Victory for the right to privacy.
Supreme Court Speaks"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
Take that, Santorum, you stupid fuuck.
And this decision definitely has implications regarding Roe v. Wade.
Great day. First Strom Thrumond and now this.
Take that, Santorum, you stupid fuuck.
And this decision definitely has implications regarding Roe v. Wade.
Great day. First Strom Thrumond and now this.
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
Great day. First Strom Thrumond and now this.
I really hope that son of a b**** heard this before he went. This is a great thing. Who cares what you do in your bedroom. It's none of anyone's damn business whether you are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, whatever. As long as it is consentual and you aren't hurting anyone, it's ok by me. And to all those who say the reason this case was brought about was distasteful and immoral, I say, "Why, were you watchin it? Were you forced to watch it?" Get a grip people. This is America, where someone can't tell you who and how to love another person. Mind your own business and work on a way to make this a more tolerable nation than f***in around and getting involved with someone else's business. And who knows, maybe one day same-sex marriage will be legal in all states. Hey, it happened in Canada, and they haven't gone to hell in a handbasket. Our neighbors to the north are still there!
Freedom?
Originally posted by tonton
Supreme Court Speaks"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
Take that, Santorum, you stupid fuuck.
And this decision definitely has implications regarding Roe v. Wade.
Great day. First Strom Thrumond and now this.
Tonton when you say the following:
Take that, Santorum, you stupid fuuck.
and
Great day. First Strom Thrumond
I just think you are slipping some of the very hate that many had / have towards the gay community. Neither is really called for. Of course you have every right to despise the actions of these two people you ref to in your quotes but do your specific comments really serve you well?
I will be the first to admit I was disgusted by the ideas of Strom but he died.
I just think we all should chill and have a little respect towards everyone. Even when we disagree. That is what gives humanity a life and beauty.
This man has it right in my view:
Pastor Kyle Babbit of Golf Links Baptist Church said he thinks homosexuality is a sin, but that he doesn't think it's his place to judge others.
"Too often religious leaders get a pet topic, such as homosexuality, and all they do is harp on that sin and lump everybody together," he said. "They forget that these are people who still need to see the compassion and love of God.
"When you associate a person by their actions only, you give them leper status," Babbit said. "Jesus didn't do that."
Taken from this Link
I agree..
I think the ruling is a one that was needed as not all were being represented by the Constitution equally before the ruling.
I think it was the right thing for the court to do.
Fellowship
i detect a shift to the middle in your posts lately, that is so sudden that i can only guess that you are an imposter, and you have the real fellowship bound ang gagged somewhere.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I just think you are slipping some of the very hate that many had / have towards the gay community. Neither is really called for. Of course you have every right to despise the actions of these two people you ref to in your quotes but do your specific comments really serve you well?
The question of tolerance towards the intolerant. These days, I'm more inclined to wave it off, and be intolerant against the intolerant. The problem being the logical snake biting its own tail. But maybe that fault is within our logic, not within the act of being intolerant against the intolerant. I understand Uma Thurman or whatever the old fart was called (
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
where are you hiding the REAL FSiB?
i detect a shift to the middle in your posts lately, that is so sudden that i can only guess that you are an imposter, and you have the real fellowship bound ang gagged somewhere.
hahaha
I am all over the political / philosophical spectrum. I see my self as a grounded moderate with both a few conservative and and a few liberal leanings.
Ethics, Freedom, and equal treatment are important to me. Again i am a very big advocate of pluralism.
Fellowship
Whether or not it will happen or if those are necessarily bad things is another argument entirely.
Originally posted by tonton
Very well put, Fellowship. I agree with you. All Christians should be as insightful as you are.
You have seemingly gone through a lot of very personal philosophical changes in the last six months. I know at times I've been highly critical of you, but I have to say that you've gained more than a little of my respect. I'm sure there are many things I myself can learn from you, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts in the future.
Thanks for your kind words tonton. I enjoy the discussion.
Fellowship
I'm glad the law was overturned, however.
Anyone interested in the meat of the case can read here.
Originally posted by groverat
The argument that strengthening the literally-non-existent right to privacy in the Constitution could lead to stronger movements to legalize polygamy, incest and prostitution is 100% valid and reasonable.
Whether or not it will happen or if those are necessarily bad things is another argument entirely.
Good. It's none of the government's fvcking business.
Deliver my mail.
Protect me from outside threats (NOT PREEMPTIVELY).
Yeah, that's about all I want from them.
"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are ... laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision," Scalia said.
As some of you know from the other threads on this (Santorum) I will draw my circle pretty wide for consenting adults. However have we really thrown out the baby with the bathwater here? What about bigamy for example? They would all be consenting adults so what is wrong with it? Adultery also takes place between consenting adults, and as I mentioned in another thread, why sould someone suffer punitively in say a divorce proceeding for acts the state has no compelling reason to judge?
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
The argument that strengthening the literally-non-existent right to privacy in the Constitution...
