Stick it in her pooper, then post pics!

IIRC, the ruling here was to deal with sodomy performed between two people of the same sex.  Therefore, sodomy between mixed couples could still be outlawed.

Scalia's dissent is quite devestating.

For those of you who are not worried, these judges that added the right to sodomy to the constitution will be the same ones who will erase the second amendment.

Pedophilia cannot be considered as an act to be tolerated because it does not, by definition, involve consenting adults only. If the court had ruled this way concerning pedophilia, I think you would be seeing riots in the streets (and rightfully so)!



May I present the postulate that we are not paying the price for [b]tolerance[/b], but rather for [b]promiscuity[/b]. Millions of people around the world (including thousands here) have HIV, yet I don't. Why? because I didn't live a lifestyle that would lead me to contract the disease.

If the Lord is punishing America, it is for that, not for defending, in a legal sense, His decision to give each of us free will. I truly believe that America will (if it hasn't already) be called to task for decisions it has made (such as the "right" to abortion, which is an abomination before the eyes of God), but I do not believe tolerance will be it, unless (again, as in the case for abortion) such tolerance actually defends the taking or infringement of the God-given rights of another human being. [s]Today's decision does NOT do that.[/s]

Phil,  Glad to hear it worked out for you!!!!

[}:D]


TXL

True...but I would love for the Supremes to over turn a few state gun laws.And I would think so would the board members from PRK.

Yeah but then there's the 14th...

Now I don't know what to think.  Why wasn't this resolved in TX.  Why does the SCOTUS need to be involved.

I'm soooo confused!  [whacko]
Scott

Just to put a human face on it, here are the sodomites in question:

[img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030626/capt.1056640360.scotus_sodomy_ny116.jpg[/img]

Shouldn't the cop be able to sue them for infliction of emotional distress?

NO! You may not!![:D] The biggest reason AIDS is such a problem, is because we tolorate homosexuals, and give them "Special rights". The San Francisco bath houses could NOT be closed as a health hazard, because it would violate a non-existent "Right". This greatly enhanced the spread of the disease. The "promiscuity", stems from the "tolerance"..



OR, you didn't recieve a blood transfusion from contaminated blood. Do you know innocent Christians have gotten AIDs that way?? Why?



So is Homosexuality!!  We should give equal treatment to both, because BOTH are JUST symptoms of what is wrong with America...A Loss of Virtue.



By being "tolerant", we contaminate all of society...That's why judgement also falls on those who appear to be "innocent". They are NOT.

Are your names Neil and Bob or is that what you do?

However there is also nothing in the Constitution that says the States CAN'T enact these laws.
In the same way I will never understand how laws that protected unborn children from being killed are "unconstitutional" since they existed at the time the Constitution was written, I would be curious to know if the States had anti-sodomy statutes on the books back then. F_ck it, why not just declare the Consitution unconstituitional now and be done with it and stop all this pretense.



Yes, however the Consitution does rather MENTION that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I find homosexuality to be a revolting concept, most especially all aspects of MALE homosexuality.

Your anus is not a pleasure device.  It is for getting rid of bodily wastes and nothing more.  The potential for contracting a disease or infection from oral or sexual contact with the anus is very real.

I can't say for sure that I really think there should be a law against it, but I am a bit concerned that anyone ever looked at somebody's bung and thought, "Gee, I want to insert some part of my anatomy in that part that is most likely to contain a nice, stinky, bacteria laden turd."    It's a sick thought and an even sicker practice.  

CJ

Now who says we are trampling the beliefs and practices in Arab Countries. They are one step closer to running a train on U.S. Soldiers on our own soil.

Yikes! All I can say is, thank God homosexual sex isn't a breeding mechanism!

since you stress your displeasure at MALE HOMOSEXUALITY...

would you say that looking at some FEMALE's bung and thinking, "Gee, I want to insert some part of my anatomy in that part that is most tight, pink, warm and inviting" is the same or different?

i personally reserve the right to bone anyone i want whenever i want, in whatever hole they are willing to let me stick it in.  premairtal sex is wrong in the eyes of God... should that be outlawed? how many of you are banging your girlfriends tonight? masturbating? (thats what i thought) sin is dictated by God, not by the socialist state.

