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1342 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,251-1,3001,301-1,3501,351-1,400 ... 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