Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beejay · 06-30-2003, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jet Grind
If I understand your position correctly, you are saying that if private, consentual activities between adults of the same gender are legal that we can't make laws against incest or beastiality. That's utterly rediculous, in the case of incest their are health issues involving potential children (hence it is not a victimless crime)

I'm not sure the "health" issues outweigh the privacy issue. Are carriers of various genetic disorders (Tay-Sachs, for instance) prohibited from marrying (or, more specifically, conceiving)? Is there any excemption from incest prosecution if the couple is unable to conceive?

I'll concede the "yuck" factor, but what is the rational basis for making incest a crime?

CJD · 06-30-2003, 11:25 AM

Jet Grind, as a "true" libertarian I would think you would equally disdain the federal court's stepping on the state's right. After all, despite one's particular views, the whole point of libertarianism is, to put it in Clint Eastwood's words, "Leave me the hell alone."

Granted, Texas should not be about legislating what sexual relations can or cannot go on between consenting adults behind closed doors, but it seems to me that this is yet another example of the federal government over-stepping its bounds. In honesty, though, I lukewarmly support their decision.

Regards,

CJD

Toto · 06-30-2003, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
Jet Grind, as a "true" libertarian I would think you would equally disdain the federal court's stepping on the state's right. After all, despite one's particular views, the whole point of libertarianism is, to put it in Clint Eastwood's words, "Leave me the hell alone."
. . .

How can you be a libertarian and support fascist control, as long as it is at a state level and not a federal level? There's some disconnect here.

brighid · 06-30-2003, 11:37 AM

Why on Earth are these Christian people belly-aching about bigamy, polygamy and incest? One only need read the Bible to see that the founding fathers of the Abrahamic Faiths practiced all of the above. What a bunch of loons!

Brighid

brighid · 06-30-2003, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Granted, Texas should not be about legislating what sexual relations can or cannot go on between consenting adults behind closed doors, but it seems to me that this is yet another example of the federal government over-stepping its bounds. In honesty, though, I lukewarmly support their decision.

I see that decision as over-ruling the state control where it overstepped its bounds by making consensual sex between adults illegal because it wasn't "straight" sex!

"Leave me the hell alone" seems to be at the heart of the matter!

Brighid

Tau · 06-30-2003, 11:47 AM

Let's see. The first sentence of the commentary reads:

Quote:

Homosexuality has always been, to some extent, an Apollonian death cult.

Riiiight... I hardly bothered looking at the rest of the commentary after that start. I imagine that if anyone had said this or something similiar over here in Denmark, half the readers would have a fit of laughter, half would be outraged, and everyone would dismiss the guy as being a lunatic. I'm beginning to understand why that site sometimes is called WorldNutDaily.

Is this sort of stuff really taken seriously?

Autonemesis · 06-30-2003, 11:48 AM

Quote:

...Named Vox. But that's beside the point.

What I want to know (not really, but rhetorically) is why do you care who fucks who (among adults)? It's no skin off your nose. It "neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg" (Thomas Jefferson-ism - ever heard of him? Notorious libertine, I'm sure you'd loathe him). So why all the lather? The traditions and laws against homosexuality you claim go back thousands of years were in fact - as the court's majority opinion (you did read it, didn't you) pointed out - established within the last 50 years or so, around the same time the Pledge (originally written by a socialist mind you, and no mention of god OR the USA in the original) was bastardized by the McCarthyites to show those "godless communists" how little we really cared for the ideals of liberty we like to chat about, as talking points, doncha know. Well guess what - liberty is back in vogue, and you're just gonna have to get used to it - or not. I'm sure there's plenty of work for angry young white straight writers with bad haircuts at WorldNetDaily and in the rest of the right-wing press. You'll do just fine. Just watch your backside <snicker>.

Click Here!

I just sent "Vox" this little note. I hope he enjoys it as much as I enjoyed sending it. If I get any witty response, I will be sure to repost it here.

CJD · 06-30-2003, 12:03 PM

Toto, I was merely quoting Jet Grind. He's the "true" libertarian by his own admission. I am neither here nor there.

*edited to add: Toto, I think I misunderstood your question. It seems to me that if one is a "true libertarian" they would prefer state's rights over against any infringement whatsoever by the federal government. Why? Because they put a lot more faith in the state legislature's ability to rectify itself over time . . . Again, I am no "true libertarian," but that is how I understand them.

hezekiah jones · 06-30-2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Autonemesis
Click here!

I admit that was pretty funny, but you really shouldn't do that to your infidel buddies.

Toto · 06-30-2003, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
Toto, I was merely quoting Jet Grind. He's the "true" libertarian by his own admission. I am neither here nor there.

*edited to add: Toto, I think I misunderstood your question. It seems to me that if one is a "true libertarian" they would prefer state's rights over against any infringement whatsoever by the federal government. Why? Because they put a lot more faith in the state legislature's ability to rectify itself over time . . . Again, I am no "true libertarian," but that is how I understand them.

This is precisely the interpretation of libertarianism that seems totally disconnected.

Local vigilantes can pose as much or more of a threat than the federal government to fundamental liberties, and experience shows that the federal government can change as quickly as any hide bound state legislature.

06-30-2003, 12:34 PM	#19
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Re: I know a rock-and-roll psychic... Originally posted by Autonemesis Click here! I admit that was pretty funny, but you really shouldn't do that to your infidel buddies.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-30-2003, 11:25 AM	#12
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	Jet Grind, as a "true" libertarian I would think you would equally disdain the federal court's stepping on the state's right. After all, despite one's particular views, the whole point of libertarianism is, to put it in Clint Eastwood's words, "Leave me the hell alone." Granted, Texas should not be about legislating what sexual relations can or cannot go on between consenting adults behind closed doors, but it seems to me that this is yet another example of the federal government over-stepping its bounds. In honesty, though, I lukewarmly support their decision. Regards, CJD

06-30-2003, 11:37 AM	#14
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Why on Earth are these Christian people belly-aching about bigamy, polygamy and incest? One only need read the Bible to see that the founding fathers of the Abrahamic Faiths practiced all of the above. What a bunch of loons! Brighid

06-30-2003, 12:03 PM	#18
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	Toto, I was merely quoting Jet Grind. He's the "true" libertarian by his own admission. I am neither here nor there. *edited to add: Toto, I think I misunderstood your question. It seems to me that if one is a "true libertarian" they would prefer state's rights over against any infringement whatsoever by the federal government. Why? Because they put a lot more faith in the state legislature's ability to rectify itself over time . . . Again, I am no "true libertarian," but that is how I understand them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.