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 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: f.Christian
right ... flailing your fists --- wrong ... hitting someone !

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

Lag time: approx. 5.5 seconds
Speed: unknown
Trajectory: SSE
Distance to endpoint (kilometers): unknown
Event duration: inconclusive
0000
00000
000000
0000601

751 posted on 06/26/2003 10:53:57 AM PDT by Pahuanui (when A Foolish Man Hears The tao, He Laughs Out Loud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
Is she hot? Just kidding.

Unfortunately, yes.

752 posted on 06/26/2003 10:54:02 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 705 | View Replies]

To: OWK
my cart has gps ... satellite control --- ' rails ' !
753 posted on 06/26/2003 10:54:07 AM PDT by f.Christian (( Shock -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... AWE --- you haven't seen anything - yet ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

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

Dang, and I thought that every homosexual in Texas (do they allow homosexuals in Texas?) was abstaining until this decision. Even now they must be flooding the parks and sidewalks to...oops, that's right, there's still a law against that in PUBLIC.

Now if only my state will drop its law forbidding oral sex between consenting heterosexuals, then maybe I could have more fun.
754 posted on 06/26/2003 10:54:28 AM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
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.

All I want is sincere and legitimate answers to the questions.

What are rights?

What do they include?

What are their limitations?

By what yardstick do we differentiate "right" from "non-right"?

I don't understand why no one is willing to take a cut at it.

755 posted on 06/26/2003 10:54:49 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
"religious-extremist's share of the costs of the AIDS epidemic"

There was a time when charity was properly handled as such. Then it was handed over to those that do not recognize the name of the one who asked it be done. The glory now belongs to the state and the shame is on those that abandoned the former for the later.

756 posted on 06/26/2003 10:55:46 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
You stay away from me. I don't have a tooth plaque problem and I aim to keep it that way.

I promise I won't plaque your teeth. I might sour the milk in your fridge though.... ;-)

757 posted on 06/26/2003 10:55:54 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
There pretty much always the same thing.

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

758 posted on 06/26/2003 10:56:36 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
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.

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.

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

759 posted on 06/26/2003 10:56:52 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
my cart has gps ... satellite control --- ' rails ' !

That was YOU on the cover of "Incoherent-Street-Bum-Lunatic" magazine????

Wow... a celebrity

760 posted on 06/26/2003 10:57:19 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
I am not answering the One Who Kookoos because he will not accept an answer that rights have a nature and foundation that are ineffable because they are in God; thus they can't be spelled out on a computer screen. He has explicitly ruled that logical possibility out already by his question. He has made it into a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of question, when I don't even have a wife to beat.
761 posted on 06/26/2003 10:57:21 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn
Yes. In the abridged version, they have actually compiled statistics that show the best Christian schools to lurk in front of and have done psychological test to figure out the best color shirts to wear when confronting young fundamenalist Christian children.

In case your curious, that color is mauve.

762 posted on 06/26/2003 10:57:36 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
You probably misunderstood...I don't think the sky is falling. I'm just wondering how decriminalizing oral and anal sex creates "preferential treatment" for anyone. I don't see that it does.
763 posted on 06/26/2003 10:57:51 AM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse; HumanaeVitae
I can't believe you are arguing for Nanny Statism because to do otherwise it might endanger your socialist Medicare.

It's always interesting to see conservatives promote the intrusions that accompany socialism.

The most insidious thing about socialism is that once people are dependent upon entitlements for their needs, the smallest details of how they live become regulated by those paying the bills.

It's the Golden Rule: He Who Has The Gold Makes The Rules.

Conservatives don't see that instead of fighting socialism to begin with, by promoting the accompanying intrustions, they do it's most insidious bidding.

764 posted on 06/26/2003 10:58:23 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
The premise of your argument--that children can consent to sex with adults--is totally false. Yet you unsuprisingly and blithely ignore the unalterable fact that sex with a child is not comparable to consent sex between two mentally competent adults.

In sum, your hysterical claims are totally unpersuasive.

I'm certainly not in favor of any "hysteria" going on here, but...I think some are overlooking the point that "children" and "mentally competent" are legally defined terms, and if the Supreme Court can overturn laws based on an interpretation of what constitutes a "right", it's not out of the question that the legal definitions of "children" and "mentally competent" could also be revised in accordance with "changing times"...

I'm glad someone finally mentioned "mentally competent"...how many criminals plead "innocent" based on that definition? Anyone remember the movement several years ago to allow "children" to "divorce" their parents? The point isn't really the Texas law per se, it's "judicial legislating", the "reading into" the Constitution of so-called "complete privacy rights", and the Federal imposition of "mandates"...

It's a safe bet this one "innocuous" ruling that seems very sensible will really end up opening a can of worms.

765 posted on 06/26/2003 10:59:03 AM PDT by 88keys (proudly posting without reading all the other posts first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
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).

766 posted on 06/26/2003 10:59:18 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

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

... unprecedented ---

Syllables: un-prec-e-dent-ed

Part of Speech adjective Pronunciation uhn preh sih dehn tihd

Definition 1. having no precedent; never before observed or experienced.

Related Words prodigious , original , phenomenal , novel , miraculous

767 posted on 06/26/2003 10:59:58 AM PDT by f.Christian (( Shock -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... AWE --- you haven't seen anything - yet ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 760 | View Replies]

To: OWK
"I don't understand why no one is willing to take a cut at it."

