Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/27/2003 9:25:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:26:16 PM EDT
were you listening to GLEN BECK again?
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:30:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:31:46 PM EDT
Ah yes, good ole' legislating from the bench. Gritting teeth whilst Constitution is molded to fit the will of the political hacks of our day.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:33:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2003 9:34:23 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Why stop there? Why not let a household of nine incestuous, homosexual, bestio-necrophilic gays, lesbians and transexuals all get married to each other - and adopt children too? What goes on behind closed doors is none of the Government's business.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:38:28 PM EDT
AHHHH my young padawan. You can see the problem this ruling could lead to! jarhead has raised a good point. I do belive the right to privacy the ruling sets a precident that may be argued to allow some nasty stuff, as Sen. Santorum alluded to! Time will tell!
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:40:56 PM EDT
If Bro & Sis wanna fuck, let 'em. If Bro & Sis wanna baby, nope. You think it being against the law stops anybody? If you wanna screw your sibling it means you need a shrink, if you have an offspring then you are damaging another human and that should be against the law. Anybody know of 2 consenting adults, who are close relations, being prosecuted for having sex? I don't. Doesn't seem to be a problem so I'd ignore it.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:46:04 PM EDT
Ya, right, the next step from homosexuality is beastiality & necrophillia. What about anal, and or oral, sex between heteros?
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:47:17 PM EDT
Because the south obviously doesn't have any laws against that. [:D]
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:52:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:54:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BKinzey: Ya, right, the next step from homosexuality is beastiality & necrophillia. What about anal, and or oral, sex between heteros?
View Quote
No - no - no silly! THIS is the way it goes: First homosexuality. Then pedophilia. Then incest. THEN bestiality. Then, the coup de gras... necrophilia - followed closely by [u]cannibalism[/u]!!! WHOO-HOO!!! [:D]
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:54:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2003 9:58:29 PM EDT by BYU]
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Why stop there? Why not let a household of nine incestuous, homosexual, bestio-necrophilic gays, lesbians and transexuals all get married to each other - and adopt children too? What goes on behind closed doors is none of the Government's business.
View Quote
So the right to privacy trumps the peoples' ability to enact/cancel out laws via the legislature that they see as virtuous, proper, moral, legal, etc...or even vice versa? So Joe & Jane Doe want to do a tepanation (domestic brain surgery by-the-numbers) to each other and the right to privacy basis in this ruling prevents the legislature from enacting laws prohibiting this behavior? Ok. What about the NAMBLA deviants & the ripe old age of consent (that is determined via the states' legislatures) young men that they seek after? Ok. What about euthenasia at home? Ok. So the court has decided that the people via their legislative bodies cannot enact laws that define, limit or enumerate behavior(s) so long as it is behind closed doors? Ok. The downward spiral... [:)]
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:55:01 PM EDT
Here is the problem, laws against sodomy are almost unenforcable. Does the government have the right to know what goes on in peoples bedrooms? Consider this as well, there ARE heterosexual couples how engage in sodomy (say "Anal Sex") as well. Is that areones business? Do we arrest them as well? While I don't agree with homosexuality I don't see how that particular case is "fowarding the homosexual agenda" as it was something done in private and was not forced upon anyone. What would bother me would be if homosexuality were presented in an academic enviroment, etc... This just doesn't meet that criteria. How can it be enforced???? It would just be done in private, hidden. That law make as much sense as banning alcohol (say prohibition).
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:05:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By misterhemi: Here is the problem, laws against sodomy are almost unenforcable. Does the government have the right to know what goes on in peoples bedrooms? Consider this as well, there ARE heterosexual couples how engage in sodomy (say "Anal Sex") as well. Is that areones business? Do we arrest them as well? While I don't agree with homosexuality I don't see how that particular case is "fowarding the homosexual agenda" as it was something done in private and was not forced upon anyone. What would bother me would be if homosexuality were presented in an academic enviroment, etc... This just doesn't meet that criteria. How can it be enforced???? It would just be done in private, hidden. That law make as much sense as banning alcohol (say prohibition).
