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 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: jethropalerobber
Just to clear things up, I was talking about Kennedy's opinion (though Justice Scalia's discussion of it).
701 posted on 06/26/2003 10:34:14 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
SAD!:^{
702 posted on 06/26/2003 10:34:24 AM PDT by SwinneySwitch (Freedom is not Free - Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I like Scalia. I don't always agree with him but I like him. I wish we had more like him on the bench. Heck, I wish we had more like him at every level of government.
703 posted on 06/26/2003 10:34:55 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
The people of Texas have no say, yet they will pay the tab for all the social results. They should be able to bill The 6 Supremes to enforced this on them.

what "social results" are you referring to? bill them for what exactly?

is this the point where you use socialism to justify your intrusive moralizing?

704 posted on 06/26/2003 10:35:37 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Is she hot? Just kidding.

705 posted on 06/26/2003 10:35:54 AM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

One thing Thomas apparently didn't note is how rarely this happens, inherently because the 4th Amendment makes it so difficult to ascertain. Doesn't sound to me like a lot of cop time was being blown on such endeavors.

706 posted on 06/26/2003 10:36:05 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
I am being facetious, chum.
707 posted on 06/26/2003 10:36:30 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
He has addressed it, in a roundabout way. See #597

I saw 597.

It doesn't address the question at all.

I didn't ask what he believes the source of rights to be.

I ask specifically what those rights are.

What do rights include?

What are their limitations?

By what measure do we determine what is a right, and what is not?

I want a specific yardstick.

It should be a fairly easy question.

708 posted on 06/26/2003 10:36:31 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
I generally like Justice Scalia, too, but Justice Thomas is my favorite.
709 posted on 06/26/2003 10:36:40 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
I vote 1913. If a person does not have the right to the fruits of his own labor, and those proceeds can be used against him (eminent domain, etc), then he is not a free citizen.

You're probably right. But the mask is off today. The Constitution is dead. Long live the all-powerful Supreme Court!
710 posted on 06/26/2003 10:37:12 AM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
Have you visited public restrooms recently? Have you visited public parks? I've seen them doing it there

I've seen heterosexual couples doing it in a park. Does that count? Maybe I'm not quite the voyeur I should be.

711 posted on 06/26/2003 10:37:35 AM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
"JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.

I join JUSTICE SCALIA's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is . . . uncommonly silly."

Interesting to note that Thomas actually thinks Texas (and the other states) shouldn't have such a law. Guess Thomas isn't quite as "moral" as some of you thought.
712 posted on 06/26/2003 10:37:57 AM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
Unquestionably, enforcement of such laws are rare. I think Thomas makes a good point, though, that the court should not be trying to take the place of the legislature.
713 posted on 06/26/2003 10:38:06 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
And the Court's left wing legislated into existence a new "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions..."

Fascinating.

714 posted on 06/26/2003 10:38:42 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
Not ready to move to Shelbyville!
715 posted on 06/26/2003 10:38:43 AM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
Morality and legality are often (but not always) two very different things.
716 posted on 06/26/2003 10:39:13 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
You people better try to silence us quickly..

Please bear in mind that I am neither gay nor liberal. I believe all human beings need to be treated with decency and compassion irrespective of their religion, skin color, health status or sexual orientation. To do otherwise conjures up images of swastikas and burning crosses.

717 posted on 06/26/2003 10:39:52 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (White Devils for Sharpton. We're bad. We're Nationwide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Ginsberg and Souter voted pro-anal

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the prduct of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."
-- Justice Scalia

718 posted on 06/26/2003 10:40:33 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Homer Simpson voice-> "MMMMMMmmmmmmmm....sodomy."

So, the queers won a victory today that allows them to use each other's anuses as vaginas.

In the words of John Cougar Mellenhead, "Ain't that America somethin' to see, baby..."

719 posted on 06/26/2003 10:40:45 AM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kegler4; The Red Zone
Scalia would allow masturbation to be made illegal, too.

In fact, he can't think of many outrageous laws the states could come up with that he'd rule unconstitutional-- turning us into a banana republic. Presumably, Scalia also thought the Constitution needed the 13th Amendment to outlaw slavery. He'd probably have sided with Taney and not Justice Curtis or McLean in Dred Scott v. Sandford. How the Party of Lincoln could be proud of that, I'm not sure.

