Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $70,319
82%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 82%!! Less than $15k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by HumanaeVitae

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 5:03:28 PM PDT · 1,394 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to george wythe
    Off the thread. Just downloaded Scalia's dissent. I'll read that before the majority opinion. Best to save the worst for last.
  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 4:45:18 PM PDT · 1,374 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to george wythe
    Valid question. It is a chicken and egg question. You could make a strong argument that WWII was the culprit. Morals, from what I understand, tend to decay after major wars. Having said that, the case for enforcement of the public morality is still valid whether or not people want the public morality enforced. If they do not want it enforced, however, it won't be. The people themselves are the enforcement mechanism
  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 4:29:59 PM PDT · 1,361 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to george wythe
    What was the compelling state interest to regulate heterosexual sodomy until 1960?

    Cultural norms. It's hard not to notice that all kinds of sexual deviancy, and the effects thereof, took off in the 1960s.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 4:12:19 PM PDT · 1,351 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to jmc813
    No...one of the things you see a lot is liberals (and libertarians) arguing for federalism when it benefits their particular issue and conservatives arguing the opposite (for instance, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban), and vice versa when the terrain is reversed. I'm just being honest. However, it's difficult to argue what is and what is not 'Constitutional' these days. It kind of depends on whether or not Sandra Day O'Connor has taken her Metamucil.

    From what I've read, there have been about three different working interpretations of the Constitution throughout American history. The last major shift was in 1937, the 'switch in time that saved nine', where much of the New Deal was upheld. I believe the 10th Amendment was finally finished off for all practical purposes in 1940, but I'd have to look that up. I'm a little foggy on that.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 3:52:21 PM PDT · 1,338 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to jmc813
    Do you think Texas should have the right to make marijuana legal? Gay marriage?

    On gay marriage, I believe that Gov. Rick Perry just signed a Defense of Marriage act, but yes, if the people of Texas were somehow insane enough to want that, sure. That's why social conservatives like me want to amend the Constitution with a Federal Marriage Act to stop that from happening in every state (I'm not worried about it being passed into law by a legislature; I'm worried about the kind of judicial activism we saw today).

    Regarding marijuana, it gets a little more complicated. Again, I'm arguing from the 'original conception' of the Constitution that libertarians love to 'defend'. Under that regime, with a very narrowly interpreted ICC (interstate commerce clause) then yes. Today, no way. One state legalizing marijuana would never pass muster. You might want to note here that banning alcohol took a Constitutional Amendment (18th), but ever since roughly 1937 that kind of narrow interpretation of the ICC has kind of gone by the boards.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 3:41:50 PM PDT · 1,327 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to freeeee
    If the land isn't yours, you have no such right under libertarianism. To assert such a right on land you do not own, or is publicly owned is initiation of force or fraud.

    In my example, the society would determine the scope of property rights. Voluntarily. This argument fails.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 3:40:20 PM PDT · 1,326 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to tdadams
    That argument has all the veracity of a trial lawyer working on a contingency fee.

    I'm a lawyer (never practiced, almost certainly never will), but the last time I got paid by someone it was by straight commission (sales). That's a more honest way to make a living than chasing ambulances, I think.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 3:38:21 PM PDT · 1,322 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to fooman
    You are holding up pretty well here IMO, as well as others I imagine.

    I love debating libertarians. Nothing like giving Randians good, old-fashioned Tom and Jerry-like upside-the-head whoppings with the logic stick.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 3:34:43 PM PDT · 1,317 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to freeeee
    1. Who owns the land? You never say. If the land in your small society is privately owned, those who own it can tell gays or anyone else to leave for any reason, or no reason at all.

    Completely irrelevant. Under the libertarian construction of things, if people voluntarily agree to organize society in any way they wish, that's kosher with libertarians. Doesn't matter if the land is communally owned or privately owned. The small society has to agree, voluntarily, on social organization. However they do that is irrelevant to the argument, because whichever way they do it, it's voluntary. Perfect libertarianism.