View Quote
Two words: Probable Cause. How does the effectivness of a law & its ability to be enforced (as carried out by the executive branch) come into play w/ the right to privacy argument forwarded by the majority opinion of the court? That seems to be a deficient arguement because it trades one known set of unintended consequences for a unknown one that by all intents & purposes bankrupt. If they struck they law down because they can't effectively enforce it, then why haven't they done the same when it comes to the copyright protection of music (read RIAA)? Or the 1994 AWB? Or the war on drugs? Not a flame, just trying to reason through the court's decision making process & results.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:08:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BKinzey: What about anal, and or oral, sex between heteros?
View Quote
What about it?
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:21:20 PM EDT
Hey Jar Head NEWSFLASH: If one or both are sterile, no baby. Birth control, no baby. Then there is also abortion, for when birth control fails. How about Lesbians? They can have sex without anal intercourse. Any sexual act hetros can legally perform should be legal for homosexuals.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:24:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By BKinzey: If you wanna screw your sibling it means you need a shrink
View Quote
But a man who wants to screw another man doesn't need a shrink? Curious.
View Quote
Maybe those overly attached to some superstitious belief system need to see a shrink?
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:25:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BYU:
Originally Posted By misterhemi: Here is the problem, laws against sodomy are almost unenforcable. Does the government have the right to know what goes on in peoples bedrooms? Consider this as well, there ARE heterosexual couples how engage in sodomy (say "Anal Sex") as well. Is that areones business? Do we arrest them as well? While I don't agree with homosexuality I don't see how that particular case is "fowarding the homosexual agenda" as it was something done in private and was not forced upon anyone. What would bother me would be if homosexuality were presented in an academic enviroment, etc... This just doesn't meet that criteria. How can it be enforced???? It would just be done in private, hidden. That law make as much sense as banning alcohol (say prohibition).
View Quote
Two words: Probable Cause. How does the effectivness of a law & its ability to be enforced (as carried out by the executive branch) come into play w/ the right to privacy argument forwarded by the majority opinion of the court? That seems to be a deficient arguement because it trades one known set of unintended consequences for a unknown one that by all intents & purposes bankrupt. If they struck they law down because they can't effectively enforce it, then why haven't they done the same when it comes to the copyright protection of music (read RIAA)? Or the 1994 AWB? Or the war on drugs? Not a flame, just trying to reason through the court's decision making process & results.
View Quote
Good point. I understood its not a flame. I think one problem is that it still isn't the governments business as to what goes on in the privacy of ones bedroom between adults. I'm curious, if they thought that passing such a law would stop homosexuality how did they think it would do so. As I see it people who engage in this behavior would reason that there is little chance of being caught if it is done in private. It was just by a rare accident that those two were caught in the act. Also, now that I think about it, how does/did the sodomy law affect heterosexual couples who engaged in anal sex. Would they be arrested or did that law specifically state homosexuals??? Further, what about other homosexual acts such as the use of a "strap on" by two lesbians. Are there, were there laws forbiding them from engaging in homosexual acts as well? Just a thought....
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:26:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:29:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: If homosexuality is legally protected, why isn't incest? If what happens behind closed doors between two men is given the official government thumbs-up, why can't a brother and sister get it on if that's what they both want to do? The laws against close family members having sex and marrying were originally passed to prevent recessive inherited genes from manifesting and exhibiting as birth defects in their children. Isn't that just the government playing at eugenics, and trying to keep the (human) race as "pure" as possible? And really, who's to say what's a fair age of consent, anyway? I knew I liked chocolate Yoohoo better than the strawberry kind at 6 or 7. Do kids really need the government telling them when they can make other decisions? Slippery slope, anyone?
