FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-26-2003, 11:44 AM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY
Posts: 14,394
Arrow

Quote:
Texas defended its sodomy law as in keeping with the state's interest in protecting marriage and child-rearing. Homosexual sodomy, the state argued in legal papers, "has nothing to do with marriage or conception or parenthood and it is not on a par with these sacred choices."
Umm, right! Am I missing something here? If it, "has nothing to do with marriage or conception or parenthood," then how is keeping the law, "in keeping with the state's interest in protecting marriage and child-rearing?"

Quote:
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
So where are the Texas laws forcing virile men to abandon their barren wives and find a fertile teenager to impregnate? After all, that would foster conception, marriage, and parenthood.
:notworthy

Bring on the fertile teenager!
Shake is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 12:18 PM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Posts: 6,303
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by dangin
Yes, foaming at the mouth in anticipation and greed. He is now a figure in the fight against this, and will reap fund raising benefits because of what he has said.
Considering that even many of the people in his own party criticized him for what he said, I'd be surprised if that's true.
Arken is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 12:56 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Middle, Kansas
Posts: 2,637
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Arken
Considering that even many of the people in his own party criticized him for what he said, I'd be surprised if that's true.
Sure the moderates. But are you forgetting the fringe right and their money? Honestly, the neocons don't want a new conservative america, they want to make conservative constituents afraid of a multi cultural, multi gender, multi faith america. They use "victories" like this and the pledge decision to rally the troops, just like we use decisions that we dislike to rally our troops.

Neocons don't care what the outcome is. Either way they can spin it for money. We helped give us more. We lost give us more.
dangin is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 02:02 PM   #14
SLD
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 4,109
Default

Even if you don't care about gay rights, any ruling likely to piss of the Southern Baptist Convention is fine with me. I just can't wait to see the letters to the editors, other right wing commentaries and religious right leaders squirming. Fuck 'em.

SLD
SLD is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 02:11 PM   #15
Kip
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: not so required
Posts: 228
Default

Oh happy day!

Kip is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 02:15 PM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Posts: 6,303
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by dangin
Sure the moderates. But are you forgetting the fringe right and their money? Honestly, the neocons don't want a new conservative america, they want to make conservative constituents afraid of a multi cultural, multi gender, multi faith america. They use "victories" like this and the pledge decision to rally the troops, just like we use decisions that we dislike to rally our troops.

Neocons don't care what the outcome is. Either way they can spin it for money. We helped give us more. We lost give us more.
I'm sure you're right that neocons will get money out of this. I just don't think Santorum will be one of them. He's just stuck his foot way too far in his mouth on this issue.

Remember, the neocon way of expressing such opinions is to express them with subtlety, do it in a way that someone who's sitting on the fence might swing to their side... they want to make extreme right-wing beliefs appear more centrist. Santorum did exactly the opposite.
Arken is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 02:20 PM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: OC
Posts: 1,620
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Shake
Umm, right! Am I missing something here? If it, "has nothing to do with marriage or conception or parenthood," then how is keeping the law, "in keeping with the state's interest in protecting marriage and child-rearing?"
I think they mean that sodomy does not foster these values- and adds nothing to them.
trillian is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 02:21 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,921
Default

This is a very big deal. My state's one of the few remaining that has anti-sodomy laws for both gay and straight couples. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth at the state capital from here.

Never thought I'd hear myself say this but: Go SCOTUS!
Hedwig is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 02:47 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 891
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hedwig
I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth at the state capital from here.

Ya think Inhofe is sobbing his beady little eyes out about now? Can't wait to see what the Daily Disappointment has to say about this - I may even have to tune in my local radio brownshirt tomorrow morning just to listen to the squealing.

Of course, we shouldn't get too ecstatic. If it weren't for another neo-con fundy splitting the vote, Steve "Defender of Marriage" Largent would be our governor now.
BibleBelted is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 02:55 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,112
Thumbs up

It's about damn time!
Jewel is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:09 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.