posted
I wonder why no one ever tries to ban premarital sex. Now there's an "immorality" that often *does* damage society. Oh wait, then the majority of heterosexuals couldn't have sex anymore, either.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Actually, I think this could be an interesting time for Methodists. The article talks about the possibility of a "constitutional crisis" within the church if a group finds that the church law she was convicted under is "unjust."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shows what you know, Tom. God clearly hates homosexuals. He says so in the Bible. And this is a Christian country. When the vast majority of the country is Christian, we have the right to make laws according to our moral code. And homosexuality's wrong by our moral code, so we have a perfect right to deny them the right to breed -- we already ban them from equal marriages, so what is this but an application of law along the same lines of logic, albeit to a greater degree?
posted
I'm just curious as to the terminology "crime against nature" for human behavior. Does any law student here know what that would entail?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ack Bob you already linked to what I started a thread on. You were first as usual. I was interested in dkw's take on it, being that she is a Methodist minister and all.
posted
First, adultery involves the state (it is disrupting a state institution, marriage), so it is qualitatively different in a meaningful way from homosexuality.
Second, adultery may very well gain protection from Lawrence v Texas. To quote:
quote:The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Their right to liberty under (the Constitution) gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government....[They] are entitled to respect for their private lives...The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime....In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in our home...Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.
posted
Oh, and sex where neither person is married, which is treated legally different from adultery, is almost certainly protected by Lawrence.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There idea not to allow homosexuals into the county begs the question, what is "A Homosexual".
Is it a person who routinely has sex with a member of their own sex?
Is it a person who has done so only once?
Is there some kind of Homo-virginity, that once taken marks you as "One of them" for life?
If you are bi-sexual, where does that put you?
How about if you are a guy who admits that, yes, you can see why the women drool over Orlando Bloom, or if your a woman who is caught admiring the way a friend fills out her blouse?
What about those born with both genders? Should we lock them up at birth, cause the ARE CRIMES AGAINST NATURE.
What about Joan Rivers. She's had so much unnatural work done on her face that has resulted in such an ugly look that, face it, she is a crime against nature.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, they've got no chance at this. The right to travel, including the right to freely settle within a state and acrue all the privileges, immunities, and obligations of long-standing citizens is pretty immutable. States cannot choose who settles in their borders, and any U.S. citizen can become a citizen of a state merely by residing there. This is more complicated than merely going to the state, since it involves showing an intent to permanantly relocate there. But it's not that hard to do.
Municipalities can't keep child molestors from moving in. They've got no shot at preventing people engaged in constitutionally protected activity from doing so.
posted
Curious that people who know nothing about science can claim they know what nature is. Interesting. What's next? Making it illegal to be blond?
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
I drive through this place every time my family and I visit my grandparents or go to the beach. It's only about an hour and a half away. I hope no one in this county seeks to imitate them.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They just talked about it on the local news and the county commissioners voted to rescind the ban against gay marriage, but they didn't say anything about the ban against them living in the county, which makes no sense. And they interviewed some wackos, too. One said that gay people should be kicked out of the country, along with Britney Spears, who he said, if not already a "sodomite," was "close to it."
posted
Laws Addressing Famous Crimes Against Nature:
1. Though shalt not be unattracted to other bodies in the universe. If though findest thyself unattracted to other bodies, thou shalt change thy behavior right quick.
2. Though shalt not travel faster than light, for lo, the light is faster than thee. Period.
3. The shortest distance between two points shall be a straight line. Not a curved line, not a plane, and a round ball is right out.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
