Texas Sodomy Law overturned

yeah...but replace the word 'homosexuality' with 'incest' or 'prostitution' and the court's argument would still make sense.

Why is homosexuality fundamentally (if it is) different from prostitution or incest? You can apply the same doctrine of 'government has no right into bedroom'.

first of all, a lot of times incest is not between two consenting partners nor two adults, so be careful...plus there are issues of health that some use to disagree with that.

I support our law and am very glad to be Texan with this overturning. And not only homosexual couples participate in sodomy. However, shoving one's nose in the air and condemning someone based on their actions no matter what your beliefs on the subject is not showing love or compasison or equality to others. Yes, we are each entitled to our own beliefs, but we shouldn't force our beliefs on anyone else or let our own infringe on the lives of others. Lets learn how to show God's love to everyone and not simply those we agree with.

Wasnt the ruling of the supreme court dealing mostly with the issue of privacy and not homosexuality? What I do in my bedroom is my buisness.

There are places in this country where prostitution is legal.
Some of the statistics I have found show that in places where prostitution is legal and monitored (and taxed!) there is lower incidence of sexually transmitted disease, lower incidence of violence against the prostitutes and lower incidence of substance abuse.
In 1949, the United Nations adopted a resolution in favor of the decriminalization of prostitution, which has been ratified by fifty countries (not by the United States). These countries, interestingly enough, have fewer per capita prostitutes than the United States. I guess making it legal takes the thrill out of it.

The vast majority of incest is with at least one member being a non-adult.
Approximately one-third of all juvenile victims of sexual abuse cases are children younger than 6 years of age. [Violence and the Family. Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, 1996.]

As for polygamy I don’t have a problem with that. However I am aware that such relationships usually do not last over time. I personally don’t know of any polyamorous families.
Of course your points are all variations of the Slippery Slope Fallacy or Camel's Nose fallacy there is an old saying about how if you allow a camel to poke his nose into the tent, soon the whole camel will follow. The fallacy here is the assumption that something is wrong because it is right next to something that is wrong. Or, it is wrong because it could slide towards something that is also considered wrong or worse than the original idea.

ok, but for incest, we already have rape charges don't we?

I'm using the same principle that the court took in coming to its decision: that the government has no right into what goes on in the bedroom.

So could you please explain why homosexuality is 'right' vs two consenting adults who are siblings is 'wrong'?

people arent debating the adult siblings, we are looking at the facts that most cases of incest arent two adults.

and i believe incest charges do go under rape, as do molestation charges... but i could be wrong on that. and if anyone ever forces themselves on another being sexually, no matter how old or distantly related that is wrong and i will go beat them up for the victim!

Extirpated Wildlife said:

Laws are always right? The laws of this land have no right or wrong attached to them unless you believe in God.

Laws are opinions on how to regulate the people of the land. Murder is a law that is an opinion unless you believe in God who created all things told you its wrong.

Same things. Murder...homosexual love..... Its the opinions of the people who make laws that make laws laws. Not whether they are morally right or wrong. Morality is not subjective if you believe in God. Laws can be.

Click to expand...

Over and over again, I see that not a few Christians on these boards have no concept of where morality and law come from.

EW has a valid point about law if you accpet the idea that God is the foundation of all law. But, EW, let's extend the same argument to God: By what right does God say murder is wrong? I mean, it's just his opinion, right?

The same argument can logically be applied to God.

So we need to decide what is a good reason to create a law limiting human freedom. In that case we need to discuss rights.

If you'll take some time and read documents of the Enlightenment, like John Locke's work, Jefferson's writings and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, you'll quickly realize that "natural rights" preoccupied men regarding proper role of government. These rights were things that men needed in order to live properly, rights to life, liberty and property.

Since men cannot always defend their own rights, government was instituted to protect those individual rights.

So for those reasons, government could capture, try and punish only those men (i.e. criminals) for whom there is objective evidence of harming another human being through force or fraud.

In other words, there are no victimless crimes.

Prostitution harms no one, neither does private use of drugs or alcohol, nor does plural marriage. Any attempt to connect homosexuality with child abuse is foolish and intentionally deceptive.

If you don't like homosexuality, don't practice it. If you don't like prostitution, don't hire one. But unless you can prove you've been harmed by another person's bedroom behavior, then you have no business trying to stop it.

Gay marriage is closer than ever before, and I'm glad to see it. Marriage is NOT instituted by God, but is a contractual agreement between two people. In fact, I got married in a civil ceremony without any reference to God or the divine - and it's perfectly legally enforced. I see no reason why the State has any business telling one couple they can get married and another that they cannot based upon gender.

arn't all sexual deeds not meant for the purpose of procreation, considered sodomy?