View Quote
Don't tell me the Govt. is gonna start repressin' me and sis? She likes chocolate and fer me it's strawberry...[BD]
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:31:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:32:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By misterhemi:
Originally Posted By BYU:
Originally Posted By misterhemi: Here is the problem, laws against sodomy are almost unenforcable. Does the government have the right to know what goes on in peoples bedrooms? Consider this as well, there ARE heterosexual couples how engage in sodomy (say "Anal Sex") as well. Is that areones business? Do we arrest them as well? While I don't agree with homosexuality I don't see how that particular case is "fowarding the homosexual agenda" as it was something done in private and was not forced upon anyone. What would bother me would be if homosexuality were presented in an academic enviroment, etc... This just doesn't meet that criteria. How can it be enforced???? It would just be done in private, hidden. That law make as much sense as banning alcohol (say prohibition).
View Quote
Two words: Probable Cause. How does the effectivness of a law & its ability to be enforced (as carried out by the executive branch) come into play w/ the right to privacy argument forwarded by the majority opinion of the court? That seems to be a deficient arguement because it trades one known set of unintended consequences for a unknown one that by all intents & purposes bankrupt. If they struck they law down because they can't effectively enforce it, then why haven't they done the same when it comes to the copyright protection of music (read RIAA)? Or the 1994 AWB? Or the war on drugs? Not a flame, just trying to reason through the court's decision making process & results.
View Quote
Good point. I understood its not a flame. I think one problem is that it still isn't the governments business as to what goes on in the privacy of ones bedroom between adults. I'm curious, if they thought that passing such a law would stop homosexuality how did they think it would do so. As I see it people who engage in this behavior would reason that there is little chance of being caught if it is done in private. It was just by a rare accident that those two were caught in the act. Also, now that I think about it, how does/did the sodomy law affect heterosexual couples who engaged in anal sex. Would they be arrested or did that law specifically state homosexuals??? Further, what about other homosexual acts such as the use of a "strap on" by two lesbians. Are there, were there laws forbiding them from engaging in homosexual acts as well? Just a thought....
View Quote
Please check the case law to be sure, but I believe that the TX law under scrutiny had to do specifically w/ homosexuals. However, the ruling also impacts states that had law(s) that covered all 'types' (UT being one of them along w/ about 13 others). As far as the government's business...that is the business of the people. Legislatures enacted the laws at the pleasure of serving the people. If they people wanted to change the law(s), then why did they not petition the legislature to do so? In this case, it is especially glaring considering both the shaky Constitutional issue and the slippery slope provided by this line of juris purdence(sp).
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:32:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:33:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Horik Member Registered: Aug 2002 Posts: 378 of 378 [red]KY[/red], USA
View Quote
[;)]
View Quote
Sick & Wrong!
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:38:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2003 10:39:28 PM EDT by misterhemi]
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Horik Member Registered: Aug 2002 Posts: 378 of 378 [red]KY[/red], USA
View Quote
[;)]
View Quote
LMFAO [:D]
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:39:47 PM EDT
Not everybody can have a baby ya dunce, they don't need to be sterilized, they may be already sterile. The point is there are big holes in your statements, I pointed some of them out. Until someone can point to incest between consenting adults as a regular occurrence and problems arising from it then it is just a "what if." It holds no more water than "what if" you take your evil black rifle out and massacre the neighborhood.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:41:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By Silence: Maybe those overly attached to some superstitious belief system need to see a shrink?
View Quote
There's a problem in your argument: I'm about the least religious person of all the non-atheists I know. Ethics and morals can be derived without a reliance on God, Buddha, Jehovah, Yaweh, Baal, Chomolungma, Allah or L. Ron Hubbard.
View Quote
Ahh, but you see I did not necesarily mean religion. You could even say that Atheism could be considered a 'superstitious belief system', or 'Constitutionalism'.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:46:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence:
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By Silence: Maybe those overly attached to some superstitious belief system need to see a shrink?
View Quote
There's a problem in your argument: I'm about the least religious person of all the non-atheists I know. Ethics and morals can be derived without a reliance on God, Buddha, Jehovah, Yaweh, Baal, Chomolungma, Allah or L. Ron Hubbard.
View Quote
Ahh, but you see I did not necesarily mean religion. You could even say that Atheism could be considered a 'superstitious belief system', or 'Constitutionalism'.
View Quote
Your coming in stupid and garbled. Say your point, over! Don't hold onto any set of values because you will have to sacrifice some forms of human behavior & expression at the expense of it?