But Ow! am I sore!

Who says?  Who are you to govern from where and where not people can't get pleasure?  If someone likes their bunghole tickled where do you have the right to say they can't have that done?  



The same is true for vaginas, isn't it?



And tell me you wouldn't want to visit her turd eliminator with your Johnson:

[img]http://www.rooshlog.com/deniser/photos/d034.jpg[/img]

[nana]     [;)]



[s]May I respectfully submit that you can make the same argument for gun possession. It doesn't hold any water with guns; it doesn't hold any water with tolerance. The spread of AIDS in the bath houses occurred because individuals made decisions that led them to contract the disease, not because society allowed the houses to stay open. That others outside got the disease is mostly indicative of people who are promiscuous getting their cumuppance.[/s]



I have no answer for that, and neither do you. Thousands of Christians are killed each year because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Car accidents, building collapses, drive-by shootings, fires, floods. The list goes on and on. Did they deserve to get it? Who knows? [s]However, I don't think that blaming tolerance for the occurrence of accidents (AIDS-tainted transfusions) is consistent with a position that supports individual freedoms.[/s]



Please don't misunderstand me. I am in no way condoning the act of homosexuality in any shape manner or form. It is sinful, disgusting, and ultimately dangerous. It is a freak of nature and an afront of all that is Good in the universe.

[s]However, I don't believe it should be considered wrong in a LEGAL sense. Yes, morality has it's place in law, but it is a morality that defends the right of an individual, not a morality that REMOVES a right that, when "practiced", hurts no one at all but (perhaps) the individual. Going further than that is a slippery slope that can be applied to ANYTHING.[/s]



Careful, Liberty. A fellow Christian admonishes you not to place yourself in the position of God. Judge not lest ye be judged. [s]It is one thing to draw a line and say that a particular behavior will be tolerated in obscurity, and yet quite another to say it will be supported openly. I believe today's ruling involves the former rather than the latter. It is dangerous to claim that something you don't like "contaminates" society simply because you don't like it.[/s]

Again I'll say it. Homosexuality is wrong and a destructive force. [s]However, in the context of a bedroom and two consenting adults, the government has no right to impose restrictions. It is when those behaviors begin to occur or affect society OUTSIDE the bedroom that the government, through the people, has a RESPONSIBILITY to set boundaries. It is the PEOPLE, through their culture, that has the right to argue whether the acts performed in that bedroom are moral.

Morality and Law are two very different things. It is true that law can impose limits on behavior, in the name of morality, when PUBLIC risk is concerned. However, while that risk is private, it is dangerous to allow the government any power at all.

I find it interesting that you decry the government in so many things, yet you want them in your bedroom. I recognize your goal, and applaud it, but government is NOT the answer.[/s]

Here's the Supreme Court's [url=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html]opinion[/url] if anyone's interested in their "reasoning."  And O'Connor's [url=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZC.html]concurring opinion[/url].

And here are [url=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html]Scalia[/url]'s and [url=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD1.html]Thomas[/url]' dissenting opinions.

Here's what Justice Thomas said:

"I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today 'is … uncommonly silly.' Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to 'decide cases "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States." ' Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I 'can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,' ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the 'liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,' ante, at 1."


I think he summed it up as well as it can be said in a few words.

Oh, dear.....

IBTL.

BTW, and slightly OT, would someone please explain to me WTF the people who bring all the POS Liberal causes are always so damned ugly?

Here's the lawyer who won the case:

[img]http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/Supreme.jpg[/img]

[puke]

You cannot equate gun ownership with homosexuality or abortion.
It is well spelled out in the Constitution that my right to bear arms "shall not be infringed."

Someone show me where in the Constitution it says that you have a right to murder your unborn child or mine for that matter. Where does it say that your right to shove your dick up some other queer's ass shall not be infringed. Someone show me that little amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Yet there are numerous laws restricting my RKBA while SCROTUS keeps exceeding their mandate by writing social and moral policy instead of interpreting the Constitution as it is directed under the very Constitution which they pervert and twist every time they make these decisions.