    Are you asserting that the gay men are breaking a rule they consented to? This is a profound breakdown of logic on your part

    I stated that there was a pre-existing taboo (social rule) on sodomy. It was well established. By living in that society, they agree to abide by it.

    A libertarian society cannot have laws that initiate force or fraud, no matter if everyone there agrees to them. The gay people in your example never initiated force or fraud in their actions.

    Sure they did. They initiated fraud. There was a pre-existing, informal, covenantal agreement forbidding homosexuality. They broke it.

    I can understand why you're arguing specifics. You've pretty much lost the broad point.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 3:28:14 PM PDT · 1,311 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to jethropalerobber
    i assume you would have no problem with them at that point in time, correct?

    No, I still would. Homosexuality is immoral now and forever. Having said that, I'm consistently amused by you libertarians always instantly promoting social conservatives to positions of super-authority. Gotta be Freudian. Anyway, if society has descended to that point and people have no problem with it, there's not much one guy banging away on a keybord on the North Shore can do about it.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 3:25:31 PM PDT · 1,310 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to tdadams
    What century are you living in? Are you telling me this isn't already the state we're in?

    If people have changed their opinions so greatly, then there should be no problem with voting on this, should there.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 2:36:05 PM PDT · 1,248 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to jmc813
    No, I'm against this vote because the people of Texas have a right to regulate their society for the greater good. As I detailed in the longer post, there are both profoundly negative public health and public morality implications for the public acceptance of homosexuality. I would try to make this case to the people of Texas or anywhere else if I could. If they blew me off and voted otherwise, there's not much I could say.

    If the people want to go to Hell, they're going to Hell, sodomy statutes or no.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 2:28:24 PM PDT · 1,236 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to spunkets
    Your example fails, because the folks in your case in point aren't libertarians. They're authoritarians. Your example is centered around a majority denying a right to a minority. That is not Freedom, it is authoritarian rule. There is no right to not have your sensibilities offended. (l)ibertarians understand this.

    Actually, no, my example does not fail. You're thinking it fails because it destroys libertarianism right before your eyes and you don't want to believe it. If you assert the right to homosexual sex, I can and will assert the right not to be around people who engage in homosexual sex. I assert it to the point that I do not wish to be in the same society as people who practice it. The people who practice it cannot survive by themselves and thus need people to support their behavior. I do not wish to support their behavior.

    There is a conflict between the "right to homosexual sex" and the "right to free association". What homosexuals really want is the "right to homosexual sex while violating everyone else's right to free association". Thus they have to find a way to force people who don't want to be around them to accept them while still engaging in behavior that hurts people who do not engage in it. They want to have their cake and eat it too. So, they have to "initiate judicial coercion" against non-compliant heterosexuals via the SCOTUS. Because if the state of Texas ignores this decision, there will be consequences. Financial and so on.

    The SCOTUS just violated the "force, fraud, coercion" principle of libertarianism by initiating coercion against the people of Texas.

    Happy Day, huh libertarians?

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 2:15:16 PM PDT · 1,203 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to gdani
    FYI -- Common sense & experience shows that the overwhelming anount of people in this society do not regard sex outside of marriage or sex for reasons other than procreation as "taboo".

    Great. Then people will vote to remove that taboo by electing people to state legislatures who vow to remove laws reflecting that taboo. Pretty easy this voting stuff.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 2:14:11 PM PDT · 1,200 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to jmc813
    Would you like to see smoking cigarettes be banned? What about fast food joints

    I always love how you libertarians reflexively appoint me Tsar. I have one vote. So do you. If you don't like my positions, vote against them. And no, neither.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 1:54:45 PM PDT · 1,166 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to freeeee
    Of course you do. Nobody owns you. You don't even need a reason. Secede all you want.

    Congratulations freeee. You have just refuted libertarianism for me.

