[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

Yep. Although I don't think we'll have any equivalents of the March On Washington by people demanding the right to buy dildos, flavored panties, or vibrators. Just sayin'.

that would be funny as hell tho

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by bluebeard

that would be funny as hell tho

I wonder what the placards would say?

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

I wonder what the placards would say?

"civil rights for kinky nights"
"perverts are people too!"
"masturbation is not a crime"
"missionary style is for the dogs"
"fear the government that fears your *****"

[bluebeard]

seriously? city-data censored dild*s

[Reactionary]

bluebeard = "Because a law exists doesn't mean its constitutional" followed by the Supreme Court ruling that it IS constitutional followed by "I didn't say anything that contradicts that" (which, of course, you did). Typical liberal, keep moving the goalposts when you're wrong (Dred Scott, Kelo).

If you had been more careful in your speech, saying something like 'because a law exists doesn't mean its right', there would be no discussion as that would be your opinion. But because you declared the issue to be "constitutional", which has a specific meaning at a moment in time (unlike the word "is"), the counter-argument of proving the constitutionality of the law prevails. Goal, posts unmoved.

IMO many laws ain't right.

[bluebeard]

boy, i do love me some irony

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by bluebeard

"civil rights for kinky nights"
"perverts are people too!"
"masturbation is not a crime"
"missionary style is for the dogs"
"fear the government that fears your *****"

"Up With Dildoes."
"Victory for Vibrators."

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

"Up With Dildoes."
"Victory for Vibrators."

i think "up with dildoes" wins

[Snort]

All sex toys, or just frighteningly large ones?

[zenjenn]

Because a law exists doesn't mean its constitutional. I don't know what else follows "the pursuit of happiness" more than a sex toy, heh. states rights take a back seat to individual's civil rights.

Cite to me the constitutional amendment, if you will, that would render this sex toy law unconstitutional?

I don't *like* the law either, and agree that it is silly, and if enforced, is somewhat of an obstruction of personal liberty. However, I will not fall into the trap of "I do not agree with a law, therefore it must be unconstitutional!" That seems to be frighteningly common these days.

It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) work that way.

States, and even local jurisdictions, have the right to pass their own laws, and determine for themselves what is or is not harmful to society, and pass laws against such things. That is why there are places you cannot buy alcohol, and places where you can buy marijuana. That is why there are states were you can marry your cousin, and states where you cannot.

If the people do not like a law, there is a process to change it, or if the law is bothersome enough, you can move to another state.