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:50:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:53:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 10:54:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BYU:
Originally Posted By Silence:
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By Silence: Maybe those overly attached to some superstitious belief system need to see a shrink?
View Quote
There's a problem in your argument: I'm about the least religious person of all the non-atheists I know. Ethics and morals can be derived without a reliance on God, Buddha, Jehovah, Yaweh, Baal, Chomolungma, Allah or L. Ron Hubbard.
View Quote
Ahh, but you see I did not necesarily mean religion. You could even say that Atheism could be considered a 'superstitious belief system', or 'Constitutionalism'.
View Quote
Your coming in stupid and garbled. Say your point, over! Don't hold onto any set of values because you will have to sacrifice some forms of human behavior & expression at the expense of it?
View Quote
Erm, sorry it went over your head. The point I was attempting to make is that dont go around saying people who believe something different than you need to see a shrink. Or say they are mentally ill, which is what is usually meant when you say someone needs to see a shrink. Because somewhere there maybe someone that holds the same view about you.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 11:00:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 11:02:27 PM EDT
Erm I quoted BOTH of you in my original posting
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 11:06:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence:
Originally Posted By BYU:
Originally Posted By Silence:
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By Silence: Maybe those overly attached to some superstitious belief system need to see a shrink?
View Quote
There's a problem in your argument: I'm about the least religious person of all the non-atheists I know. Ethics and morals can be derived without a reliance on God, Buddha, Jehovah, Yaweh, Baal, Chomolungma, Allah or L. Ron Hubbard.
View Quote
Ahh, but you see I did not necesarily mean religion. You could even say that Atheism could be considered a 'superstitious belief system', or 'Constitutionalism'.
View Quote
Your coming in stupid and garbled. Say your point, over! Don't hold onto any set of values because you will have to sacrifice some forms of human behavior & expression at the expense of it?
View Quote
Erm, sorry it went over your head. The point I was attempting to make is that dont go around saying people who believe something different than you need to see a shrink. Or say they are mentally ill, which is what is usually meant when you say someone needs to see a shrink. Because somewhere there maybe someone that holds the same view about you.
View Quote
Whew, quotefest... There was nothing to go over my head, because you did not make a clear and concise statement of your position. Anywho, let's try to stick to the point. Glad to see you finally made an attempt at one. So it's wrong to exercise discretion, discernment and judgement in life? Where do you draw the line at exactly? Dahmer ate people, but don't pass judgement because he is 'different then me'. What fundamental values guide your existence? Certainly you make decisions based of a set of values, ergo your own morality. The people have determined what is and is not acceptable behavior via their representatives. A consensus morality so to speak that is alterable via the legislative process. This decision seems to be mobocracy facilitated by the court. Turning the Constitution on its' head...
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 11:07:54 PM EDT
[carrying it to the extreme] Does the right to butt-f**k go with you when you leave the house? Should you lose these "privacy" rights when you go out? If not, then what about my right to class III weapons? Such laws / regulations interefere with my right to firearms privacy. Your weapon preference should not be interfered with by the govenrment. [/carrying it to the extreme]
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 11:09:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By prk: [carrying it to the extreme] Does the right to butt-f**k go with you when you leave the house? Should you lose these "privacy" rights when you go out? If not, then what about my right to class III weapons? Such laws / regulations interefere with my right to firearms privacy. Your weapon preference should not be interfered with by the govenrment. [/carrying it to the extreme]
View Quote
Quality, baby![/Dick Vitale} [rofl]
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 11:11:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 11:19:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By Silence: Erm I quoted BOTH of you in my original posting
View Quote
Erm what's your point, then? That there is no offense that could do with some psychiatric intervention?
View Quote
Not something that could be said as a broad sweeping generalization, especially a generalization used to penalize people simply because you disagree with them. You should never determine psychiatric intervention by generalizations. That reeks of re-education camps. You need to do it on an individual basis, with specific issues.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 11:26:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 12:06:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: This whole debate thing gets tricky when you're pinned down to specifics, doesn't it?