    Effectively what you have just conceded is that people have a right to associate with people they wish, which should be obvious for a libertarian, right? Actually, this is a huge problem for strict libertarianism. Case in point:

    Let's build a primitive society. A thousand people. They're all living together because they agree on basic standards of conduct, speak the same language, and so on. In other words, they like associating with each other. They share a small public infrastructure, a system of laws and so on. They are living together, of course, because people cannot live in a state of nature by themselves. They need to cooperate. Libertarians would obviously agree with this, because one of the fundamental truths of capitalism is the division of labor, i.e. people specialize in what they are good at. So you have this small, homogenous, cooperative society that is surviving pretty well.

    Now, let's say that two percent of the society starts engaging in homosexuality. All men. And by doing so they insult the informal, voluntary rule-structure of society. This society has deemed homosexual sodomy to be taboo because it is a) dangerous to those participating in it, and thus costs this society in terms of having some of its members sick (lowering productivity and thus making everyone work harder, kind of like homosexuals today spread the cost of their perversion over society), and b) represents a violation of the informal understanding amongst this small society that heterosexual marriage and monogamy is the norm. This behavior damages society in that way because it breaks a taboo of society, namely that sex is for procreation inside of monogamous marriage. And the 'village elders' know from experience that if that taboo is broken, then heterosexuals will start engaging in non-marital, non-monogamous sex, and cause all kinds of other problems such as adulterous relationships, children born out of wedlock and so on. Therefore, the society itself has put it's own taboo on homosexuality (voluntarily) because it is detrimental to the whole.

    So, the 'village elders', along with the rest of the 'village', come to these 30 homosexual men and tell them that their behavior is negatively affecting the community. It is causing problems, and the village wants them to stop. The men say, 'no, we have a right to engage in this behavior, and we don't think we're hurting anyone'. The village elders reply, 'Well, we think you are hurting us, by hurting our society. We don't want to punish you, but we don't want you around. We don't want to freely associate with you. Either you stop doing what you're doing, or you leave the village'.

    So, the homosexual men have a problem here. They don't want to stop buggering each other, but they know full well that if they continue, they will be thrown out of society. They could choose to leave the society, and go it alone, but they also know that they'd probably die because the behavior that they engage in is inherently destructive. So, they know that they can't live without society, and society can live without them and their destructive behavior that is hurting society. Society is asking them to make a voluntary choice. If they choose buggery, they get banished to the wilderness to die. If they choose to give up buggery, they get to live.

    Note, society is coercing these 30 homosexuals into stopping their behavior. Their choice is either heterosexuality and life, or going out into the state of nature to continue their homosexuality and death. But, they also have a free choice. It's up to them. Society has already spoken. Under the libertarian construction of things, the society--as a voluntary association of individuals, freely making the choice to associate with one another--has a perfect, libertarian right to determine who has 'membership' in the 'club'. They've decided that homosexuals do not qualify for membership. Homosexuals desperately want in the 'club', primarily because being in the club means safety and security, but they don't want to give up their homosexual behavior.

    So, on one side of the debate, we have the 'right to free association', and on the other side of the debate we have the 'right to homosexual sex'. The homosexuals can't live without the heterosexuals, but the heterosexuals can easily live without the homosexuals. And the heterosexuals don't want to be around homosexuals. And this, my dear, is where libertarianism collapses. Because just as you can assert the 'right to homosexual sex', I can just as easily assert the 'right to free association', i.e. not be affected whatsoever by homosexuals. And both are equally valid, under the libertarian construction.

    So, really if the homosexuals want all the great benefits of society, they have to give up their behavior. But the heterosexuals don't need to do anything. They'll just keep on keepin' on and not think a thing of it. The way this plays out in this debate today is that homosexuals tell us they have a 'right' to engage in their behavior, which is uniformly destructive and anti-social. I would like to assert my 'right' to tell them otherwise, but unfortunately what the SCOTUS told us today is not that homosexuals have a 'right' to engage in their behavior, but that society doesn't have a 'right' to stop it. And how would we know if the village (the people of Texas) approve or disapprove of homosexual sodomy? By voting, of course, through the elected representatives of the state of Texas. Basically, all the SCOTUS did today was disenfranchise Texas voters to please the PC cops.

