SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[tdadams]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but our society lives with all sorts of seemingly arbitrary and philosophically inconsistent rules. Why can a person who's one hour shy of their 18th birthday not legally drink, but get plastered starting an hour later? Why can you drive 70 on the interstate but not 80, or why can't you drive 70 through a residential area?

Sorry, but most of us live with this seemingly indefensible arbitrariness without the slightest tinge of cognitive dissonance.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

This is a big big loss for our side.

The homosexuals and liberals on the Supreme Court who were appointed by Republicans lost this one for us.

[LizardQueen]

Sorry about the multiples - sticky keyboard here.

LQ

[OWK]

Is any lie, anytime, a violation of the rights of others?

If it results in an individual acting as he otherwise would not have, and the ultimate result is damaging... then I'd say yes.

Otherwise, not.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Rehnquist is also a conservative, and Stevens and Souter are diehard liberals. The power in the court really lies in Kennedy and O'Connor, both Republican Reagan appointees.

Kennedy oftimes will vote with the conservatives (today is one notable exception) and O'Connor is a true wild card...though she has tended more towards the liberal bent.

I believe a conservative court is better than a liberal one.

[ffusco]

200 years ago there was no term for an adolescent- people went from childhood to an adult as soon as they could. Nowadays we have extended adolescence to about 35!

[kegler4]

REMEDY, oh where's REMEDY? We need some long lists of irrelevant links.

[Grando Calrissian]

You have a firm grasp on reality. Don't let go.

[spunkets]

Re: rights

" a question: then how is it created and how does it exist? just as an idea in your mind?"

Yes, it starts out as an idea, then it's pondered. The question that needs to be answered is, "does it infringe on the rights of others". If the answer to that is no, then it's a valid right. Whether the right is substantial, or not, depends on the magnitude of the consequences to the individual. The right to life is certainly more substantial than the right to dust off your shoes.

Some argue there are animal rights. Can't be, animals can't exert their rights. There is a right to engage in commerce, but not to coerce the benefits from the commerce of others. Hence no right to health care, handouts, or any other service as an entitlement. They have a right to buy it, or recieve it as charity from willing sources.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

The Advocate, a homosexual magazine had Souter on the cover saying "Is there a homosexual on the Supreme Court" and offered evidence inside the magazine.

[HumanaeVitae]

Taking care of that child should fall under the provence of charity

Exactly. And if you lived in a society that had the kind of moral rectitude that people would care enough about each other to engage in that kind of private charity, you would be living in a Christian society.

Also, a society that had very little government would have to have some other method of social control to stop anti-social behaviors other than governmental force. That is called shunning, social pressure, and standards. People who didn't live up to the standards would find it very difficult to function in society. Homosexuals would be naturally shunned because their behavior is unnatural and represents huge costs to society because of disease, child molestation and the public representation of sexual profligacy.

A society in which all charity was private would have heavy taboos on homosexuality. Count on it.

[Grando Calrissian]

You probably want to see post #900. Wouldn't want to leave anyone out of all the wacky Fundamentalism.

[Dimensio]

Well, Texas doesn't criminalize bestiality anyhow (go figure) so I guess it won't matter one way or another..

For the first time ever I understand the "steers and queers" line. I wish that I did not, now.

[Dead Corpse]

That doesn't mean they're right. As I noted in my post.

And a law against two guys buggering each other in their apartment in no way harms you which completely fries YOUR argument. You were the one trying to draw the connection between morality and legality.

For the record, yer' still wrong.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

See above for the is David Souter a homosexual. I will see if The Advocate has it archived.

[ffusco]

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

It's certainly immoral if done intentionally, but not a violation of anyone's rights. The recipient is responsible to believ or dis-believe the claims of others in non-commercial situations. This does not apply to subjective truths, such as I am hungry, which can not be independently verified.

[freeeee]

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

Exactly what is incorrect about that statement?

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

I do? That's news to me.

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

What admission?

[HumanaeVitae]

Look at the growth curve of government in the late '50s and '60s. It takes off. Match that up with out-of-wedlock birth rates, crime, drug use, STD's and so on. The libertarian party didn't cause that. Moral libertarianism did.

[Dead Corpse]

What were you doing on a "gay gossip board"? Does your husband know about your perversion?

[NittanyLion]

When the opposing argument posts stuff like that, my job just gets that much easier. I wish all liberals were foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics like some on this thread - ridiculing their ideas would be even easier than it already is.