SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[HumanaeVitae]

There was a time when charity was properly handled as such.

Exactly. I'm all for returning the function of ameliorating society's ills to a mostly-charity basis. And in that case, society would not tolerate anti-social behavior because it would overwhelm the charitable structure of society and thus burden charitable organziations with costs from perfectly preventable ailments, like the ones arising from homosexual sodomy.

Also, any society that was moral enough to sustain a robust private-charity-type welfare state would be based on Christian morality. And thus would not tolerate homosexuality.

[Pahuanui]

As long as libertarian social ideas are prevalent, the government will keep growing.

Given the historical data available regarding the growth curve of the federal gov't, given that libertarians have been in power for roughly none of that entire time span and given that libertarian social ideals are not prevalent in our society to any noticable degree barring further clarification, kindly support your contention.

[The Red Zone]

WC, the One Who Kookoos won't even distinguish political rights from moral ones. To him they are The Same. It's another case of framing the question so as to exclude the answer.

[Dead Corpse]

If a bisexual man with AIDS impregnates a woman and the baby she delivers has the AIDS virus, I suppose you would advocate euthanizing that child, wouldn't you. I'm all for cutting the welfare state in half or better. Unfortunately, if people like you keep apologizing for perversion, it will be difficult to cut it since the social costs of these depravities must be picked up somehow.

"If a tree falls in the forest..."
How about the prime actor in any action that harms another pay the restitution? I suppose that doesn't make any damn sense to you. After all, it follows like... logic and stuff.

You commit a crime, you do restitution to your victim. If said victim is DEAD... then why should a jury of your peers not condem you to die as well? If there IS no victim, then there was no crime. And no, the law itself cannot be the victim.

Also, in a real capitalistic society with free-market principles applied to the health care industry.... we'd probably have a cure for AIDS by now. We wouldn't need to wait seven years for some government bureacrat to get his head out of his a$$.

[VRWC_minion]

The problem many of us our having is that to get the result you wanted (remove sodomy from the books) you have gutted the ability of states to pass any laws that restrict sexual habits. Privacy will trump everything else.

It could have been done with other logic or it could have been done at the state level by the court returning it the Texas. But isntead the created a privacy right that trumps the state. This will be a sad day in the future.

[Teacher317]

a common response to this is that the assertion of any right must necessarily restrict the rights of others (i.e. the right to violate), making this definition contradictory.
can you remind me how libertarians resolve this problem? is a social contract in which the 'right to violate' is waived part of the bargain?

I'm not the libertarian to ask... I mostly agree in principle. I'm not familiar with the details.

OWK, who do we ping to answer this?

[ffusco]

You must be pulling yer hair out!

[68 grunt]

I have a fan club?

Cool.

Count me in as a fan, Dan. I dig it when you whip these brownshirts so badly the begin calling you names. Cool stuff! Don't think you can talk me into voting libertarian, however.

[Dead Corpse]

I disagree. Lying is definitely immoral, but few would advocate a law outlawing it.

I would (provided it results in violation of the rights of others).

My wife and I were discussing that very law not too long ago. If you lie, you are committing fraud. If this leads to harm done to another, or loss of their property, then yes... it should be a crime.

The fun part about that is there are at least two generations of politicians and lawyers who should be in jail right now for said violations...

[The Red Zone]

Do you really think a single person who wouldn't have had oral or anal sex when it was illegal will change their behavior because of this ruling?

Well, some will. For one thing, nobody can threaten them with exposure to the cops anymore.

[spunkets]

" society would not tolerate anti-social behavior because it would overwhelm the charitable structure of society and thus burden charitable organziations with costs from perfectly preventable ailments, like the ones arising from homosexual sodomy."

It puts the choice back where it belongs, to the individual that decides where his labors and treasures go. He may have the physical treasure, but he's not going to squander it on some things. He also maintains his right to say what he thinks. A right the SCOTUS jeopardized today, by saying the law demeans their behavior.

[huck von finn]

Really?! Because I could have sworn it would have been...

THIS COLOR:

[MineralMan]

"Shock (( SOON )) -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... AWE --- you haven't seen anything - yet "

Gibberish (( INANE )) -- spewings (( random violin )) ... AHH! --- I have seen everything - now

[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?

Good question. Concerning this specific case, I concede - no. But this ruling has ramifications outside this specific case.

One thing comes to mind, domestic partner laws, which entitle same sex couples to the same benefits as married couples. Yet, they don't pay the "marriage" penalty taxes. They don't have to undergo the legal ordeal of a divorce, if they break up. Heterosexual couples, who are intimate, but not married or people living together, who are just roommates, are left out. And it's based on what you do in your bedroom.

[Dead Corpse]

But if something is outlawed, then society is saying it is immoral.

Bullhockey. How is my owning an EEEEeeevil assualt rifle immoral/illegal in California.. but somehow not so here in Austin Texas?

[wimpycat]

I thought the purpose of a discussion forum was to exchange ideas.

It is. But you don't claim to have "an" answer, you claim to have "the" answer, which implies it's the only answer. If you have "the" answer, then you don't need someone else's idea, and therefore the way you're attempting to extract other people's opinions, by repeatedly asking the same questions and passing them off as having simple answers is disingenuous. If they were so simply answered then we wouldn't have different political parties, factions, systems of government, philosophies, etc. In my opinion, of course.

[unspun]

I think communist regimes like China and North Korea do this based on such a reason of "obvious" government interest.

Everyone has a reason and there are good ones and bad ones. Nothin's automatic. Nothing obviates having to use good judgment.

[freeeee]

Anal intercourse to the rescue!

Actually, its "compassionate conservatives" to the rescue.

Aren't you the ones with the free prescription drug plan, you know the one that's going to be paying for HIV and AIDS drugs? And another $15 billion for Africa's AIDS?

Personal responsibility is our friend.

[dead]

right ... flailing your fists --- wrong ... hitting someone !
In this case --- state's (( society )) rights !

LOL! You never disappoint me!

[tpaine]

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 -hv-


The ONLY reason we have a "tab" is because you blue-nosed-religious-extremist hypocrite's also ~demand~ that society share in the costs of the AIDS epidemic.

Catch 22, you are too zealous to recognise your own socialistic agenda.