Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last post of mine...but I had to address this ridiculous point.
Good gawd. Grow up. Who said anything about gay parents, who are already parents by a coupling of male/female which produced the children in the only way nature permits it to happen...to "give up" their children.
Who ever you are? One of my very good hunting/fishing buddy friends was a gay man. We would give each other hell all the time. He was a parent and he was a good one by a normal earlier marriage. I had no problem at all with the guy watching my kids sometime.
So does that answer your self-righteous breast-beating question?
Like I say, you need to grow up a bit and stop believing your own press notices learn how to carry on a real discussion without all the exageration and hyperbole and emotive nonsense.
Now then? Carry on. I think I will call it a night!
Well, look at your post - you are the one who made this argument. Not I. If you make sweeping statements that step well across the line of ridiculousness, then you need to live with them. So much for being grown up, right? Own up to your own BS is what I say.
Banning most anything is an asinine proposition unless there is a clear and present danger to the population that can't be controlled by any other means. It's usually the act of idiots and this particular topic is especially stupid since it's a completely unenforceable ban anyway. And I swear if I hear "if you don't like the new law you can just move" nonsense anymore I'm giving up on humanity. The inability to think more than one step ahead or visualize the repercussions is embarrassing.
States have the power to make their own laws, but they should not be allowed to make laws based upon religious objections to things (birth control/sodomy).
Just because it's in a crusty old book (with no verifiable authors) doesn't mean it's true.
Santorum obviously doesn't understand the meaning of freedom.
Santorum has nothing else to offer other than anti-gay, anti-woman hate card, which is why he's not going to NH. People in NH are fiscal conservatives whose primary concerns are the economy, less spending and smaller government. The motto is "Live free or die." Spending valuable time and money regulating bedroom behavior is in direct conflict with these core beliefs. Outlawing all birth control will lead to increased welfare checks being handed out, which is also against the fiscal beliefs of most in the Granite State.
In short, since he has nothing to offer NH, he will get laughed out of there and he knows it.
But seriously, UAM, yes, the state should have the right to "ban" it all. Bottom line is there is no constitutional right to engage in oral and/or anal sex. And that includes with totally straight people like me who have been married twice before -- have two kids -- and has a fiance now....and etc, etc, and all THAT implies! I am no prude "missionary". Get my drift...?
Well, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES disagrees with you. In LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS (2003) the court ruled that a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life.
We are a republic, not a democracy at all.
And I don't agree with the SC about their ruling.
A Republic is a type of democracy. It's just not a direct democracy where the citizens vote on laws.
And it doesn't matter if you agree with the SC on it. Short of a Constitutional Amendment, it's not going to change. All states are forbidden from banning sodomy. Case closed.
Thats part of the problem of the Supreme court. I don't recall the constitution restricting states from restricting sexual practices. It isn't mentioned in the constitution, at all, thus its a power delegated to the states.
But thats not how we use our system.
At any rate, I agree with you, I am not going to be restricted. Trust me, if a blue law effects me, I just ignore it or work around it.
It falls under the Due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and was in response to a previous case (Bowers v.Hardwick).
"the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," Lawrence v. Texas
It's fairly obvious the state has no business deciding what forms of sex a couple may have in their home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
