Supreme Court urged to kill Texas' sodomy law

You care or you wouldn't be posting here.

I believe these two "homos" deliberately set this in motion when the Harris county deputies arrested them. I believe they had their window and door open and were in the process of being openly gay to the world. Should we have community standards of decency? Yes. If they were being private as you think they are then they would have never been caught in the first place. Sodomites have been pushing their agenda across the nation for years...Texans are not going to put up with their destructive behavior and accept their conduct.

I am stating a fact when I say that homosexual activity spreads disease.

To say that heterosexual activity spreads disease in this context is being intellectually dishonest. The two are not equivilant.

If you are trying to defend homosexual activity your not doing a very good job. I'll tell you what...try this: Having immoral relations spreads disease...is that better for you.

The Supreme Court is not deciding if the 4th Ammendment has been violated. The Supreme Court is being asked to determine if "equal protection" applies to more than just "men and women" (are homosexuals an identifiable classification even though their "identitiy" is based on an action). Homosexual sodomy may be illegal but it is the only sort of genital sexual activity that they may participate in since they do not have complimentary genitalia. Since all adult men and women of all races and religions are free/prohibited equally to participate in acts of sodomy on members of the opposite sex there is no violation of "equal protection". The 4th Ammendment discussion is no under consideration by the court.

If the 2 men had been in their private residence smoking crack, the law enforcers couldn't have opted to ignore the crime in progress either.

The officers entered the residence when there was a false emergency call placed by a homosexual acquaintence of the 2 men. Know of many homosexuals who use this law to persecute homosexuals?

The door was unlocked. I doubt that the officers entered without identifying themselves and their entry. The 2 men wanted their audience.

There is an openly "gay" member of city council. There has been no attempt to catch her or prosecute her for her acts of lesbian sodomy.

Such laws keep homosexuality illegal though and present barriers to "marriage", the physics of homosexual coupling in sex education classes (which would then no longer be reproduction education classes), benefits for live-in lovers, etc. Also when homosexual sodomy is outlawed, it can also be used as a blanket charge against public "gay" sex. I am unaware of the cruising of city parks/rest stops by heterosexuals for anonymous public sex. Same with bars.

The closest that most heterosexuals would get to public anonymous sex is solicitation of prostitutions. Women don't give that stuff away like homosexual men do.

Even though you won't understand yet...I'll give it a try while I'm still awake:

Matthew 28 18:20

When Jesus said this he was speaking as God. Jesus gave us a way out of our sin. God cares for us and wants us to know Life. "Life" in the Biblical context is living in God's Law. "Death" is a seperation from God because we have sinned.

God commanded us to observe his laws and we would prosper. Jesus did not come to change the law, he came so we could be forgiven for breaking the law.

Here's what I found (King James version, in my understanding, the most strict of the ones available) for that verse:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen

Maybe I haven't had the religious training that others have, but I fail to see any reference to homosexuality in that verse. All I see is Jesus telling his disciples to spread the word about his teachings. There isn't even a reference here to any specific teaching, just to all things.

Like I said, go to any religion thread (I read most of them for their entertainment value) and every time there is a point about worshipping on Sunday instead of Saturday, or eating pork, or any other thing that is in the old Mosaic law but is not a part of most Christian traditions, you inevitably find someone making the point: that was then, this is now, Jesus changed that.

Having immoral relations spreads disease...is that better for you.

But only for the participants. This would be unlike TB where quarantine would be appropriate.

I would not support any law banning any consensual sexual activity between adults.

Disease - You take your chances! Don't ask me to bail you out.

What about the argument that "society" is harmed by certain activities?

My answer is that we are a society that is supposed to be based on individual rights, not collective rights. East Germany shot people attempting to escape over the wall, because their departure was detrimental to "society." We are supposed to be free.

You don't owe me your life, I don't owe you mine.

And don't feed me any bull from Paul...

?????

If you do not beleve the Bible, where do you get information about Jesus. There were a few references to Him by secular historians, but none of His teachings. If you "know" anything about Jesus' teachings, it came from the Bible. How are Paul's teachings from that same Bible any less authoritative???

I agree with your rejection of Augustine.

I agree with your rejection of Augustine.

Any information that anyone has about Jesus comes from fallible men, writing down stories that were a hundred years at least, in the oral phase only. Plenty of time for a legend to form, and I personally believe that most of what is "known" about Jesus derives from these legends. Feel free to build a religion around it, and follow it, but the people who sorted out which of the stories were includable and which were not were even more removed from the actual events than the original writers, who relied on oral traditions.

Your acceptance of Paul and rejection of Augustine means we only disagree on which fallible men to trust.

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.