Enter The Ninth Amendment. Sure it's a vague and open-ended amendment, but that's its purpose. The Courts are meant to be generous with the concept of rights. The right to privacy seems to me one of the most obvious protections afforded by the Ninth Amendment.
IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Privacy is "unenumerated" in the US Constitution. That's a very different thing from saying privacy is a "non-existent" right under the Constitution.
Originally posted by trumptman
I am glad that homosexuals are being given equal protection under the law, but what about these folks.
As some of you know from the other threads on this (Santorum) I will draw my circle pretty wide for consenting adults. However have we really thrown out the baby with the bathwater here? What about bigamy for example? They would all be consenting adults so what is wrong with it? Adultery also takes place between consenting adults, and as I mentioned in another thread, why sould someone suffer punitively in say a divorce proceeding for acts the state has no compelling reason to judge?
Nick
What's wrong with bigamy?
As far as adultery, yes it does take place between consenting adults so that act itself should not be illegal. What makes it illegal is a breach of contract in the marriage.
Originally posted by trumptman
As some of you know from the other threads on this (Santorum) I will draw my circle pretty wide for consenting adults. However have we really thrown out the baby with the bathwater here? What about bigamy for example? They would all be consenting adults so what is wrong with it?
Actually, nothing as far as I'm concerned. I see the main problems as far as the law is concerned being logistical: many laws are written in such a way as to presume a union between two people. These laws won't handle situations such as division of property after death, child custody, medical consent for incapacitated spouses, etc., in unions involving three or more.
Adultery also takes place between consenting adults, and as I mentioned in another thread, why sould someone suffer punitively in say a divorce proceeding for acts the state has no compelling reason to judge?
It's not a crime to talk about future computer developments. However, an employee at Apple who had talked about the G5 too openly just a week or so ago could have been in big trouble.
Why? Contractual obligation -- having signed a Non-disclosure agreement.
In the case of marriage, adultery need not be a crime in-and-of-itself for it to be a violation of the marriage contract.
Originally posted by trumptman
As some of you know from the other threads on this (Santorum) I will draw my circle pretty wide for consenting adults. However have we really thrown out the baby with the bathwater here? What about bigamy for example? They would all be consenting adults so what is wrong with it? Adultery also takes place between consenting adults, and as I mentioned in another thread, why sould someone suffer punitively in say a divorce proceeding for acts the state has no compelling reason to judge?
Nick
Good questions.
And I have to question how I feel about this things ... polygamy? Right now I'd have to say ... damn, that's cultural. I wouldn't ban it no mo. Incest? Eeeeeeeeeeeeeew. But between consenting adults? Eeeeeeeeeew. Not good for the gene pool. But ban it it? I am not sure (as in I'm actually not sure). Adultery? Well ... this causes pain ... and if it's a break of promise or a break of contract, well yeh: suffer punitively you hard hearted bastud/ess.
Hwwwwm...
Tell you what though: I like this Fellowship fella. As inconsistent and complex as the rest of us (that is no insult).
Originally posted by shetline
Privacy is "unenumerated" in the US Constitution. That's a very different thing from saying privacy is a "non-existent" right under the Constitution.
Yeah. And what the Supreme Court has argued is that it stems from the "emanations of penumbras" (as one Supreme Court privacy decision put it and as conservatives like to mock) of the Constitution rather than the exact text.
Likewise, the 10th amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, which is it? To the states or the people? If it's the state, then this anti-penis-rights law is obviously OK. If it's the people, then that's different.
To put it another way: Libertarianish conservatives like to say that the Constitution doesn't give the people rights. The rights are there, and the Constitution only says what the gov't can do. OK. But then when certain rights, like abortion, are denied by states, conservatives say that should be Constitutionally OK because there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. Hmm?
It seems to me that:
1. Privacy should be a basic right. What part of someone else's body you stick your penis shouldn't be the govt's business. I bet most people agree with that. And I don't like the idea of leaving these basic questions up to states, because of places like Texas. We already tried leaving basic freedoms up to the states, and we got 100 more years of slavery.
2. On the other hand, there's no doubt that this whole privacy idea is highly suspect Constitutionally. It's just not in there. I personally think Roe is a bad decision, from a constitutional perspective. Even worse than this one, because abortion involves issues other than simple privacy.
So what do you do? I suppose let the penumbra emanate, and let the Supreme Court feel its way through. Better than letting the Texases and Georgias do whatever they please.
literally-non-existent
Libertarianish conservatives like to say that the Constitution doesn't give the people rights. The rights are there, and the Constitution only says what the gov't can do. OK. But then when certain rights, like abortion, are denied by states, conservatives say that should be Constitutionally OK because there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. Hmm?
wouldn't it be more that the constitution ensures the right to live, which pro-lifers believe should be applied to unborn children as well?
no conflict there.
Originally posted by tonton
Hatred due to intolerance is a far greater crime than hatred of intolerance.
Gross over-simplification alert!
To me, cheering somebody's death, be it Strom Thurmond, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, or whomever is far more severe than wishing less than death on whatever minorities.