    Libertarianism is untenable. You assert a 'right' pro, I assert a 'right' contra. And because there's no way to know who's right and who's wrong in any objective way, it all comes down to power. In my example above, society had the power to dictate to the homosexuals. In Lawrence v. Texas, a pro-homosexual SCOTUS used their power to dictate to the people of Texas on behalf of the homosexuals. In other words, the homosexuals just hired some muscle. That's it.

    Cheer your 'win', libertarians. It is suitably appropriate that the libertarian version of 'liberty' only works when it's being shoved on people by autocratic judicial diktat.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 12:59:50 PM PDT · 1,062 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to dead
    I've never before heard anybody assert their religion has a monopoly on charitable expression.

    Christians more or less invented the idea of large-scale charity. Sure, other people are charitable, to be sure. But if we're talking America here, the most consistently charitable people are devout Christians.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 12:57:31 PM PDT · 1,056 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to MineralMan
    But, hey, go for it.

    Well, first, I think that I could take about 45% of the population of the U.S. with me (the percent that thinks homosexuality should be illegal), probably more since abortion and other things would be illegal there.

    So, you're ok with this?

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 12:55:38 PM PDT · 1,047 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to OWK
    But what if I want to form my own society? What if I don't want to be affected by people who engage in anti-social behaviors whatsoever? You see, as hard as you try, I'm still going to have to pick up the costs for anti-social behaviors in some way. As long as I'm sharing a society with perverts, they're going to affect me in some way. We'll vote in the same elections, pay the same taxes, and so on. It's impossible not to be affected by people you share a society with.

    Let's say I want to form my own society with other social conservatives. Let's call it Bluenoseprudeland. And then you libertarians and all your drug-addled, pervert friends can form your own society, Transvestitistan. That way, we can both be happy and live around people we like.

    Don't I have a 'right' to live the way I wish, around the people I wish to live around? Isn't this the essence of libertarianism?

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 12:24:20 PM PDT · 983 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to freeeee
    Do I have the right, freeee, along with like-minded citizens, to secede from a society that embraces homosexuality. Yes or no.
  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 12:21:54 PM PDT · 976 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to OWK
    Your rights afford you the opportunity to condemn homoesuality...

    Honest question OWK...do I and people like me have a right to secede from a society that condones homosexual behavior and form our own society?

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 12:18:04 PM PDT · 964 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to Teacher317
    Many other Rights came into being thanks to the Supreme Court, such as the Right to Privacy, Miranda Rights,

    ...abortion 'rights'. Aparently you like being governed by an unelected judicial Nonumvirate. Ave Souter.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 12:06:09 PM PDT · 934 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae 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?

    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.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 12:00:41 PM PDT · 918 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to Pahuanui
    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.
  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 11:58:57 AM PDT · 911 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to dead
    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.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 11:51:05 AM PDT · 890 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae 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.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 11:47:43 AM PDT · 882 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae 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.
  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 11:41:29 AM PDT · 861 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae 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.
  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 11:29:46 AM PDT · 828 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to spunkets
    First of all, you're careering into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence here, and your missing my point. First off, if you want to talk about the 4A, I can point you to the recent SCOTUS decision in the case of Kyllo v. US, the majority opinion written by none other than Antonin Scalia, which upheld a kind of "my home is my castle" standard in terms of 4A privacy. In this case, the court found that the infared imaging and detection of marijuana plants being grown by Kyllo from outside his home by the cops was unconstitutional because it represented an unreasonable 4A search. Again, Scalia wrote the majority opinion (which I wholly agree with), the same Scalia that wrote today's dissent (I haven't read it yet) in Lawrence v. Texas.

    You seem to believe that I'm pushing for the right of cops to employ some kind of infared HomoCam to root out homosexuals engaging in sodomy in their apartments. You're missing the point completely. First, in the case of Lawrence the 'fruits basically set the police up to come into their apartment while they were in flagrante dilecto. It was a set-up. The purpose, of course, was to challenge this law.