Like I said, the perverts and trash in this country keep getting more rights while the rights of decent, hard working, law abiding citizens are continuously eroded. Any hope that we can regain our freedoms and restore our republic thru the political process is nothing more than a naive pipedream.

You might believe whatever your catholic teacher taught you on sex, but the Bible actually does not mention masturbating either as a good thing or a bad thing.   I know that what people in the "church" have taught me generally says it is bad, but it is a pretty gray area.  
premarital sex is not a grey area.

No, it is not the same in the manner that you are speaking of.  While people do contract STD's through vaginal sex, anal sex is many magnatudes more likely to spread the disease.  Didn't you pay any attention in sex ed?  The blood vessels are much closer to the surface of the skin, less protected, etc, etc.


you just are not thinking rationally here(or maybe you are for your mind.  sad).  While almost any male warmblooded christian would like to have sex with this woman in the committment of marriage( and many of them outside or prior to marriage)  this photo does nothing to make me think i want to have anal sex with her.  You are   wired/ bent  in a manner that doesn't apply to a significant portion of the population.

Yup. If sodomy is so wrong, then why are the Seymour Butts, Max Hardcore and other anal porns always the biggest sellers? Does anyone here seriously believe that gays are the only ones buying those videos?

well too bad because i am petitioning right now in the Texas legislature for a law against premarital sex and masturbation.  i think they are an abomination to God and an affront to his plans for us as men and women.  hopefully you will learn your lesson as you spend your life in jail or pay heavy fines for your masturbation!

that you could think something that I think is so vile and morally abhorrent to be CONDONED by God and henceforth condoned by the laws astounds ME!!!

burn 'sturbers burn!

(doesn't that sound silly?)

Yes >:/

Let me clarify what was obviously misunderstood.  I do not think someone can say there is a biblical basis  for saying that masturbation is forbidden by God.  I do not think anywhere in the Bible it says it is a good thing, either.  You-colinjay- said something about how many of us are pissing God off by masturbating.  I don't think it is something that you make it out to be, and I am a very conservative christian.  I don't think it has much benefit though

Good, glad SCOTUS made the right decision on this one. The government has no friggin business in the bedroom or anywhere in my private life.

As far as State's Rights are concerned, I am all for them.  However, I don't have a problem with the SCOTUS stepping in when the state has violated my Constitutional rights.  If the state violates my First Amendment rights (for example), you're damn right I want the SCOTUS to step in.

And the Supreme Court has no right to creat new constitutional restrictions on the state legislatures.  This decision is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment.

you dont think it has much benefit...

oh well im sooooooory, but [b]maybe I do[/b]

(Mat 5:28 KJV) [i]But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. [/i] The key word here is "lust." It is definitely possible to look at a pretty woman or handsome man and not lust. We must be honest and realistic that lust does trigger sexual desire. Sexual lust is definitely a sin and the catalyst for masturbating. But is the actual act itself, apart from lusting in the mind a sin?

I believe the answer to that is yes. Masturbation is an aberrant form of sexual intercourse which is to be enjoyed by a married couple only. There is nothing in the Bible which gives approbation to celibate sex. Sex is to be enjoyed in the boundaries of marriage alone and the Bible gives no other way to have it.

(1 Cor 6:9 KJV) [i]Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...[/i]

what or who do you think about when [b]you[/b] brush off? were you married when you first pushed pole? NO!? then you should be in jail!!! with homosexuals, prostitutes, adulterers and other FORNICATORS like those who would have sex outside of marriage!!!

MAY YOU ALL BE TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE PUNISHMENT OF THE STATE and God too!!!

oh and do a search on the net and you will see how many people agree with the sin of spilling the seed...

masturbation also = abortion = murder

murderers!