We'll just add about a million amendments to the Constitution outlawing all the stupid things states may try to outlaw or force upon its citizens.

"You have been found guilty of having not thrown salt over your shoulder after having a black cat cross your path. Off to prison with you!"

How can anyone here at FR applaud this crap?
720 posted on 06/26/2003 10:41:32 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
You've been politically corrected to absurd levels...just goes to show their brainwashing has worked on you, too...
721 posted on 06/26/2003 10:41:41 AM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: OWK
I want a specific yardstick. It should be a fairly easy question.

If it's a "fairly easy" question, then you ought have the answers all prepared already. No, I'm not asking you to answer your own questions, but I'm asking if you know the answers to the questions you're asking.

722 posted on 06/26/2003 10:42:23 AM PDT by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Absolutely brilliant post and certainly worth repeating....

So giving unelected federal judges the power to write state law is decreasing the size of government?

There are actually some restrictions on liberty that enhance liberty overall.

Think of it like this. Traffic laws restrict your liberty. They require you to stop at red lights, drive on the right side of the yellow line, etc. However, they actually enhance your liberty to travel. How far would you get if all the traffic laws were repealed, and people were "liberated" to drive on whichever side of the road they wished, to ignore red lights and stop signs, to park wherever they wished?

Laws which keep homosexuality in the closet do, technically, restrict the liberty of the few people wishing to engage in that disgusting behavior. But they enhance the overall liberty of society. Because uncloseted homosexuality goes on a rampage against the liberty of the general populace.

It starts with disease. Homosexual acts are far more likely to transmit disease than heterosexual acts. So the bathhouse culture that arises when homosexual conduct is legalized and tolerated triggers a sharp increase in AIDS and other STDs. The result? Billions more in tax dollars is siphoned out of our pockets to pay medical bills, and taxation is itself a restriction on liberty.

Next, uncloseted homosexuals demand that opposition to or even disapproval of their conduct be suppressed. So we get speech codes telling us what we can and can't say. We get called a bigot if we fail to take our small children to Disneyworld on "Gay Day". We get governmental decrees ordering schools to teach your kids that homosexuality is normal, and if your religion teaches otherwise, well then, it's "bigoted". We get more and more laws dicatating who people can hire, who they can rent an apartment to, etc. It'll soon be a federal crime to refuse to rent to a pair of drag queens carrying whips and chains. In California, they're about to pass a law requiring employers to hire cross-dressers.

To satisfy the gay lobby, we came within one Supreme Court vote of completely losing our freedom of association (the Boy Scout case) and the pro-gay forces are determined to overturn that ruling just as they did the Hardwick ruling today.

So in return for a few perverts being able to freely engage in their sickness, we, as a people, see a decrease in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, property rights, monetary rights, and state's rights.

We'll soon be like Sweden, where even ministers can be jailed for up to four years for saying that homosexuality is wrong in the pulpit of their own church.

The gay movement is not libertarian, and neither is the pro-abortion movement, though both present themselves as such when manipulating the libertarian crowd.

723 posted on 06/26/2003 10:42:30 AM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
I don't think so but I think a grandchild (dog) can breed with the grandparent(dog)??

Sort of like that old country funny song...."I'm my own Grandpa"

I am not knowledgable enough on this case or ruling to make a strong opinion.

From my gut, I feel that what folks do in their bedroom is their business as long as children are not involved or serious physical harm done.

But, like most banner rulings like this one, I fear it will likely lead to a slippery slope as precedent for sexual deviancy (can I still say that word now?)

My wife who is infinitely more astute than I about the pulse of culture and hardly a prude (far from it thankfully) sees this as not good from the state's power perspective and more so because the homosexual (and anyone else) activists will exploit it.

I'm more ambivalent.
724 posted on 06/26/2003 10:42:46 AM PDT by wardaddy (DIVERSITY IS BEST SERVED EARNED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: OWK
" I was hoping to address the more fundamental question.
What ARE rights?

How do we know what we SHOULD consider a right, and what we should not?"

Yes I know. I wasn't going to give an answer though. LOL! Here's a short one.

Rights are claimed by the individual to protect his nature, essence and sovereignty of will. Just as he claims the right ot life, he also claims the right to wear a blue shoe and a yellow one at the same time. The only limits on what is claimed as his right, is that it not infringe on the rights of others. This is the nature of Freedom. Govm'ts role is to protect life and rights, nothing more.

