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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (1533)	5/27/2003 4:28:21 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793817

In Lawrence v. Texas, proponents of judicial activism in the cause of liberal ideological goals are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to do something the justices have never done before: Ah, well, now we know where this guy is coming from. There go those awful liberal activitists again. The Supreme Court has never recognized a right to fornication, adultery, or any other form of sexual misconduct. Yep, making it still clearer. It's about "sexual misconduct." In the event that it takes such a step, the Court will face a question: If some types of non-marital sex acts are protected by the constitution, and others are not, what is the principle or criterion (allegedly derived from the Constitution itself) by which judges are to decide which types merit protection and which do not? Geez, and I'll be darned. All the time I thought it was about privacy. No, he says, it's about that critical, fundamental, buttress of all proper social order, heterosexual marriage. Aw, Bill, give me a break. You know better than this guy.

To: LindyBill who wrote (1533)	5/29/2003 2:12:05 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793817

The leading alternative is the notion of consent. Fundamental social libertarians hold that acts of any type, including any type of sex act, should be legally permissible so long as the parties involved consent to participating in them and others are not directly harmed. Those who believe that the founding fathers wrote the ideology of fundamental social libertarianism into the Constitution (albeit with invisible ink) maintain that the constitutional right of privacy immunizes all consensual sex acts from state prohibitions. If this is true, then not only sodomy, but also fornication, adultery (e.g., spouse swapping, "swinging"), polygamy, group sex, prostitution, adult brother-sister or parent-child incest, and (depending on one's views about the rights of animals and their capacity to consent) bestiality are protected as specifications of the constitutional right of privacy. All of these acts and practices are, or can be, consensual. If consent provides the standard of inclusion within the right of privacy, they must all be admitted. Hey! Lookit that! Just what I (and Santorum) was talking about. Imagine that. John will have to find something else to cry "bigot" about this time. Derek