I doubt if you will believe me colinjay, but i have never had premarital sex.  I have never been married, so i guess that also means i have never had sex, period.

not having had sex, my first times at masturbation were not really involved with any thought at all.  I was climbing a pole and something felt good, and i kept it up till something else happened.   I didn't equate it with a girl in any way.  

You may believe what is written on the 'net about what ever you want (spilling the seed, for example) but show me the biblical prohibition for the act!

That is what is not understood here. The long term ramifications of this decision and its use as precedent will be extreme. Wait and see where we are with regards to this decision 20 years from now. This is going to turn out to be considerably more far reaching then Roe v. Wade in setting social policy in this nation.

You may not care. I do. SCROTUS says those of us who do care can't do anything about it. I can accept that if this is left at allowing two queers to bugger each other in the privacy of their own home. Unfortunately, it will not be left at that. You will see but by then it will be far too late.

Keep it in the closet. That is where it belongs.

Plain and simple right here.  If you are against sodomy, you think having your peter puffed by your wife/girlfriend or giving her the same satisfaction is morally wrong.  I can understand everyone being against homosexuality, but understand that sodomy is not about homosexuals, it is about any sexual act that the Christian bible considers wrong.  And if I recall correctly, the bible is against any position other than missionary.  How's that for a dull sex life.

Yeah, whatever.

Tell that to the guy getting a blowjob from his wife in Virginia.  

Or should I say the felon who now can't own guns.

so WHAT do you think about then when you "toss off" NOW? the pope? mary? Jesus? you had better be "dreamin' of Jesus!"

(Mat 5:28 KJV) [i]But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.[/i]

if you still "stroke it" you had better keep your eyes on Jesus because anything else is sinful and impure and IMHO subject to local and state laws and ordinances.

The Bible is against any MALE sexual activity that isn't open to procreation, because the ancient Hebrews believed that a man only lived on through his children, hence no children == eternal death.

colinjay,  here is my formal accusation that you are not having a coherent thought pattern in your argument.  What do you think of that?  ps  your exegesis and hermeneutics is of the lowest quality.



[:K]


Danny

Well, this decision is about homosexual anal intercourse. It also has other ramifications that really are only based on being homosexual such as same sex marriage and I believe will be used as precedent to condone bestiality and probably even child sex. I'll bet NAMBLA is licking their chops over this one. One more incremental step in their direction.

As for the Bible mandating the missionary position: Where the hell do you get that from?

Show me the verse Cypher

As a hereosexual male, I really dont care what homosexuals do with each other as long as Im nowhere near it.

I probably would have made this same decision, less government in our lives is better.

oh and BTW dont get your panties in a wad, yhe jails will be rife with sinners just like you...

isn't this indicative of the MORAL RELATIVISM even within a religion.  even within Christian there are protestants and catholics.  within the protestans there are many sects and denominations. there are roman catholics there are orthodox. which Christianity do we enforce? my neighbor thinks that drinking alcohol is okay, the other thinks that drinking is fine unless you get drunk, the other neighbor gets drunk and fornicates.  i think drinking is wrong. SO, WHICH ONE DO WE CHOOSE?

i personally think that you are a sinner for continuing to "climb the pole" achieving an orgasm (a sexual act, no doubt) without being in the confines of a man leaving and cleaving to another.  that is in the bible my friend.  you masturbators try to justify your actions through this MORAL RELATIVISM.

Hell I can't find a verse, thought I remembered hearing that in one of my boring ass bible classes, maybe it was the USMC rule I was thinking of. Oh well, foot in mouth once again.  I'm sure as hell not gonna go looking for it.

as is your elucidation and biblical discourse.

[@:D]

It was in the 3rd (lost) tablet that contained commandments 11-15.

11.  Thou shalt not spanketh the monkey
12.  Thou shalt not puncheth the munchkineth
13.  Thou shalt not playeth rumpleforeskin
14.  Thou shalt not rubeth yerlappins lamp
15.  Thou shalt not squeezeth into the charmin

danonly and drjarhead-

since you profess that missionary is not the only "approved" position, would you care to elaborate on what Jesus would think about "doing it doggy style"?

i think not.