A Fundamental Constitutional Right To Have Sex With Children, Too?

Toogood Reports ^ | July 8 | Lowell Phillips

[Houmatt]

My prediction... it's never going to happen. And I'm willing to put my money on it.

Reality check:

It already has happened with homosexual sex. It is beginning to happen now with pedophilia.

I suggest you start looking for a second job, because you have a lot of money to be paying out.

[tdadams]

I stand by what I said. It's never going to happen.

Reasonable people can and do make seemingly arbitrary distinctions about life and the law all the time with nary a trace of dischordance about it.

Homosexual sodomy is now legal - as it should be. Pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia or whatever your favorite philia is will not be made legal as a result of the Lawrence decision.

[tdadams]

What the hell are you talking about? ...we have laws against murder, theft, suicide and drug abuse.

I guess I'm talking about you, who just provided a fine example of someone who can't discern between a moral objection and incidents of actual harm (such as murder and theft).

[MEGoody]

"Such laws can be justified on more than one basis."

Maybe, but they are still based on someone foisting their morals on other. Every law we have is based on that very premise.

[MEGoody]

"It seems some people can't make the distinction between a moral objection and actual harm."

It is a moral stance to stay that harming another is wrong.

[RaceBannon]

Why are you surprised?

If the SC can say it is ok to have SODOMY, then why is it a stretch to say it is ok to have sex with a 12 year old?

[eastsider]

We have these morons all the time, carping about how we "cannot legislate morality." But guess what? We already do.

Of course we do. Our entire judicial system presumes the moral virtues of truth and justice.

[Protagoras]

My 22 year old son said years ago that first they get us to accept homosexual sex, then necrophilia, beastiality, and pedophilia.

When you accept those things, he will be right, until then, it's ludicrious.

[Protagoras]

If the SC can say it is ok to have SODOMY, then why is it a stretch to say it is ok to have sex with a 12 year old?

Consenual vs non-consensual. Minors cannot give consent. But you knew that.

[Protagoras]

If the SC can say it is ok to have SODOMY, then why is it a stretch to say it is ok to have sex with a 12 year old?

Consenual vs non-consensual. Minors cannot give consent. But you knew that.

[Protagoras]

If the SC can say it is ok to have SODOMY, then why is it a stretch to say it is ok to have sex with a 12 year old?

Consenual vs non-consensual. Minors cannot give consent. But you knew that.

[Protagoras]

Triple posts, who knows.

[tdadams]

Thanks for trying. You're only further confirming my point.

[George W. Bush]

It's time to enlarge the Supreme Court to at least eleven. Or thirteen or fifteen if that's what it takes.

[Protagoras]

That's why we have laws against murder, theft,

Both of which violate rights and are therefore legitimate laws.

suicide

ROTFLMAO, good one. Arrest those who commit suicide. Execute them! It's murder after all! LOL

and drug abuse.

Which does not violate rights and is therefore illegitimate.

[Protagoras]

It's time to enlarge the Supreme Court to at least eleven. Or thirteen or fifteen if that's what it takes.

Takes to do what?

[Protagoras]

Irrational off topic screed against a political party. Seek help, you have serious issues and obsessions.

[Clint N. Suhks]

It is a moral stance to stay that harming another is wrong.

Shhh! You're going to blow the whole concept of the great Liberaltarian social experiment.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Minors cannot give consent. But you knew that.

Why? Because the legislature says so? BWAHAHAHAAAA….

[Protagoras]

Those laws are taken directly from the Ten Commandments, which also means, of course, they violate the separation of church and state as well.

Why didn't they "take" them all? Do you support laws requiring adherence to all the ten commmadments?