725 posted on 06/26/2003 10:43:27 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
If it's a "fairly easy" question, then you ought have the answers all prepared already.

I do.

But I want the answer from the one I've asked it of first.

726 posted on 06/26/2003 10:43:51 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

Comment #727 Removed by Moderator

To: IowaHawk
Without hyperbole, that is the greatest post of all time.
728 posted on 06/26/2003 10:44:18 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Another good answer.

I wonder why others won't offer an answer?

729 posted on 06/26/2003 10:45:15 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Or are you also married to the state?

All Conservatives are married to the State. So are all Liberals, for that matter.

730 posted on 06/26/2003 10:45:27 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: NEWwoman
This decision should cut both ways. What people do in the privacy of their bedroom shouldn't entitle them to preferential treatment.

What preferential treatment is that? Seriously. Is there some preferential treatment going on with this law?

731 posted on 06/26/2003 10:45:35 AM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To all the people claiming the sky is falling, you can relax.

This ruling has no practicle effect on anyone's behavior.

The vast, vast amounts of people who engage in oral and anal sex don't give a damn what the law says about it.

They're going to do it anyway, and there's nothing the state can do about it.

And no one is going to have oral or anal sex that wouldn't have done so while it was illegal.

The only thing sodomy laws do is foster massive contempt for the law. You see, if you make someone a felon for having oral sex, they're going to think the legal system is a big joke, and they're going to get used to breaking the law. Later, when they contemplate breaking a real law, it won't be such a big deal.

732 posted on 06/26/2003 10:46:01 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
If it's a "fairly easy" question, then you ought have the answers all prepared already. No, I'm not asking you to answer your own questions, but I'm asking if you know the answers to the questions you're asking.

It is. He does. Most libertarians can rattle it off in their sleep. Most anyone who has made even a cursory study of Natural Rights theory, and/or our Constitution, ought to be able to do the same thing.

733 posted on 06/26/2003 10:46:11 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: IowaHawk
And then there was no one left to speak up for the window-peeping blue nosed religious extremists

Hey, if you want to pick up the tab of this blue-nosed-religious-extremist's share of the costs of the AIDS epidemic, be my guest.

734 posted on 06/26/2003 10:46:43 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: OWK
right ... flailing your fists --- wrong ... hitting someone !

In this case --- state's (( society )) rights !
735 posted on 06/26/2003 10:46:47 AM PDT by f.Christian (( Shock -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... AWE --- you haven't seen anything - yet ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
"Morality and legality are often (but not always) two very different things."

I realize we have two main objections going on here -- the moral crowd and the constitutional crowd. It appears from Thomas' remark that he doesn't agree with the morality viewpoint.

I'm not sure exactly here I fall as to whether the court should have intervened, but I know I don't like it that my own state has a law that allows the police to arrest me and my wife if they were to catch us performing a certain sex act in the privacy of our bedroom. I know the police aren't likely to break down our door looking for sodomy violations, but that doesn't make it right. And yes, I've expressed my opinion to my state representatives.
736 posted on 06/26/2003 10:46:56 AM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: EagleMamaMT
Thanks!

One of the problems with libertarianism is that it's self negating. The pathologies they unleash in the name of "liberty" create so many societal problems, pressures, and interest groups, that ten times more governmental controls end up being invoked than were necessary to suppress the pathologies in the first place.
737 posted on 06/26/2003 10:47:18 AM PDT by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Scalia would allow masturbation to be made illegal, too

IIRC at one time it was. ("That unnatural act" or similar terminology.) But Scalia would not REQUIRE it to be.

Scalia's view of the Constitution is similar to mine: a covenant among We the People that was struck to mean certain specific things, and once struck it should be held to what it was understood to mean at the time it was struck, not viewed through some kaleidoscopic funhouse mirror lens that changes all the time. It can certainly be amended, but please, none of this "living Constitution" crap. I could only wish. We could well do without the cancerous commerce clause which represents better than half of the control the Fedguv now wields over our personal lives.

738 posted on 06/26/2003 10:48:22 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 720 | View Replies]

To: fooman
The media is already talking about HUGH and SERIES victory for gay rights.

The whole concept of "gay rights" is moronic. Homosexuals should have no more or less rights than anybody else.

