ChiGoose Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 16 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: A lot of outdated laws were probably on the books in many states at that time, and some may still be. I highly doubt these laws are ever enforced or even enforceable. Heck, Dems don’t want to enforce laws that actually affect other people and their property or physical well being. They’re too busy finding new ways to coddle criminals and hamper Police departments. I doubt there is any political will to legislate who can receive oral sex from whom. It’s just not something many people care about ; maybe they did when Leave it to Beaver was a prime time TV show. Abortion is a huge wedge issue and has been for decades. Just want to reiterate that Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003, which was a bit past Leave It To Beaver’s prime…
Doc Brown Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Just want to reiterate that Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003, which was a bit past Leave It To Beaver’s prime… Yeah. It's wild Texas still were able to charge two guys with misdemeanors caught doing the nasty in a private residence in the 21st century. In defense of Thomas, he did stick to his originalist view of the constitution by ruling against it but did call for Texas to repeal the law in his dissent.
Boatdrinks Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 7 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Yeah. It's wild Texas still were able to charge two guys with misdemeanors caught doing the nasty in a private residence in the 21st century. In defense of Thomas, he did stick to his originalist view of the constitution by ruling against it but did call for Texas to repeal the law in his dissent. Wild for sure. I don’t even want to know how these individuals were “caught” or charges brought. Seems like an ancient ( and ridiculous) law that was never scrubbed from the books. That’s Texas for ya.
Boatdrinks Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 9 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Just want to reiterate that Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003, which was a bit past Leave It To Beaver’s prime… That didn’t escape me , just surprised anyone cares at this point. Since these acts rarely take place in public I’m not sure how it’s enforceable 99.9% of the time .
BillStime Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 12 hours ago, LeviF said: I never said that. But you did.
ChiGoose Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 28 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: That didn’t escape me , just surprised anyone cares at this point. Since these acts rarely take place in public I’m not sure how it’s enforceable 99.9% of the time . The couple in the Lawrence case were inside their home when they were arrested.
Boatdrinks Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 Just now, ChiGoose said: The couple in the Lawrence case were inside their home when they were arrested. Again, how did anyone know? I’ve read about laws still on the books in some states that outlaw anything but the missionary position. A seemingly toothless law that no one bothered to scrub from the books because this doesn’t take place in public.
ChiGoose Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: Again, how did anyone know? I’ve read about laws still on the books in some states that outlaw anything but the missionary position. A seemingly toothless law that no one bothered to scrub from the books because this doesn’t take place in public. One of their exes called the police on them.
Boatdrinks Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: One of their exes called the police on them. They witnessed this or just hearsay?From absurd to borderline hilarious. A gay lovers spat? ( no pun intended) Bizarro world that something like this ever saw the light of day in a courtroom. The more I hear about this the more I’d say they all got what they deserved. I don’t know the orientation of the ex, but all this was brought on by themselves. It very well may be technically correct, but no one would have known or cared. Sometimes it’s best just to shut the $@&! up. Now, it seems the law should absolutely be scrubbed , but I think the right decision was reached unless I’m missing something. I mean, the courts don’t write legislation. Edited July 17, 2022 by Boatdrinks
ChiGoose Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: They witnessed this or just hearsay?From absurd to borderline hilarious. A gay lovers spat? ( no pun intended) Bizarro world that something like this ever saw the light of day in a courtroom. One of their exes called the police, I believe to report a gun or something. When the police came in, the two individuals were having sex so they were arrested.
Boatdrinks Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: One of their exes called the police, I believe to report a gun or something. When the police came in, the two individuals were having sex so they were arrested. Ahhh, well perhaps I spoke too soon.Maybe even more hilarious a scenario? Still seems like chicanery from an ex and perhaps that’s why the Police even bothered to charge them. I’m guessing the “ punishment “ was like an appearance ticket and a fine? Again I’d still say the courts decision was correct , but a better plan of action would be to take your lumps and pay the fine. Then pursue getting the law off the books , which it should be imo. Edited July 17, 2022 by Boatdrinks
ChiGoose Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 16 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: Ahhh, well perhaps I spoke too soon.Maybe even more hilarious a scenario? Still seems like chicanery from an ex and perhaps that’s why the Police even bothered to charge them. I’m guessing the “ punishment “ was like an appearance ticket and a fine? Again I’d still say the courts decision was correct , but a better plan of action would be to take your lumps and pay the fine. Then pursue getting the law off the books , which it should be imo. So this is where we get to the question of how to interpret the Constitution. Remember, the Founders themselves felt that just because a right wasn't explicitly clear in the text, doesn't mean it didn't exist. In fact, many of them originally opposed the Bill of Rights because they feared that specifically enumerating some rights might be interpreted as an exhaustive list. Since they couldn't possibly think of ever right that a person might have, if they forget one, people would later take that to mean it doesn't exist. That is why we have the 9th Amendment, which states that just because a right isn't spelled out in the text doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Despite this, there is a strong modern movement to say just the opposite of what the Founder's intended: if it's not in the text, it doesn't exist. There are a myriad of problems with this, but I'm not going to go into them right now. So if we follow the Founder's intent, the question is simply: is there a right to consensual sexual activity inside one's own home? I would like to believe that the answer to this is yes. I do not like the idea of the government being able to legislate what two consenting adults do in the bedroom. At the time of Lawrence, three states had laws explicitly banning same-sex sexual activity while another 11 had laws banning sexual activity that cannot lead to procreation. I would prefer we don't have a government with the power to outlaw BJs. Others, however, are fine with leaving that decision to the government.