You know why, of course. There's no one "right" answer to any of the questions, but whoever attempts to answer will be pummelled by those who think they DO have the right answers. I assume most of us aren't into masochism.
768 posted on 06/26/2003 11:00:04 AM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: OWK
But if you have the answers, as you claim, then you don't need to hear them from anybody else.

All I want is sincere and legitimate answers to the questions.

For some reason, that statement reminds me of some cherub-faced doe-eyed kid caught in the act of being up to no good at all. But what is "sincere"? What is "legitimate"? LOL!

I hope you're not reiterating the questions for my benefit. I'm certainly not going to answer them. Because you already "know".

769 posted on 06/26/2003 11:00:20 AM PDT by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
I am not answering the One Who Kookoos because he will not accept an answer that rights have a nature and foundation that are ineffable because they are in God; thus they can't be spelled out on a computer screen.

So you state that they cannot be defined?

But you want to make laws regarding them?

That's kinda weak man.

770 posted on 06/26/2003 11:00:43 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Just because something is not outlawed does not mean it is not immoral. But if something is outlawed, then society is saying it is immoral. The standard of morality being employed may be flawed, but society's statement about whatever activity is outlawed is clear: it is wrong.
771 posted on 06/26/2003 11:00:51 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
fighting socialism

Anal intercourse to the rescue!

772 posted on 06/26/2003 11:00:52 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
But if you have the answers, as you claim, then you don't need to hear them from anybody else.

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

773 posted on 06/26/2003 11:01:44 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]

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

This statement is correct.

But libertarians, while supporting repeal of sodomy and prostitution laws, also support many other measures that homosexuals would not like.

An example would be repeal of all laws restricting freedom of association.

It's perfectly libertarian to run a business that does not serve homosexuals, or to lecture that homosexuality is bad, or to print an ad declaring it sinful, or to refuse to rent to homosexuals, or not to hire them to work for you, or to quit a job because of homosexuals in the workforce, or....

Much of the other crap they want - "celebration" of their lifestyle, state sanction of their "marriages", queer clubs in schools, proselytization of homosexuality in schools, yada, yada - they have no "right" to whatsoever.

Such garbage should be resisted vigorously.

774 posted on 06/26/2003 11:01:46 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I might sour the milk in your fridge though.... ;-)

So THAT's what's been causing it.

775 posted on 06/26/2003 11:02:08 AM PDT by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Rights are those things that any free adult individual can assert, that the government can guarantee (or direct compensation/retribution if violated) equally for all, and that does not trespass upon the Rights retained by others.

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?

776 posted on 06/26/2003 11:02:27 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: BlackjackHF
... But the idea of government is propably anethema to an anarchist like you ...

... But the idea of government control is probably commodious to a brownshirt like you. Gee, aren't insults fun?

777 posted on 06/26/2003 11:03:04 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn
"I've seen heterosexual couples doing it in a park. "

I've seen a _lot_ more heterosexual public sexual activity than homosexual.
778 posted on 06/26/2003 11:03:06 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
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.

In other words, that which is not prohibited is mandatory.

I don't need the state to decide for me whether or not to have oral sex. Only a mindless automaton does. In fact, when the thought crosses my mind, the very last thing that matters to me is what the government thinks about it.

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?

779 posted on 06/26/2003 11:03:14 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: LanPB01
I intend to brush up on my legal knowledge by catching the premier of "Gary the Rat" tonight on Spi. . . er, the new TNN!

Good thing you stopped on the "i". Spike Lee has people lurking the internet ready to pounce people for copyright infringement.

780 posted on 06/26/2003 11:04:22 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
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.

781 posted on 06/26/2003 11:04:24 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
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.

782 posted on 06/26/2003 11:05:27 AM PDT by Pahuanui (when A Foolish Man Hears The tao, He Laughs Out Loud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
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.
783 posted on 06/26/2003 11:06:16 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
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$$.

784 posted on 06/26/2003 11:06:30 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
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.

785 posted on 06/26/2003 11:07:02 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 779 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber; OWK
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?

786 posted on 06/26/2003 11:07:30 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
You must be pulling yer hair out!
787 posted on 06/26/2003 11:08:26 AM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: OWK
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.

788 posted on 06/26/2003 11:09:16 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: OWK
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...

789 posted on 06/26/2003 11:10:23 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
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.

790 posted on 06/26/2003 11:10:40 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
" 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.

791 posted on 06/26/2003 11:10:45 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
Really?! Because I could have sworn it would have been...

THIS COLOR:

792 posted on 06/26/2003 11:10:54 AM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies]

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

Gibberish (( INANE )) -- spewings (( random violin )) ... AHH! --- I have seen everything - now
793 posted on 06/26/2003 11:11:32 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn
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.

794 posted on 06/26/2003 11:12:10 AM PDT by NEWwoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
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?

795 posted on 06/26/2003 11:12:28 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: OWK
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.

796 posted on 06/26/2003 11:12:49 AM PDT by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative; nravoter
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.

797 posted on 06/26/2003 11:13:09 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
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.

798 posted on 06/26/2003 11:13:36 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

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

LOL! You never disappoint me!

799 posted on 06/26/2003 11:13:41 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae; IowaHawk
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.


800 posted on 06/26/2003 11:14:13 AM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 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