    The point here is that these laws are rarely enforced, and mostly when they are it's for some kind of public sex. It is impossible to enforce these laws in private. I'm sure if you went back through arrest records well into the 19th Century, you'd see that these laws were lightly enforced and applied even then. The purpose these laws serve is to reflect the underlying moral structure of society. This law, and others like it, is saying that the community itself disapproves of homosexual conduct. And rightly so. It's a dangerous, disease-spreading, sexually profligate behavior. And so, basically society is saying that they don't want it happening. Does it still happen, even in the teeth of these laws? Of course. But society expresses it's disapproval of this behavior through the law. And now it can't, because the SCOTUS is more attuned to the opinions of the NYT editorial page than it is to the opinions of the people.

    The best way for this law to be 'enforced' is to have the people enforce it themselves by shunning homosexuals. And, by the way, that's why it was passed in the first place. Everyone more or less agreed that homosexuality was wrong, and therefore they decided to formalize that sentiment by passing a law proscribing it. If the mores of society change, then the law gets repealed. Your 4A argument is a red herring because you misunderstand the purpose of this law.

    Homosexuals, however, do not misunderstand its purpose. They know all too well what laws like this mean. They want their behavior 'normalized'. And so they want the laws that express social disapproval of their disgusting behavior removed. As Rush Limbaugh always says, "don't listen to what they say; watch what they do." Libertarians seem to be listening to what homosexuals have to say. Dupes.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 11:04:24 AM PDT · 781 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae 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.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 11:00:51 AM PDT · 771 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae 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.
  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 10:56:52 AM PDT · 759 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae 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.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 10:52:31 AM PDT · 745 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to B Knotts
    Morality and legality are often (but not always) two very different things.

    There pretty much always the same thing. 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. Thus they are moral decisions. The idea that the law and morality can be divorced is only a doctrine that can be held by libertarians who want society to be forced to ignore the costs of perversion.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 10:46:43 AM PDT · 734 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to 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.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 10:31:18 AM PDT · 689 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to VRWC_minion
    The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.

    Trace's continuing effort to extirpate morality from the law is becoming increasingly laughable.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 10:13:06 AM PDT · 622 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to spunkets
    I don't know about your history, but none of the 10 Amendments is particularly offensive. The fictiticious "Privacy Amendment" is a tad annoying, however.
  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 10:06:38 AM PDT · 599 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to tdadams
    But since we're not a democracy, this ruling correctly protects the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority (read: mob).

    Name for me one part of the Constitution that was not voted on.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 9:18:24 AM PDT · 429 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to jmc813
    A Constitutional Republic that was established by...voting. I believe the state legislatures had to ratify the Bill of Rights. Strange, but you libertarians trust the state legislatures to amend the Constitution, but not pass statutes.
  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 9:16:21 AM PDT · 424 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to Teacher317
    The Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers explicitly state that the enumeration of Rights in the Constitution by no means limits the number of Rights we have.

    And if you look at the laws of that period, 'individual rights' did not include homosexual sodomy. In fact, buggery was punishable by death in many of the colonies/early states. You can say "times have changed", but if "times have changed" that should be reflected by...voting. Again, libertarians are against voting.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 9:13:32 AM PDT · 418 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to BlackjackHF
    SC to usurp the powers constitutionally delegated to the legislature and impose its morality on us.

    In the same way 'doing nothing' is actually 'doing something', being 'neutral to morality' is actually 'not being neutral to morality'. Let paganism ring.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 9:10:09 AM PDT · 409 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to gdani
    It pains me to see how many people on this thread *think* they are for smaller Govt but disagree with the ruling.

    The truth is exactly the opposite. Look at the 'health care costs' in the city of Sin Freaksicko. Much of the public health costs in that city are driven by gays. It's a public health issue.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 9:07:55 AM PDT · 402 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to dead
    The Bill of Rights overrules “democracy” in favor of individual rights. Libertarians support this concept, which you seem to have a problem with.

    The 'individual rights' that are listed in the Bill of Rights were voted on at one time, dead. They can be changed by...voting. If you believe that 'individual rights' are whatever you believe them to be, then that's another discussion entirely.