The Wiccan's Cree: an' it harm none, do what thou will.
(I promote no form of diety worship, but this still represnts my view point on the issue)

[note: If you edit this post in any way, I require that you delete it in it's entirety

LaserCool said:

Gay marriage is closer than ever before, and I'm glad to see it. Marriage is NOT instituted by God, but is a contractual agreement between two people. In fact, I got married in a civil ceremony without any reference to God or the divine - and it's perfectly legally enforced. I see no reason why the State has any business telling one couple they can get married and another that they cannot based upon gender.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that saying people have privacy to have sex necessarily means that gay marriage is any closer.

And to be specific, Civil marriage is not instituted by God, but marriage between two believers is more than a contractual agreement--in fact, marriage between two people regardless of belief is often more than a contractual agreement, and could be argued is instituted by God. A marriage between two people is not any less of a relationship because it is not legalized, and a civil marriage only means that the government can enforce rights and privileges to the marriage partner.

--tibac

if it is instituted by 'god', then the state can't punish gay marriage, as the constitution then requires that it only be a religios ceromony, with out any involvment of the state

Isaac112086 said:

if it is instituted by 'god', then the state can't punish gay marriage, as the constitution then requires that it only be a religios ceromony, with out any involvment of the state

Click to expand...

I don't think that the state punishes gay marriage currently, it just doesn't award it the same status. Punishment would be taking something away. I don't think that legalized relationships and the perks that come along with civil unions can or should be denied under the Constitution to same-sex couples.

Everyone who has a legal marriage has a civil union--the one on the books in the courthouse (or whatever common law is in your state), and some people also have a relationship committed to God, and ordained by their religious belief. Having a relationship ordained by your religious belief does not make civil marriages unnecessary.

I'm not completely sure what you're saying here, but I did my best to reply.


--tibac

Former Lord Chief Justice Halisham said it best: "The only freedom that counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified..."

Also, this bieng my second post ever, I would like to comment that I am very impressed with the number of open-minded, freedom-loving people who agree with the court's ruling. Jesus never agreed with using force to guarantee adherence to Christian morals; He wanted people to choose Him freely. Let's love our homosexual brothers and sisters, and be thankful that not all the sins that WE ALL are guilty of will result in our being legally penalized and socially shunned. Show these people some respect and they might come to us, eh?

The Dying American Family


The American family is dying a terrible death while in a coma on pain-killers. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that sodomy is a right. The way things are going, it looks like the family is sleeping through this one and just might wake up when homosexual marriage is legalized, when the Boy Scouts are destroyed, when our churches are filled with homosexual pastors and priests, and when there’s two condoms in every pocket and a inappropriate content shop on every corner.

Justice Scalia was correct when he said that the Supreme Court has taken sides in the culture war. June 26, 2003 was the day that moral relativism invaded the family home with the full force of judicial law.

The Court eked out yet another fourteenth amendment privacy argument to legitimize the collapse of morality. Does the fourteenth amendment to the constitution protect a right to murder in private, to steal in private, or to break the speed limit when the state patrol isn’t looking? It is truly disgusting that the majority opinion applied sentimental words about our sacred constitution to describe its decision: "persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

In this generation, the radical Left is about to put the shackles of moral slavery around both the constitution and the American family.

I don’t mean to be unnecessarily pessimistic - though this is a departure from my usually bright optimism – I mean to say that time is running out to bring traditional family values back to Main Street USA. In a time of sissified ultra-tolerance, Americans who care about our future must counter-attack aggressively. Because the radical Left just cranked the homosexual agenda up to double speed through the intersection of truth and injustice, and the American family hasn’t even plugged in the stoplight yet.

Minutes after the decision was handed down, the ACLU launched a new project called “Get Busy, Get Equal.” The new “Get Busy, Get Equal” web site is introduced with, “The Supreme Court just struck down Texas’ law against sexual intimacy between gay people. It’s a huge victory. By saying our relationships can’t be treated as criminal, the decision makes it far easier to get full equality. We can’t let this opportunity pass. Push now – for civil rights, recognition of same-sex couples, and safe schools.”

Next week, Lambda Legal Foundation will announce “aggressive plans for turning this landmark ruling into a reality in . . . peoples’ everyday lives.”

This is an opportunity that the radical Left will not let go of unless the mainstream family pries open the sticky fist of moral relativism. According to Lewis Whittington in the homosexual magazine The Advocate, “the culture war is not over.”

The homosexual movement claims they wanted to stop the invasion of their bedrooms by waging this latest fight in the Supreme Court. Starting today, the radical Left is working overtime to invade our homes, our schools, our churches, our Boy Scout troops, our businesses, and our minds. We can’t let them.

We can’t let them because it is impossible for society to be sustainable while actively celebrating a behavior that was once punishable on the same level as rape and incest in this country. It is impossible for a culture to be edifying to young people and old people alike while inventing new rights out of crimes against nature and decency.

Sodomy is not a right. If rights come from God, sodomy is a heinous moral wrong.

