First, surely my own opnion is completely irrelevant here. But during the lead-up to Lawernce in 2003, I made my own views very clear on these boards: states should have the plenary police power to criminalize even consensual sodomy. And exercising that power is both clearly constitutional and clearly idiotic.
Why not just concede the point?
Because acting reasonably and conceding points when in discussion with Diogenes is a sure route to loss.
If I’m the only person willing to concede a point made against me, then the only concessions will comefrom me. That seems inequitable.
You, I know, will debate honestly. Thus my willingness to concede the point.
I think this is the basis for much of my problems with you. You claim, and enjoy the acclaim of others, of the moral high ground in debates. But, in the end, you are more than willing to play games, obfuscate, and deliberately antagonize (dare I say troll?) other posters. As the saying goes “never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it”. You seem more than willing to not just wrestle, but wallow in the muck, with the pigs, and proceed to blame them. Enjoy the thread.
Okay. Now show us where any Democrat proposed outlawing privately owned firearms.
Not to hijack or anything, but presumably you’d at least require rational basis analysis of laws relating to consensual sexual intercourse between adults. What is the legitimate purpose of such a law?
No kidding. On a couple of occasions, I’ve let myself be dragged down by ignorant, dishonest posters who are incapable of reasoned debate instead simply spewing the same crap over and over.
As I suggested above, i don’t find Hamlet fits into that category. He is acerbic, and of course needlessly and unfairly critical of me :D, but I don’t agree he’s a dishonest debater, which is the gravamen of the “pig” charge.
Sure, that would work… IF IT WERE AN ECONOMIC POLICY.
Seriously, I’m starting to doubt my earlier estimations of your intelligence. The *whole discussion *started because a poster said that they were socially liberal but fiscally conservative, but they prefer the Republicans over the Democrats as, to them, the lesser of two evils. So, trying to wrap my brain around that idea, I compared the potential “evil” of inflated Republican social policies versus the potential “evil” of inflated Democratic economic ones.
Do you get it ***this ***time, you fucking moron? Honestly, it’s only been explained to you a half-dozen times so far.
Honestly, were you just salivating so hard at the idea of jumping all over me to prove how “wrong” I was that you skimmed straight past the entire fucking premise? That would go a good way toward explaining why you’ve been so confused the whole time… though not how you managed to miss every other time I told you exactly how this was working.
All the Democrats in charge of DC’s government, pre-Heller, and in charge of Chicago’s government even now.
Sure.
Laws against sodomy arise from a “morals” basis. You may, of course, disagree with the idea that morals should influence law, but there are a host of laws that have a similar basis. State laws against adult incest, prostitution, bigamy, adultery and fornication, bestiality, and obscenity all share this basis, and all are untenable if you reject the concept that the state may impose its sense of morality through the law. This idea that the state must, as a matter of Constitutional necessity, be unguided by conventional morality in casting laws is extremely recent and enjoys no historical support.
That is not to say that the actual law is of value – it’s to say that there is a rational basis for the state to be able to say, “This is a moral standard, and we wish our citizens to adhere to it.”
I just think the distinction is drawn highly arbitrarily, deliberately so, in an effort to maximize your distortion.
I could have tossed out wage and price controls, equal pay for similar work schemes that would equate teachers to truck drivers and fix wages to each other, or some such, as example of Democratic economic nonsense, but I’m confident you’d have a reason to shoot those down as well. Right? Because any examples from the Dem side must appear verbatim in a party platform. Any examples from the Pub side must be the result of logical deduction and an “Oh, this is what he meant,” type freedom to pile inference on inference. Yes?
Hell, he’s ruined the whole damned Internet. Before Bricker came along, the Internet was a bastion of reasoned debate, the sharing of great ideas, and the arena for the expression of deep philosophical conundrums that have plagued humanity since the Renassaince. There were no ideologically driven websites, bent on demonizing anyone who is of another political party. There were no message board threads that devolved into simplistic namecalling. And there was no porn.
Then Bricker came along and ruined the entire Internet. But at least now there’s porn, so I’m willing to forgive him.
Laws barring adult incest, prostitution, bigamy and bestiality are all backed by a legitimate purpose besides “conventional morality”.
In any case, even if we assume that conventional morality is the legitimate basis for barring consensual homosexual sodomy between adults, the fact pattern underpinning that ruling disappeared from APA’s DSM in 1974.
Well, then, no problem. I have always agreed that a law that criminalizes consensual homosexual sodomy while permitting similar conduct between opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional.
If you could, why didn’t you? I think it’s just because you really didn’t pay a damned lick of attention to what was actually going on, and now you’re too ashamed to admit it. So instead, you’ll just create some strawman version of me who rejects suggestions *you haven’t even bothered to make yet *instead of growing a pair and admitting that you’ve been fucking up, and that every suggestion I’ve rejected, I’ve rejected for *perfectly acceptable reasons *that are 100% in line with the premise of this discussion.
Shithead.
Why don’t I just give you the details to my account? Then you can make all my posts for me, since you already know what I’m going to say.