In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court dropped a cluster bomb in Lawrence v. Texas. For the first time in its history, a majority of the Court rejected morality as a legitimate justification for a state criminal law. The Court declared unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited homosexual sodomy in the privacy of the home.
52 comments
that "clusterbomb" of a ruling lets me have sex with whom i want in the privacy of my own home. that's it.
Yes, and Jesus dropped another when he said that whoever is free of sin, cast the first stone. Apparently, morality is not useful in tribunals since then.
Good lord. Do they even think about the impact of the law? What it means? Would they really want police officers raiding homes to arrest people they suspected of performing sodomy?
No, they declined to support the idea that personal convictions on behavior that does not affect others is a legitimate justification for criminal law. They took the stance that a community can not enforce codes of "moral" behavior on the private actions of consenting adults. And it isnt the first time they did that, either.
What I find amazing is their definition of "morality". Since when is the state the one who has to tell you with whom you have to go to bed, when do you have to pray, if you have been honest to your neighbour and people, or if you are faithful with your couple?
I imagine the bigots said the same thing back in the 50s with Loving v. Virginia (overturning state laws that criminalized miscegenation, or interracial sex/cohabitation/marriage).
Let me just say that as a bi guy, I honestly have never felt the need to marry two people. Further, I would never consider hiding this from a partner, nor "fooling around" on the side.real people have something called "integrity". I know, you may not know what that means. After all, the epic levels of hypocrisy inherent in your organization's very existence must make it very hard for you to determine the moral fiber of others. I assure you, a great many of us are made of much stronger stuff.
Now that we've dispensed with our respective ad-hominems, it's time to address the actual argument.
The vast majority of homosexuals and bisexuals do not wish to draw undue attention to ourselves specifically because groups like yours exist which try to pin blame for all of society's ills on our heads.
Lawrence v. Texas was rightly decided, not because of any sort of morality or lack thereof, but because the government has no business legislating it. "Protect the rights of the minority" and all that garbage. You know, the very reason that the Supreme Court exists!
I will admit that I am no law student, let alone a lawyer, but I do know that you normally need to back up your argument with something a bit more substantial than "the majority" or "my religion". Your side was asked to prove that the state has substantial legitimate interest in what happens in a couple's private residence. You failed to do so. The law was struck.
Don't try and pretend that all of the decisions that matter are going against you. I can guarantee that they're not. My own home state voted me to second-class status a while back. While I could go into a marriage-out-of-convenience with no trouble here, I can't marry the person I love. And you know what? It's your fault. Yes, you personally helped cause this.
What's sad is that I bet you're proud of yourself. For that matter, I bet divorce is next on your hit-list. I can personally attest to the fact that divorce is a good thing. As it is, I moved between two homes pretty regularly and dealt with my parents hating each other through my brother and myself. If they hadn't been able to divorce, I would have one bitter and resentful family as opposed to two loving ones.
You see, I too can change the topic to something only indirectly related to the matter at hand.
In summation, shame on you and your organization for trying to deny me a decent childhood.
Midget go-go dancers, ATTACK!
"For the first time in its history, a majority of the Court rejected morality as a legitimate justification for a state criminal law."
You cannot impose your morality on other adults. Nor can they impose their morality on you. But what they do in private with other consenting adults IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.
Fundies argue that courts shouldn't "legislate from the bench," but at the same time, they seem to want to resurrect Lochner v. New York. They need to look up what their own messiah said about hypocrisy.
Is heterosexual sodomy OK?
What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is no-one else's business, regardless of genders involved.
NOBODY thinks as much about homosexual sex than homophobic fundies. Gay people are way behind.
"In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court dropped a cluster bomb in Lawrence v. Texas. For the first time in its history, a majority of the Court rejected morality as a legitimate justification for a state criminal law. The Court declared unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited homosexual sodomy in the privacy of the home."
Good.
Your tears of butthurt are sweet to we left -wing, Atheist, pro -LGBT people...:
image
Cry more, Texas. >:D
@TammyFaye
"that \"clusterbomb\" of a ruling lets me have sex with whom i want in the privacy of my own home. that's it.
all you goddamn fundies need to keep your busybody noses out of my bedroom and pay attention to your own. for some reason"
(emphasis added):
"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. "
-Jesse Ventura (ex-politician, ex-actor, ex-wrestler and ex-Navy SEAL )
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
