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 ... 801-850851-900901-950 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: Grando Calrissian
If we're even here in ten years. Sulphur might rain from the sky in the meantime.
851 posted on 06/26/2003 11:38:49 AM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: dead
"The Canadian Nation Anthem, presented by Buick"
852 posted on 06/26/2003 11:38:54 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: OWK
He said earlier- Cause she's hot!

Just kidding VRWC!

853 posted on 06/26/2003 11:39:03 AM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
You're wrong. Trace answered that, but to recap, she is part of your family and as a father with authority over her, a sexual relationship with her is considered exploitation per se, to a criminal extent. Plus you're a sick man if you do that.

Like homosexuality, the miodern concept of family, the roles of fathers and sexual taboos are all religious constrainsts. You have no right to impose your religion or your view of morality on me and my daughter. She is 16 and she is at the age of consent. There are even numerous studies that say sex between parent and child is good for the child . Some cultures demand it.

so, again. Why should the state have any say over our consenual sex.

As far as a strawman argument gos, the whole point that myself and others are against deciding this as a privacy rights issue is because of the various arguments unrelated to homosexual sex that are at stake and cannot be supported with consistant logic after this ruiling.

854 posted on 06/26/2003 11:39:13 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 839 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Good explanation of the difference between a right and an entitlement.
855 posted on 06/26/2003 11:39:16 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Non-consenual is in the eye of the beholder.

Maybe for a femenyst in a bogus rape trial it is, but for the rest of us, "Yes" and "No" are pretty clear.

Who can consent ?

All those of majority age who are of sound mind have legal capacity to consent and enter into legal contracts.

At what age ?

While the prevailing age is 18, that decision of at what age people become competent to assert their own rights and best interests is best left to localities.

Who can judge acts done in privacy ?

Judges. If someone is raped in their bedroom, it's a judge who does the judging of the rapist.

856 posted on 06/26/2003 11:39:56 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies]

To: Bisesi
Article IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...

That's a right to privacy no matter how you slice it.

857 posted on 06/26/2003 11:40:32 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (White Devils for Sharpton. We're bad. We're Nationwide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"Every time I was an adulterer, it was by CONSENT! "

You managed to get the consent of the spouse of the person you suborned to break their marital vows?! DANG -- that's some smooth work there!
858 posted on 06/26/2003 11:40:37 AM PDT by teech (You can read this: thank your teachers. You're FREE to read this: thank our Veterans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
cannot be supported with consistant logic after this ruiling.

This case and the Michigan law school case prove that logic and principles do not count. The court can vote anyway it wants depending on what they consider "a compelling state interest"

859 posted on 06/26/2003 11:40:49 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (Ohio Chapter. Original White Devil for Sharpton!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
4 of the 6 justices in the majority on this decision were appointed by Republicans.
860 posted on 06/26/2003 11:41:13 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I have yet to read the opinion or the dissent(s). I'm just talking generally. Plus, I'm watching my daughter.
861 posted on 06/26/2003 11:41:29 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 848 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
Speaking of which, the old FR gayophile crowd has come out in spades for this thread. What amazes me is how they struggle to hide their desires behind the constitution and protections of "other people's rights". But nobody fails to see them for what they are.
862 posted on 06/26/2003 11:42:18 AM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: LanPB01
considering that 17 is within the legal age of consent in your area).

We could move to SC where its 14.

863 posted on 06/26/2003 11:42:23 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 840 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
So, if no WMD's are found in Iraq, you will be leading the charge to try GWB before the World Court?

WTF? Where did you pull that line of reasoning out from? Scratch that, I'd prefer not to know.

Saddam had weapons. Saddam used weapons. Saddam has a list of horrific crimes uder his belt that were WAY over due. I don't care if they never find so much as a can of mace in Iraq. Removing him, for the crimes he had already committed, was more than enough justification.

Sling that crap elsewhere.

864 posted on 06/26/2003 11:42:25 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
"hey, why don't we regulate what foods people can and can't eat as well"

Be paitent, they're sueing Micky D's as fast as they can.
865 posted on 06/26/2003 11:42:50 AM PDT by bk1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Got any other strawmen?

Yes. This ruling will make it manditory that all church services begin with sacrificial sodomy to Liberace.

866 posted on 06/26/2003 11:43:13 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 839 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
And they are cheering the gagging and suffocation of America on the excrement of libertinism--which is the libertarians' true agenda.

Right. Well, actually, the agenda of Libertarians is to make pastries out of the blood of infants.

Thanx for the clarification -- I thought that was just the Jews.
867 posted on 06/26/2003 11:44:18 AM PDT by teech (You can read this: thank your teachers. You're FREE to read this: thank our Veterans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Just to clear things up...

my mistake, sorry.

868 posted on 06/26/2003 11:44:19 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
Liberals and Libertaltarians will be the death of our country.

Libertaltarians? That's a new one.

Let's try this instead..
"Liberals and non-thinking, moralizing idiots will be the death of our country."

