The SC gets another one right...(Texas Sodomy Law Struck Down!)

SirJethro

Paterfamilias
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
1,628
Location
Treadin' trodden trails...
The Supreme Court has just struck down a Texas sodomy law that banned gay sex (6-3 vote). My god, I can only imagine the the response if the vote had gone the other way.....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html

Anybody disagree? Obviously, you have a right to your opinion, but I'm curious as to your reasoning.
 
Originally posted by stalin006
i dont care as long as i dont see it :)

exactly how I feel about sex between people over 50....now at least the law recognizes them the same way...

;)
 
I wish they had banned gay sex. Not because I'm against it one way or the other, or because I give a flying piece of turd, but just to see the uproar. :) The fact that this subject got to the Supremne Court is pathetic. What worthless MAGGOT got it that far? I'd sodomize him for being suck a jackhole.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
It's about time. The police shouldn't be wasting their time on this nonsense. Whatever happened to police going after the REAL criminals?

My thoughts exactly! :goodjob:
 
Originally posted by floppa21
What worthless MAGGOT got it that far? I'd sodomize him for being suck a jackhole.

IMO that would be the people who drafted and approved the sodomy law in the first place, or more recently whoever opposed the repeal.
 
Dear President Bush:

As a concerned conservative Christian, I always keep an eagle eye out for any of my fellow citizens (foreign trash can -- and will -- go straight to the Hell they so thoroughly deserve) who deviate from my own personal choices of faith, footwear and idiom. Furthermore, as a diamond-pavé level tither at Baptists Are Saving Homosexuals, I have a particularly keen eye when it comes to spotting the pernicious indicia of those who are subconsciously flirting with becoming a flamboyant homo. I can't tell you how often I find myself tapping the shoulder of some subtlety prancing stranger to let them know I know they are secretly homosexual!

Most of these men appear shocked to be told that they have suddenly become a slinking queen. Often, after such a spontaneous social intervention, the homosexual I selflessly help, still in denial, will respond with annoyance and (sometimes obscene) protestations. Nevertheless, it is my Christian duty to persevere and tell these sad, sick flamers that they are like people who sleep with their toothless sisters or shoplift inexpensive and loud fragrances from Eckerd's (quoting with fidelity the keen observations of inclusive Republican senators Santorum or Lott).

This brings me to a delicate point, which I trust you will read with a mind open to the bracing jolt of the unavoidable truth and a cheek ready for the bruising slap of a righteous rebuke. Frankly, you use the word "fabulous" more often than a Fire Island florist at a Cher concert after his fourth Singapore sling. You may not have even realized that you have been using this secret homosexual mating call, which you, no doubt, picked up while frolicking in tumescent nakedness among the open coffins with your buddies at Yale while in Skull and Bones (with a disappointing emphasis on the latter).

The Lord Jesus is using me to call you out of the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality! And the first step to regaining your rugged Texas-style masculinity will be to butch-up your speech, dear. Instead of peppering your addresses with a fey "fabulous," try referring to those worthy of praise as: rich, angry, closed-minded and pious.

Praying as I type,
A concerned Christian voter
 
There's probably some uproar in Texas over this anyway, the South isn't exactly known for it's open-mindedness.
 
I am of the opinion that this is a bad thing.
 
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
I am of the opinion that this is a bad thing.

care to enlighten us as to the flipside of the argument? I would imagine your opinion is tied to religious beliefs...but I could be wrong.
 
It's only a bad thing if you think the police should be looking in your bedroom window to see what you are doing with another consenting adult.
 
Originally posted by SirJethro
care to enlighten us as to the flipside of the argument? I would imagine your opinion is tied to religious beliefs...but I could be wrong.

Very straightforward. I am opposed to sexual relations outside of the bounds of marriage and not for the purposes of reproduction. Those purposes are the only permissible grounds for engaging in such beastlike rutting.
Thus, I am against homosexual acts, bestiality, heterosexual sexual acts outside of marriage and/or not for reproductive purposes.

Not entirely religious, but there are those grounds as well.
 
Does that include heterosexual sodomy (within the bounds of marriage)?

edit: There are actually some states that still have "laws" agaisnt this. I think Georgia got rid of theirs very recently (or not, I can't remember).
 
Originally posted by SirJethro
Does that include heterosexual sodomy (within the bounds of marriage)?

edit: There are actually some states that still have "laws" agaisnt this. I think Georgia got rid of theirs very recently (or not, I can't remember).

Yes. It includes it by any definition of sodomy, be it the wider one, or the more specifically focused one. My medical advisors have reported to me that the likelihood of pregnancy resulting through going in there is decidedly low.
 
If Simon Darkshade thinks that most sex inside of marriage is for reproduction then he lives a very sheltered and obviously chaste existence.

My wife had to have a hysterectomy over 20 years ago. If Simon believes that, since reproductive sex is impossible between my wife and me, we have had a strictly platonic relationship since then, he's a fool.
 
Wow...so even within marriage sex should only occur for purposes of reproduction? What about sex when your wife is pregnant, or after menopause, or after one or both partners is found to be barren...that as well?

edit: it seems YNCS brought us a true life example even while I was typing this response.....

I think the increased sexual tension would have resulted in nuclear winter long ago.....
 
Simon...I meant to ask you to clarify one point: Are you simply against the things you've stated, or do you actually think there should be laws against them?
 
YCNS - I did not say that I thought that it did not occur. I do live a completely chaste existance, but by no stretch of the imagination sheltered.

SirJethro - I believe I was quite clear in what I wrote the first time. If there are any exceptions, I'll make them clear. Sexual relations within marriage, but not for the purposes of reproduction are slightly more understandable, but one still opposes them.

It is part of an overall perspective for society and humanity. All the time, obsession and energy that is spent on love, the lack of love, sex and the various related concepts and issues - think of what could be achieved if this was channeled elsewhere, onto higher pursuits.
The human species has changed over its existence, and will continue to do so.
 
Learning aid:

 
Top Bottom