Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (168238)	4/22/2003 3:38:46 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1578055

Ted, <In fact the Supreme Court has said you have the right to consensual gay sex within one's home; however, it has never said that incestuous sex is acceptable and can be had in one's home.> Why not? What's stopping the Supreme Court from saying incest or polygamy is OK? The will of the majority? You know the Supreme Court isn't supposed to speak for the "majority," but for the Constitution. Please realize that I'm not arguing for the other extreme (prohibiting homosexuality or adultery). I'm just saying that the Constitution never says anything about protecting the "right" to homosexuality, adultery, incest, or polygamy, nor does the Constituion prohibit it, either. Restrictions or protections of such acts should be left to the legislature, i.e. the lawmakers, not the Supreme Court. Tenchusatsu