869 posted on 06/26/2003 11:44:30 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
And what exactly are we oh righteous one.
870 posted on 06/26/2003 11:44:57 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 862 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
You can't. While legally, she may be at the age of concent, she has not yet reached the age of majority

Is she or is she not a consenting adult at age 16 (140 in some states.

I can see why your uncomfortable but this example is precisely why some of us have a problem that the "nuclear" option was chosen to get rid of sodomy laws.

871 posted on 06/26/2003 11:45:06 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 842 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Shelbyville, South Carolina or Bust!

Just trying to get some cheap laughs today.
872 posted on 06/26/2003 11:45:55 AM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 863 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn
Thank heavens for a vengeful God!
873 posted on 06/26/2003 11:45:55 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 851 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
It's clear those on "the other hetero side" have given no thought whatsoever to this issue.

Oh, we have thought about it. We just don't think about things the way you do--or the things you do.
874 posted on 06/26/2003 11:46:04 AM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 844 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Libertarians also cause halitosis ;)

LQ
875 posted on 06/26/2003 11:46:42 AM PDT by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Libertarians also cause halitosis ;)

LQ
876 posted on 06/26/2003 11:46:43 AM PDT by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Libertarians also cause halitosis ;)

LQ
877 posted on 06/26/2003 11:46:43 AM PDT by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
No, it isn't. Colorado has the lowest age of consent in the country, at 15.

And now that I think about it, I believe Dead Corpse is right. Since you're her parent, you can't do it till she's 18.

I can't believe I'm even having this conversation.
878 posted on 06/26/2003 11:47:08 AM PDT by LanPB01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 863 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen
And triple posting!

:)
879 posted on 06/26/2003 11:47:11 AM PDT by toothless (I AM A MAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 877 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
Consent doesn't apply to minors in the same way they cannot enter into contracts.

Wrong. They can consent to sex. They are therefore consenting adults as far as sex is concerned. Keep in mind that in 1800's consent was about 12. Why not go back to that ?

880 posted on 06/26/2003 11:47:28 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 847 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Thanks, but I can't take credit for it. I just rehashed this guy's opinion...
881 posted on 06/26/2003 11:47:30 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 855 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
And if homosexuals are going to blithely claim the 'right' that I have to accept them, then I can blithely claim the 'right' not to live in the same society as they do. I can claim a 'right' to free association and thus the right not to be affected by their behavior. The 'rights' thing works both ways, chief. It's a losing argument.
882 posted on 06/26/2003 11:47:43 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
    
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;

the freedom of speech, press, and religion;

the right to keep and bear arms;

the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
-628-


Therein lies the rub...whose "interest" and "broad" definition of the "continuum" of freedoms is not "arbitrary", but rather "reasonable and sensitive"?
Is it the proper role of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine this?

Yep, it's their role.. And if they err in their determinations, we supposedly have a system of checks & balances. [Which isn't working, politically.]

Ultimately, the people decide, as they did with booze prohibition. They simply refused to obey an unconstitutional 'law/amendment', long before it was offically repealed.
883 posted on 06/26/2003 11:48:15 AM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"My daughter turned 16. She is by our state's law a consenting adult. She and i agree to have consenual sex. Our right to privacy trumps the state's right to forbid us."

I'd argue that your daughter is still too young to consent, but that's beside the point. While incest between adults is against the law, such laws are only enforced with regard to marriage. I cannot remember a case where consenting adult incest has resulted in any trials or prison time in California, at least.

In most states, now, first cousins can marry. Adult sibling pseudo-marriages are quite common...you just dont know about them. Father-adult daughter relationships are quite rare, as are mother-adult son relationships.

We don't prosecute adults who engage in incestuous behavior. There's no real motivation to do so, so we don't bother with it.

Adult-child incest is another story altogether, and your example with a 16-year-old daughter is the reason we have incest laws that make it a crime. I advise against that activity.
884 posted on 06/26/2003 11:48:21 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
How many billion dollars did we send to Africa to fight AIDS? How much do we spend on it here? How much do we spend telling people how to have safe sex? Isn't that the same thing but you just agree with the moralizing in that case?

so this IS the point where you use socialism to justify your intrusive moralizing.

thanks and btw i don't agree with it in either case.

885 posted on 06/26/2003 11:48:22 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I think the parent/child relationship trumps the consenting age deal.

It would still be considered Child Abuse, No?
886 posted on 06/26/2003 11:48:34 AM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 871 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
Oh, we have thought about it. We just don't think about things the way you do--or the things you do.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. What is it I think about?

887 posted on 06/26/2003 11:48:47 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies]

To: nobody in particular
Rights require transactional consent, and the discussion of the administration of rights is limited to those possessing the faculties necessary to comprehend that which is being consented to, and the consequences thereof.

Those lacking such faculties (children, the mentally ill, the profoundly retarded, the vegetative, the unborn, etc..) must have their rights administered for them by proxy steward (generally a parent or guardian) until such time, (if ever) as the capacity is either developed or regained.