Boatdrinks Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 1 minute ago, ChiGoose said: So this is where we get to the question of how to interpret the Constitution. Remember, the Founders themselves felt that just because a right wasn't explicitly clear in the text, doesn't mean it didn't exist. In fact, many of them originally opposed the Bill of Rights because they feared that specifically enumerating some rights might be interpreted as an exhaustive list. Since they couldn't possibly think of ever right that a person might have, if they forget one, people would later take that to mean it doesn't exist. That is why we have the 9th Amendment, which states that just because a right isn't spelled out in the text doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Despite this, there is a strong modern movement to say just the opposite of what the Founder's intended: if it's not in the text, it doesn't exist. There are a myriad of problems with this, but I'm not going to go into them right now. So if we follow the Founder's intent, the question is simply: is there a right to consensual sexual activity inside one's own home? I would like to believe that the answer to this is yes. I do not like the idea of the government being able to legislate what two consenting adults do in the bedroom. At the time of Lawrence, three states had laws explicitly banning same-sex sexual activity while another 11 had laws banning sexual activity that cannot lead to procreation. I would prefer we don't have a government with the power to outlaw BJs. Others, however, are fine with leaving that decision to the government. Again, his job is not to decide based on what he would prefer. Legislators should legislate, and the legislation should be removed from the books. We don’t need a constitutional right for all of our freedoms. These are ancient and outdated laws that very few ( if any) of the people would support. Since we the people ARE the government, there should be little danger of these kinds of laws becoming reality as our representatives are there to do our bidding. I’m not surprised some of these laws still languish on the books because no one bothered to see to it. That’s how insignificant they are. It seems it took a complete oddity of a circumstance to even happen. I’d still argue Thomas ‘ decision is the correct one. It’s just not the job of the judicial branch.
ChiGoose Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: Again, his job is not to decide based on what he would prefer. Legislators should legislate, and the legislation should be removed from the books. We don’t need a constitutional right for all of our freedoms. These are ancient and outdated laws that very few ( if any) of the people would support. Since we the people ARE the government, there should be little danger of these kinds of laws becoming reality as our representatives are there to do our bidding. I’m not surprised some of these laws still languish on the books because no one bothered to see to it. That’s how insignificant they are. It seems it took a complete oddity of a circumstance to even happen. I’d still argue Thomas ‘ decision is the correct one. It’s just not the job of the judicial branch. My position is that we should have rights that are inviolable, ones that the government cannot legislate. We may disagree on the specifics of those rights, but not everything should be subject to the whims of the legislature. I think that if you just throw everything to the government to decide for you, then you're asking for trouble.
Boatdrinks Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 1 minute ago, ChiGoose said: My position is that we should have rights that are inviolable, ones that the government cannot legislate. We may disagree on the specifics of those rights, but not everything should be subject to the whims of the legislature. I think that if you just throw everything to the government to decide for you, then you're asking for trouble. We have many inalienable rights. I don’t think we’re asking for trouble with things that are rather obvious because WE are the government. Do we have to put every little detail in there when the entire basis of our Nation is freedom? No need for that level of paranoia. Thomas is in a sense saying “ clean up your books, you folks are a complete joke”.
BillStime Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 PRO LIFE????? smfh classic what say you @aristocrat
aristocrat Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 11 minutes ago, BillStime said: PRO LIFE????? smfh classic what say you @aristocrat Aren’t babies people? The court said they don’t want to make the law they want it legislated. So get a bill passed the dems have all the power right now. 1
ChiGoose Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 19 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: We have many inalienable rights. I don’t think we’re asking for trouble with things that are rather obvious because WE are the government. Do we have to put every little detail in there when the entire basis of our Nation is freedom? No need for that level of paranoia. Thomas is in a sense saying “ clean up your books, you folks are a complete joke”. It’s not an inalienable right if a legislature can take it away.
LeviF Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: It’s not an inalienable right if a legislature can take it away. Expound on this. Many rights that people consider inalienable are taken away by various legislatures throughout the world every year. 1
Recommended Posts