View Quote
This is a debate?
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 12:12:46 AM EDT
No, this is a post on a topic on arfkom. So is this, but not by much. | | | | V
Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: This whole debate thing gets tricky when you're pinned down to specifics, doesn't it?
View Quote
This is a debate?
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 2:14:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence:
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By BKinzey: If you wanna screw your sibling it means you need a shrink
View Quote
But a man who wants to screw another man doesn't need a shrink? Curious.
View Quote
Maybe those overly attached to some superstitious belief system need to see a shrink?
View Quote
Ummmm.....the belief that a penis is made to fit inside of a vagina and not some guys anus? I think I will continue to remain "overly attached" to my silly belief system.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 2:26:24 AM EDT
Homosexuality is wrong, incest is wrong, and many of the above mentioned sexual behaviors are wrong. If I am evil for making these judgements than so be it. That is the biggest thing that is wrong with society today, everybody is afraid to judge anyone else. Homosexuals are exercising a natural right, criminals were forced into their behavior, drug use is not immoral. Nobody can do anything wrong. [whacko] To somewhat but also in no way answer your question Jarhead I would ask why have the courts not struck down laws banning polygamy? What is wrong with that, seriously? If it is all right for some homos to play hide the salami, then why can't I have two or three wives. It is still a FELONY to be a polygamist, but now it is fine and dandy to be a homo. WTF is happening here?
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 2:31:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: The laws against close family members having sex and marrying were originally passed to prevent recessive inherited genes from manifesting and exhibiting as birth defects in their children. Isn't that just the government playing at eugenics, and trying to keep the (human) race as "pure" as possible?
View Quote
This is an interesting point. I wouldnt call it eugeneics necessarily, I would say more like manipulating the natural selection process. I agree that incest should not be legal because of the risk of genetic defects. So, the government is concerned with genetic defects yet they have no problem with abortion. Another interesting point is that if they are going to outlaw incest based on the potential for genetic defects do you think one day they might ban marriages based on DNA profiles? We wouldnt want two people with recessive genes producing offspring with say Cystic Fibrosis. Which brings me up to my actual response. You bring up some good points and the best answer I can come up with is that society has determined what is taboo and what is not based on who knows what. Personally you wanna go schoop some guy in your house, fine go ahead, just don't let me see it. My taboo for incest is a lot stronger and it makes me uncomfortable. I am sure some guys have the same feelings about homosexuality and I can appreciate that also.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 3:44:23 AM EDT
I quoted a post and wrote a bunch of witty stuff, but I thought better of it - I should just make a simple statement. This goes for everybody: Don't try to legislate your beliefs, morality, feelings and thoughts on others. Thank you and please drive around. TR
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 4:37:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Atencio:
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: The laws against close family members having sex and marrying were originally passed to prevent recessive inherited genes from manifesting and exhibiting as birth defects in their children. Isn't that just the government playing at eugenics, and trying to keep the (human) race as "pure" as possible?
View Quote
This is an interesting point. I wouldnt call it eugeneics necessarily, I would say more like manipulating the natural selection process. I agree that incest should not be legal because of the risk of genetic defects. So, the government is concerned with genetic defects yet they have no problem with abortion. Another interesting point is that if they are going to outlaw incest based on the potential for genetic defects do you think one day they might ban marriages based on DNA profiles? We wouldnt want two people with recessive genes producing offspring with say Cystic Fibrosis. Which brings me up to my actual response. You bring up some good points and the best answer I can come up with is that society has determined what is taboo and what is not based on who knows what. Personally you wanna go schoop some guy in your house, fine go ahead, just don't let me see it. My taboo for incest is a lot stronger and it makes me uncomfortable. I am sure some guys have the same feelings about homosexuality and I can appreciate that also.