But as the media is full of 'rats and morons, no wonder they're characterizing it this way.

739 posted on 06/26/2003 10:49:02 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
right ... flailing your fists --- wrong ... hitting someone !

In this case --- state's (( society )) rights !

Dude, your really shouldn't get so worked up and flail about like that.

Now your shopping cart full of garbage bags has rolled halfway down the hill, and you ripped your "will mumble incoherently for food" sign.

Settle down.

740 posted on 06/26/2003 10:49:40 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: LanPB01
This thread has once again proved the fact that people whose legal knowledge comes from "Matlock" and "The Practice" should leave law to the lawyers. Sure, everyone should read the constitution and know some basic facts about how government works. However, they should also realize their limitations.

That is why I know I'm superior. I got all my legal knowledge from "L.A. Law"

741 posted on 06/26/2003 10:50:12 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
So giving unelected federal judges the power to write state law is decreasing the size of government?

what is the text of this new state law scotus has written? how much money has the state of texas allocated to enforce it?

Billions more in tax dollars is siphoned out of our pockets to pay medical bills, and taxation is itself a restriction on liberty.

great point! hey, why don't we regulate what foods people can and can't eat as well - those fat people are bleeding us dry comrade! socialism is cool - it let's me pass judgement on all kinds of 'anti-social' people.

742 posted on 06/26/2003 10:50:13 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Hey, if you want to pick up the tab of this blue-nosed-religious-extremist's share of the costs of the AIDS epidemic, be my guest.

Instead of compounding one wrong with another, how about we get rid of welfare and socialized medicine? Let the free-market handle it.

I can't believe you are arguing for Nanny Statism because to do otherwise it might endanger your socialist Medicare.

743 posted on 06/26/2003 10:50:42 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: OWK
I do. But I want the answer from the one I've asked it of first.

Oh. I hope the other guy answers the questions to your satisfaction, because then it will be your turn, and I'll be interested to see what the "official" answers are from you, since you claim to have "the" answers. But I have a feeling that if he tries to answer the questions, you'll only ask him more questions, and then even more, asking him to "clarify", etc....and somehow I'll never get the honor of witnessing you answering your own "fairly easy" questions.

744 posted on 06/26/2003 10:50:52 AM PDT by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Morality and legality are often (but not always) two very different things.

There pretty much always the same thing. The law is about what you 'ought' do and what you 'ought not' do. Where the law is silent on what you 'ought not' do there is tacit approval. 'Oughts' and 'ought nots' are value-decisions. Thus they are moral decisions. The idea that the law and morality can be divorced is only a doctrine that can be held by libertarians who want society to be forced to ignore the costs of perversion.

745 posted on 06/26/2003 10:52:31 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
"I got all my legal knowledge from "L.A. Law"

I intend to brush up on my legal knowledge by catching the premier of "Gary the Rat" tonight on Spi. . . er, the new TNN!
746 posted on 06/26/2003 10:52:49 AM PDT by LanPB01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: fooman
I heard you the five other times you posted.
747 posted on 06/26/2003 10:52:52 AM PDT by rintense (Thank you to all our brave soldiers, past and present, for your faithful service to our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
The pill is not a failsafe birth control measure.

We have abortion or the morning after pill as a back up. Plus, we can refrain from intercoure

2. The emotional damage inflicted on a child makes the child of the parent incapable of consent, even if they are otherwise competent.

She is either capable of deciding or she is not. If the state says she is capable and she does it in her private home who is the state to intrude ?

3. The family is a traditional American institution where the boundaries of authority (i.e. father/daughter, mother/son) must be respected in order to stregthen and preserve the family unit. Sex with relatives destroys that.

The family is an outdated religious constraint. Don't go imposing your religious views on me and my daughter

748 posted on 06/26/2003 10:53:03 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
You stay away from me. I don't have a tooth plaque problem and I aim to keep it that way.
749 posted on 06/26/2003 10:53:06 AM PDT by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
It appears from Thomas' remark that he doesn't agree with the morality viewpoint.

Agreed, in so far as that viewpoint is legislated.

I don't think it says one way or the other how he feels about it morally.

I think the behavior at issue is clearly immoral, but I agree with Justice Thomas that is should probably not be illegal. They way the Court went about legalizing it, however, is despicable.

750 posted on 06/26/2003 10:53:47 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 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