How did we get to this point? Americans are tolerant and accepting people. We like to mind our own business and let other people mind theirs. But this is not a time for tolerance and acceptance. Our enemy is more than a casual opponent in a recreational athletic competition. This is a struggle between good and evil in which evil is now spreading to the hearts, minds, and souls of young people in this generation.

It’s a shame that we’ve let the Left take America this far, but now that we’re on the defensive, the least we can do is fight back.

Hans Zeiger

Hans Zeiger, 18, is an Eagle Scout and president of the Scout Honor Coalition. He is a Seattle Times columnist and chairman of Washington Young Americans for Freedom.

GySgt said:

Sodomy is not a right. If rights come from God, sodomy is a heinous moral wrong.

Click to expand...

And there you have it. The whole anti-homosexual movement depends on the Christian God. It's been said before and I'll say it again, but there are people in this country and all over the world who are NOT Christian. They don't subscribe to fundamentalist Christian views. Someone earlier mentioned thought police going after anti-homosexuals, but the thought police will instead go after anyone not believing that homosexual relationships are wrong, that relationships between any consenting adults are wrong, or that Christianity is the only set of morals.
It's sad that people in this day and age cling to their primitive bigotry.

the radical Left just cranked the homosexual agenda up to double speed through the intersection of truth and injustice,

Click to expand...

Using truth to provide for the equal protection under the law of a minority? How horrible! How un-American!

The Court eked out yet another fourteenth amendment privacy argument to legitimize the collapse of morality.

Click to expand...

That Nasty court! That horrid 14th amendment. Allowing people of African decent was horrible enough but then that leftist controlled Supreme Court said that non-Christians were also protected under the law and so were people with handicaps and people who are physically ill and then people of all races and now gays and lesbians. If we don’t stop them next they will be saying that women also have equal protection under the law.

We can’t let them because it is impossible for society to be sustainable while actively celebrating a behavior that was once punishable on the same level as rape and incest in this country. It is impossible for a culture to be edifying to young people and old people alike while inventing new rights out of crimes against nature and decency.

Click to expand...

Behaviors like Interracial marriage? Like daring to be a non-Christian?

Hans Zeiger, 18, is an Eagle Scout and president of the Scout Honor Coalition. He is a Seattle Times columnist and chairman of Washington Young Americans for Freedom.

Click to expand...

Apparently the Boy Scouts are no longer teaching honesty as one of their core values.

I’m sure young Mr. Zeiger was equally upset when the courts recently ruled that burning crosses in peoples yards was not something protected by the first amendment.

I have read alot of posts, and I haven't seen one on the astrinomical desease rate for this life style?

This ruling will effect more than what people do in there bedroom.
Gays will get married, and have children some how.

Guess what they are going to teach children?

(3) Medical Consequences of Homosexual Behavior

Medical Consequences of Homosexual Behavior
http://www.afa.net/family/hpl/hpl041801.asp
by David Smith, M.D.
April 18, 2001

If you examine the medical consequences of homosexual behavior, you must ask the question of why something that is considered by some to be an acceptable way of living would be associated with such devastating effects on health.

The homosexual activists would have you believe that homosexual behavior is just an alternate way of living that is both normal and natural. If you examine the medical consequences of homosexual behavior, you must ask the question of why something that is considered by some to be an acceptable way of living would be associated with such devastating effects on health. A survey several years ago revealed that seventy-eight percent of homosexuals have been affected at least once by a sexually transmitted disease. Although the AIDS epidemic resulted in some decline in this risky behavior, there has been an upsurge again in the risky behavior characteristic of homosexuality.

Although the percentage of homosexuals in the United States is less than
five percent, they are responsible for half of the nation's cases of syphilis and more than half of the cases of gonorrhea of the throat and of
intestinal infections. Major outbreaks of amebiasis and hepatitis A infections in San Francisco and Minneapolis have been associated with
diseased homosexual food handlers in public restaurants. There is a twenty
to fifty fold greater rate of hepatitis B among male homosexuals and a much
higher rate of hepatitis A; between one-half to three-fourths of homosexual
men have had hepatitis B. If you look at rates of chronic or recurrent
infections with herpes virus, CMV, and hepatitis B, you would find them in
ninety percent of homosexually active men.

San Francisco passed "gay rights" laws and saw a rate of increase of
twenty-two times over the national average of venereal disease over the
first ten years. Over this same period, the rate of amoebic colon infections
increased 25 times and the rate of hepatitis B increased 3 times. Clinics
that treated venereal diseases in the city saw seventy-five thousand
patients every year of which close to eighty percent were homosexual males and twenty percent of them carried rectal gonorrhea. There are also a group of rare bowel diseases usually limited to the tropics that are common in male homosexuals. In this country, AIDS has been transmitted primarily by homosexual sex.