View Quote
Actually, laws against incest are rooted in old-time superstition and contemporary morality. Brothers and sisters can usually fuck and reproduce for 2 or 3 generations before genetic defects start appearing. And another bit of trivia. Did you ever go to the pet store and see those "fancy" goldfish? Their bodies are shaped funny, sometimes their eyes are all bugged out of their head, they have oversized, lumpy heads, or maybe the long, flowing fins. The way they get those goldfish is they breed a couple normal goldfish, and then breed the siblings, and then breed THOSE siblings and onward until the fish come out looking all fucked up then they charge you $50 for an inbred fish that's all fucked-up looking. Pretty interesting if you ask me. I'm also curious...for you guys who are hell bent on "homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, etc.." what about anal sex between man & woman. Is that as wrong as anal sex between men, or maybe only half as wrong, or is it perfectly fine? -Nick Viejo.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 5:09:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Horik Member Registered: Aug 2002 Posts: 378 of 378 [red]KY[/red], USA
View Quote
[;)]
View Quote
[LOL]
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 5:40:40 AM EDT
In our heated debate, I think we are missing the essential points: This decision is going to have a ton of [un]intended (Which way depends on the cut of your jib!) consequences on our society. Just consider...now that homosexuals are free to do whatever [u]behind[/u] closed doors, what is to stop their unrelenting drive for total acceptance and legitimacy throughout our society? Next step: OPEN acceptance and OPENLY homosexual behavior, out from behind those closed doors...and NOT just in The Castro! "Gay marriage"? Well, how is a lower court going to stop that now? I guaranty you that the lawyers are cranking up their briefs even now. And when that does become a legit part of our society, just consider the ramifications: -Property issues -Child custody -Estate planning and wealth and property distribution -Insurance benefits (Both life & casualty...and it will soon become a crime to exclude one's partner simply because they are HIV positive, since that will soon be classsified as a "disability"!) -Government funded programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, (And folks, like it or not, regardless of YOUR position on this issue, YOUR tax dollars are going to be paying these new recipients!) And finally, as a 28 year Navy retiree, this hits close to home...total (forced) acceptance of the openly homosexual lifestyle by the DoD. Like it or not, our military is an extension of and thus reflects our society at large. This decision is, I fear going to have a catastrophic impact on our armed services...especially when the next Democratic president is elected (Homo Hillary anyone?). We barely stopped Bill Clinton last time...next time the homosexual community will have this SCOTUS decision in its back pocket when it argues for all restrictions to be lifted in the military. Finally, these "anti-homosexual" laws were extensions of ancient codes passed down throughout human societies for as long as man has lived in communities. They have existed for many good reasons, most importantly, to ensure the maintenance of a well ordered society. There have always been those who fought against them...but they were always looked upon with disfavor by the society at large and the laws weren't changed...society maintained its sense of propriety and staved off the decadence. Lately, decadence has become the order of the day...growing more wild and crazy all the time. Bottom line...we ARE on that "slippery slope". In some things, there really ARE just black and white...no middle ground...no shades of gray. Shades of gray are the death knell of a great society. To answer the basic question: Yes, incest and all the other currently deviant sexual acts will soon be challenged in the courst too...and who knows how they will come out? Decadence is the sure enemy of greatness...and we are headed down that same path that eventually killed Rome. We are in the middle of a culture war for the soul of America and America is losing.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 5:56:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BKinzey: Hey Jar Head NEWSFLASH: If one or both are sterile, no baby. Birth control, no baby. Then there is also abortion, for when birth control fails. How about Lesbians? They can have sex without anal intercourse. [red]Any sexual act hetros can legally perform should be legal for homosexuals.
View Quote
[/red] But the whip must be less than 18 in, the restraints non locking and the prophylactics and other devices not made from animals parts. The law in Texas was not meant to be enforced, it was simply a message that homosexuals should keep a low profile in the community. Now that's gone and we'll see if they do it on their own. It's fine in San Francisco, the people are pretty used to it. In fact they're used to people relieving themselves on the city streets, sort of like the dogs of the French. Maybe they'll gravitate to Austin, if they haven't already.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 5:58:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 5:59:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BYU: No, this is a post on a topic on arfkom. So is this, but not by much. | | | | V
Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: This whole debate thing gets tricky when you're pinned down to specifics, doesn't it?
View Quote
This is a debate?
View Quote
View Quote
[lol]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top