Posted on 01/17/2003 2:25:27 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2
People working within the system to change the laws are not doing anything outside the social contract. Even the PETA people, whose views I detest, have the right to try to convince people that eating animals is wrong, and if they can persuade a majority that they are right, they, too can change the laws. It's the job of myself as a meat eater to make sure that I get my side of the truth out there, too, and prevent them from making such a change, or I'll be enjoying my steak behind closed doors, in fear of the police busting down my door.
A large part of our people have decided that consenting adults shouldn't have to live that way when it regards their sexual behavior, and that's what's going on here. Societal mores have changed enough that the Court can take notice of it, and simply put to rest the State's involvement with what happens between those consenting adults behind closed doors.
Good question. Religious people consider their marriage to be a covenant between themselves and their deity, with government not being a necessary party to the ongoing arrangement, just something that they should do at its inception. Getting the government involved does confer rights and privileges on people who do so, and these rights are what gay people have sought by being allowed to marry. They really don't want to crash somebody else's religion.
In some countries, a baptismal certificate is the same as a birth certificate is in this country. To me, that smacks of too much intertwining of government and religion in those places, perhaps the government regulation of marriage belongs in the same category.
An excellent question! I guess I meant: Can the forum of the USSC do this via the 14th, or is it up to states' citizens to make sure that their rights are not trampled by state laws?
Ahh. But this is the thing. Who gets to decide if it's been violated? Not me. That falls under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. That's what's happening here.
BS. I'll think what I want. You or nobody else has any right or even a claim to be inside my head. That is the ugliest thing I have ever heard.
You say that such laws should be dropped because they can't be enforced 100% of the time.
I'm not sure how you got this out of what I was saying. I'm saying the law is ineffective because it is difficult to enforce even 1% of the time. And the more thoroughly we define the law, the more difficult it is to detect and enforce. In effect, the harder you try to say exactly what it is you're wanting to outlaw, the more likely it is you'll violate someone's rights in the process.
Outlaw homosexual lifestyle- that one's easy to police because even two men staring at one another dreamily would be prosecutable. But outlaw specific homosexual (or heterosexual) practices like sodomy the way it is defined here and you're going to have to almost climb in bed with them to catch them. Catching them afterwards isn't going to be good enough, catching them all steamed up and doing everthing except "the nasty" isn't good enough. You've got to catch them doing it- or no law has been violated. The law is practically impossible to enforce and is virtually impossible to do so without violating someone's constitutionally protected rights.
You keep stepping around "icky" sexual kinks. Homosexuality is a sexual kink. Discuss one, discuss them all.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't have a weak stomach. I'll describe in graphic detail the practices I'm referring to. I'm not sidestepping anything "icky" (as you call it). I don't get into more detail because this is an open forum and I know young people use it.
This is not bestiality. Bestiality is a different topic with different logical parameters. It involves a victim to start with. Where is the victim when two adults in the privacy of their home bugger each other? Society is in no way harmed. If nobody is being injured, harmed or otherwise assaulted against his/her will, who is getting hurt here and what exactly is this law supposed to accomplish? I don't see how anyone can claim it is a public protection when the public is in no way involved.
a GUN is an inanimate object...ie (guns don't kill people homosexuals who stick their organs in diseased ridden "areas" do.)
Am I responding to a lib lurker or what? What are you trying to tell me...that we can't legislate morality? Well you are wrong and we do it all the time. All laws should be concerned and based on morality. I think we can both agree that no one can be saved by the law or made moral by the law...but our laws represent a system of morality.
There are laws against murder, there are laws against stealing, libel, slander, perjury, and even laws that regulate the flow of traffic on the street. These laws are biblical and are there to protect life and property. Laws are there to restrain man, but humanists such as yourself would have us think that we can do in society as we please with utter disregard to how it may effect our society or our civilization.
Libs hate to admit that are societal foundations and our country's success comes directly from the Bible and from moral men who believed in God.
They won't turn towards any other religion, because they won't find one with greater success. They take it on faith that we can just legislate ourselves out of chaos.
If you think I'm a lib disruptor, hit the abuse button and try to get me banned.
What I was trying to tell you is- there is no crime being committed here. In all the examples you name, there is a definite victim. If we were talking about public indecency it would be an entirely different thing. But we're talking about two adults in the privacy of their own homes. What are they doing in there that actually hurts you? And how do you know they are in there committing the act? What is your probable cause for breaking down their door? These are simple questions and I already know I won't get an answer to them because there is no logical answer to them.
A state can only legislate morality to a certain degree. They cannot outlaw Islam as being unwholesome or immoral. They cannot violate a citizen's Fourth Ammendment protections in the process of legislating or enforcing a moral code either. It's really as simple as that. Fourth Ammendment supercedes a local community standard. Now I don't know what these two homos are going to argue and I don't care- equal protection or what. The gov't had no business in their house in the first place.
I think it's a stupid law. It can't be enforced properly. It isn't going to change anybody's behaviour. It lends itself readily to abuse. It's dumb. But do I care what the outcome here is? No. Not even a little bit. I just really don't care whether these two win or the Supreme Court throws it out or what. Honestly.
Thanks for your comments. Have a lovely weekend.
I also made the following point: "...we can honor the bulk and majority of TJ's work, while rightfully rejecting his ideas that we find outmoded." We can do that with Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and anyone else who did not live in our times, with our knowledge. At the time of those Founding Fathers, in order to be within their definition of "equal", you had to be white, 21, male, and a property owner. Just as I'm in favor of full political rights for people who are black, 18, female, and renters, so I favor full political rights for adult gay people. As for being a liberal, I like what Barry Goldwater had to say about the question of gays in the military: "You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."
If your convictions and values require you to deny the humanity of these people, then so be it. Just don't expect the rest of us who are not encumbered by literal versions of a 2000-5000 year old book to go along. We're still conservatives, we just have a broader view of liberty than you do.
The point I was trying to make in "giving up" was to focus on the fact that we have evil people in this world who would love nothing better than to kill every man, woman and child in this country, Christian or atheist, straight or gay, liberal or conservative. We need to unite to defeat that menace, and at this point in our country's history, we need a LOT of people who can shoot straight!
If you could be convinced that Jesus never cared about homosexuality, would you be able to just leave them alone?
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.