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?
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.
Well, some will. For one thing, nobody can threaten them with exposure to the cops anymore.
Most of the people who think the sky is falling know that is not the case. They are just mad that there is now one more area where they can not use the force of law to punish people who engage in behavior that, albeit private, disgusts them. I think its that simple. Heck, one poster even said something like "Why is it wrong to have laws that demean people". The law is their last means of punishing those they dislike without having to use the tactics of people like E.R. Rudolph. Without their wishes for retribution being codefied in law, they have to look inside themselved and realize that harming others is wrong. Too many people rely on government to dictate and enforce their morality. When they as an individual are forced with either leaving the person they dislike alone, or handing out punishment themselves, they back down.
No. But I'm sure you'd agree as a libertarian that people have the right not to associate with people they don't like or of whose behavior they do not approve. Unfortunately, a society is made up of people who share common resources. Court systems, the military, roads and so on. People form societies to do collectively what they cannot do alone. Therefore, aberrant behaviors by small groups of people affect the whole. If someone is a serious heroin addict, and blows through their money and ends up at the door of the county hospital with a severe OD and can't pay for it, the hospital will treat that person and society will have to pick up the tab.
Libertarians are all for secession. What if I want to secede from homosexuals? In other words, I live in society A, and homosexuals live in society B. That way, all of the huge costs related to homosexuality are isolated in society B, and don't touch me in society A.
What about that freeee? Don't I have a right to free association? To not be affected by homosexuals? If homosexuals are going to claim a "right" to engage in their destructive behavior, can't I claim a right to not be affected by it?
Chew on that one, dearie.