    The thing that gives us 'individual rights' was voted on at one time.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 8:51:04 AM PDT · 362 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to Amelia
    Unmarried sex for free has also been illegal. Problem is, how are you going to enforce it?

    That's the point that's been lost in all of this. The cops cannot enforce this ban. So why am I bitching about it?

    It is the job of society to uphold the public morality. It is the job of society to define what is right and wrong and then enforce it informally by shunning, social pressure, standards and so on. When everyone in a society agrees on what is right and what is wrong, then they pass laws to affirm what they already believe to be true. Most of the time, these laws are enforced by social disapproval of the behavior. If people's standards have changed, then they will repeal these laws via their elected officials.

    What dimwittitarians don't realize is that every time something like this happens it's not 'liberty'. It's the increasing encroachment of the Feds arrogating more power to themselves. The entire purpose of the enumerated and delegated power structure of the federal Constitution was to let states and localities define for themselves the way they wish to live. Congrats libertarians. You got what you wanted, no voting required.

    BTW, libertarians, the Bill of Rights was voted on, wasn't it? Oh, that's right. It was handed down in stone tablets from Mount Ayn Randi.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 8:43:10 AM PDT · 329 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to dead
    The Bill of Rights doesn't include a 'right to privacy', dead.
  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 8:38:00 AM PDT · 313 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to Under the Radar
    Absolutely correct UTR. I don't expect a response from my interlocutor on that one.
  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 8:31:15 AM PDT · 285 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to Emmylou
    Major victory for gay rights and libertarianism.

    I suppose the fact that this law was voided by judicial fiat in the face of the popular will of the people of Texas is lost on you, emmy. That is exactly the point with libertarianism. Libertarians aren't friends of democracy. In fact, when democracy gets in the way of their childish predelictions, they're more than happy to mow it over with their Toro YardMaster and then stuff the clippings from the bag in their bongs.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 8:17:34 AM PDT · 239 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to E Rocc
    Public "morality" (as opposed to "morality" in public places) is absolutely positively none of the government's business in a free society.

    Actually, yes it is. I love how you libertarians talk about 'honoring the Constitution' and 'going back to original Constitutional principles'. If you actually cared about that or knew anything about 'original Constitutional principles' you'd know that the federal government has only enumerated powers, whereas the states themselves are governments of general jurisdiction. Under the 'original understanding' of the Constitution, the Feds prohibited the states from doing only certain things (entering into treaties, granting letters of marque and reprisal, passing bills of attainder, and so on (cf. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution). The states could regulate whatever was not explicitly or implicitly proscribed for them to do by the Constitution.

    The Federal government, again, under the 'original Constitutional principles' you libertarians so love, is a government of enumerated and delegated powers. Unless prohibited by either express or implied Constitutional limitation, states can (or I should say, could) do whatever they wish to uphold the public order and the common good.

    By striking down this law, the SCOTUS has merely reaffirmed the half-century drift towards making the Federal government a government of general jurisdiction, not of enumerated and delegated powers. Of course, libertarians are cheering, because they only care about states' rights when it's advantageous to invoke them in favor of pot, porn, or their friends the Gluteus Masochists.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 7:37:40 AM PDT · 110 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to finnman69
    Many of the religious wackos lsecretly long for a Taliban like repression of legal statements and legal acts they don't like.

    Why is killing people wrong? Just asking.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 7:36:12 AM PDT · 106 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to proxy_user
    O'Connor will say that an animal cannot give consent

    She should then tell Bob Barker to stop instructing people to get their pets neutered at the end of every episode of The Price is Right. Dog's can't consent to getting their 'nads lopped off, either.

  • SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

    06/26/2003 7:29:07 AM PDT · 74 of 1,734
    HumanaeVitae to E Rocc
    This ruling only says that it is none of government's business what grownups do.

    Yeah. None of the state's business when they get together in gay bath-houses and engage in unprotected sex and then get the AIDS virus and then go on public assistance and use their insurance coverage to pay for the cost--which you pay for too. Yeah, public health and public morality are none of the state's business.