Exactly. And even then, it’s just crass.
The guy’s dead. He’s gone. He was old and he died. So fucking WHAT?
You don’t have to be sad, but to rub your hands together gleefully and jump and cheer is in extremely, EXTREMELY poor taste.
It’s also pretty goddamn immature. I don’t like Reagan, and I doubt I’ll shed a tear when he passes. But I won’t be here screaming, “YAY!!! REAGAN’S DEAD!”
That’s just tasteless. It’s what the Freepers do.
Just grow the fuck up.
I did NOT say anything about squelching dissenting opinions.
Has it NOT been made clear enough the disapproval some on here have about being glad this dinosaur has passed and finally left his seat in our legislative body?
The moralizing outrage is sickening.
I find it interesting that you and others seem to be keen on squelching my dissent.
sigh
Pointless.
Revel? No.
Glad? Hell yeah.
A toast to all the hundreds of thousands of people who have been adversely affected by the political power he weilded so generously for his own agenda - blacks, gays & lesbians, those with HIV/AIDS, and so many, many others.
Good riddance.
Esprix
I believe the law was originally put in place as a means to prevent predatory behaviour. Unfortunately, it then was potentially available to those with an agenda. Even though it was rarely enforced, it did cast the stigma of criminal behavour over those that would participate in the act.
What I’m curious about though, wouldn’t the law have applied to heterosexual couples as well?
It’s nice to see freedom of choice returned to all. However, I’m sure not going to wish that those that see differently from me on the issue not only die but also roast in hell. He’s dead. Move along.
I never said I owned the thread, or the damn board…
If you, Tars, Scylla, and others want to hijack this thread into a moral flaggelation of those who would be glad the verminous fossil is dead, FINE.
Euty has made it plain that my dissent is less important than yours.
Have at it, jackals.
I almost feel like keeping a list of the people who are appalled at the idea of being glad Strom is dead and searching to see if I can find any posts that are, say, happy about bombing Afghanistan or invading Iraq or the execution of a convicted murderer.
Almost.
Anyone who loses respect for me because given the choice of Strom alive and Strom dead I’ll take Strom dead, well, I’ll try to find a way to live with that. When Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan finally drop over, be prepared to respect me even less.
Homebrew:
Again, I’m no lawyer, but I’m not so sure freedom and liberty are interchangeable here.
It seems to me that this law is being passed on the aspects of right to privacy and how it applies to liberty, rather than on a pure freedom and equality standpoint combined with unenforceablity becasue of the sanctity of the home (whatever that last is.)
Looks like a muggle when it should have been clear and straightforward.
Hopefully one of our constitutionally minded lawyer types will lay it all out for the likes of me, and tell me how justified my concerns are.
The law should equate gay sex with straight sex. I don’t think it does.
I also wonder how this applies to adultery laws.
For example, in States with anti-adultery laws, does that mean that it’s still illegal for Fred and Sally to hook up if they’re not married, but it’s ok for Fred and Dave?
Or does it mean Fred and Sally can hook up if they’re married, and Fred and Dave could if they were but since same sex marriage isn’t allowed they can’t so it’s still illegal?
Have we created a special right for gay people? Or have we shafted them?
I dunno. The premise of privacy and noninterference seems wrong, and it doesn’t seem that gay sex has been accorded equivalent status to straight sex.
Then again, I could be completely wrong.
Neither did I.
Let’s try this a second time.
You said :
And I will state again. No. We do not need two threads about the same subject. Everyones opinion is welcome here; even those whose opinions might not agree with yours or with the original poster.
Ka- peeesch?
I agree. One, however, does not justify the other. I learned in Pre-School that 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Someone being a racist jerk is no reason to lower yourself to the status of a crass jerk IMO.
DaLovin’ Dj
Nonsense. I 100% support your dissent with my dissent of your opinion.
I would not dream of squelching it.
I simply will not comply and am surprised you’d suggest I should accede to you demand which I find unreasonable.
Oh god, Mockingbird, no one is “squelching your dissent”.
Must you always be such a fucking drama queen?
[quote]
Euty has made it plain that my dissent is less important than yours.
[/quotes]
It’s all the bribes I send him. You should try it sometime. Really helps elevate your clique status and comes in handy when you want another poster banned. He is one of only many Mods in my pocket, so watch yourself. . .
I bet Fred Phelps has some markers and some poster board he could lend you if you care to take it to the streets. Moron.
Well, he had retired before he died, so he wasn’t even a senator anymore. I guess I just can’t understand why you’re glad. Even if you have some desire to see your opponents die, living to 100 then going peacefully in bed is a pretty good way to go.
Point taken.
Adultry laws deal with partners who are married, but not to each other. Single adult people can have all the consensual sex they want without fear of government intrusion now.
But, then, are there even laws still in effect that make adultry a criminial offense? If there are, then they should be struck down too, on the principle that it’s not the government’s place to act as a moral enforcer.
Poster1: “I dissent!”
Poster2: “I dissent about your dissention!”
Poster1: “Stop trying to stifle dissent! I demand you stop your dissention!”
Now, if only we could get someone to dissent about dissention about dissention about dissention, everything would be perfect.
I disagree 
Spewing hate at a dead man does not help you fight hate. You hurt your side’s case the more you post here.
There is such a law in Wisconsin. 944.16 and it’s a class E felony. Whether it’s constitutional in light of this decision is now an open question.