Each individual adult human being (which meets the aforementioned criteria) acts in accordance with his own values, as he defines them. Inasmuch as each may know only the specific workings of his own mind, each individual is uniquely qualified to determine his values, and his alone. No man may claim to accurately represent the mind or the values of another.

The free-will choice to act in accordance with one’s own values is recognized by other more traditional names, the most recognizable of which is “the pursuit of happiness”. Whether actions are seemingly motivated by traditional religious pursuits, or by the advancement of family, or friends, or charitable concerns, or even by baser pursuits of pleasure and gratification, the pursuit of individual happiness (advancement of one’s own values) is the true motivator. Men seek to please their Gods, or to protect their children, or to help others, or even to drink beer and watch football because it pleases them to do so.

In order to pursue the advancement of their values (whatever they may be), individuals must be free to act in accordance with the dictates of their own will. In recognition of the fact that the will of individuals may conflict in advancement of their values, a rational restrictive boundary is created at the intersection of competing wills. This boundary reconciles the potential for conflict, by defining as a right, any action in accordance with the dictates of the will of the individual actor, which does not infringe upon the ability of other individuals to do likewise.

The only means which men have at their disposal to infringe upon the free will of others are initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud. In a political system which values liberty, initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud, are therefore impermissible inasmuch as they act to infringe man’s pursuit of his happiness as he defines it.

ONLY in a political system in which each abstains from initiated force and fraud, is each man otherwise free to act in accordance with his will.

888 posted on 06/26/2003 11:50:42 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Is she or is she not a consenting adult at age 16 (140 in some states.

Reading comprehension is a virtue you should cultivate. While she can consent to having sex at 16, YOU ARE STILL HER LEGAL GUARDIAN UNTIL SHE REACHES 18. I'm not coming at this from a moral standpoint. Just a legal one. Morally, I'd kick your ass on principle. Even though, by my own standards, this would obligate me to also pay your doctors bills and any missed work time.

I can see why your uncomfortable but this example is precisely why some of us have a problem that the "nuclear" option was chosen to get rid of sodomy laws.

Your straw man has NOTHING to do with sodomy laws. Logic doesn't bend that far.

889 posted on 06/26/2003 11:51:00 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 871 | View Replies]

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

You didn't read my post. The people of Kalifornia are saying that ownership of assault rifles is wrong for some reason, i.e. you 'ought not' own one. That doesn't mean they're right. As I noted in my post.

890 posted on 06/26/2003 11:51:05 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"Please explain why my 16 year old daughter and I cannot have sex."

You keep asking this question. That's disturbing. You _can_ have sex, I suppose, and as long as nobody finds out about it or your daughter does not feel abused, you won't be arrested. It happens all the time. It's a darned poor idea, though, and is, in fact, against the law. I advise that you stop doing it.
891 posted on 06/26/2003 11:51:27 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
All those of majority age who are of sound mind have legal capacity to consent and enter into legal contracts.

Wrong. But now you want to change the age of consent because of this new privacy right.

Your addmission that its a problem is proof of what we we are talking years.

892 posted on 06/26/2003 11:52:08 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 856 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen
Libertarians also cause halitosis ;)

Libertarians also cause halitosis ;)

Libertarians also cause halitosis ;)

And with that much practice, we're pretty darn good at it as well. ;-)

893 posted on 06/26/2003 11:52:09 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 875 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Nambla will be next with their rights. Just watch. It's a slippery slope.

How do I know? I live in San Francisco. On a gay gossip board a gay person wrote this "there will be f*cking on the streets of San Francisco today! We'll be celebrating!!!"

Just great..

Oh and yes, we run across gay men having intercourse in the bushes in the parks here. Marvelous...
894 posted on 06/26/2003 11:52:17 AM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 887 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband; *Homosexual Agenda; GrandMoM; backhoe; pram; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; ...
Thanks for the ping. I was going to post a similar article this morning but didn't have the time.

Homosexual Agenda Index
Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search
All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

895 posted on 06/26/2003 11:53:08 AM PDT by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Well, obviously I was talking about lying when it is unrelated to commerce.

But, that brings up an interesting point. Is any lie, anytime, a violation of the rights of others?

896 posted on 06/26/2003 11:53:25 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
"I'm almost positive David Souter is a homosexual, Ginsberg is also a former dyke or a current dyke.
"

And your evidence for these ridiculous accusations is what? Can you not argue your case without such false rhetoric?
897 posted on 06/26/2003 11:53:59 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 843 | View Replies]

To: OWK
BTW, good to see you around. Long time, no see.
898 posted on 06/26/2003 11:54:18 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Please explain why my 16 year old daughter and I cannot have sex.

That's pretty vile. How about explaining why you want to?

899 posted on 06/26/2003 11:54:41 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
Not a disease-spreading, child-predatory, stinking sodomite. Not in my case anyway. Sorry if I appeared to include you in my group. Didn't mean to offend your tender sensibilities.

(whew!)
900 posted on 06/26/2003 11:54:45 AM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 870 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 801-850851-900901-950 ... 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