Lawrence v. Texas (2003) said that States do not have the right to outlaw same-sex sexual activity, arguing that LGBT individuals are entitled to sex under substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.
However, the ruling was not unanimous, with 3 justices dissenting.
Who had it right Sup Forums? Does the state have the power to criminalize same-sex acts?
Sounds like a pain in the ass
Under a Liberal system: no because it would infringe on the concepts of Individual Rights. But only children and slaves really believe in these so called "individual rights".
also
>Does the state have the power to criminalize same-sex acts?
Absolutely.
Why do you guys care what people do in private?
Anal sex is not a strictly same-sex activity
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Society should be pure of sodomic filth.
Do states even enforce those laws? Is there any case where fags were arrested for sodomy?
>private
>rampant faggotry spilling everywhere into the streets, on TV commercials, in movies, and in public life
Dude what?
They do only if the citizens say they do
Honorary American
The dissenters were right. The faggotlover majority literally made their feelings into law with no basis. The error goes back to Griswold v. Connecticut when the court decided that due process could mean whatever the court felt like.
Scalia had it right
>The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” Bowers, supra, at 196–the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, “furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,” ante, at 18 (emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,” ante, at 17. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.
The constitution says nothing about a "liberal system" faggot.
I don't. Sodomy laws makes sure it stays private.
>The constitution says nothing about a "liberal system" faggot.
The Constitution was founded by Liberal thinkers and is therefore a Liberal ideological concept.
who cares what faggots do in private, as long as they dont force it into everyone else
Inevitably they will and do.
And then they start going after the young.
>Does the state have the power to criminalize same-sex acts?
The state has the "power" to criminalize any act.
It's then up to the populace to appeal any such law to the highest courts.
Specifically, privacy and individual rights would suggest citizens cannot be stopped from performing same sex acts by the government, as in Griswold v Connecticut.
But no one has a right to privacy nor an individual right to buggery spelled out anywhere specific in the constitution. And if the state is arguing for "common good" or "public health" the state can make very compelling arguments about the transmission of disease, etc.
This all goes to public sentiment. No one has the right to homosexuality enshrined in the constitution, but most courts have agreed that what you do in the privacy of your own home, that harms no one, is of no concern to the government.
The state has no bussiness in what you do in the bedroom.
Yes classically liberal thinkers. None of whom would ever have accepted the idea that sodomy was a fundamental right you faggot.
>Why do you guys care what people do in private?
>not sodomizing your gf
>2017
Heterosexual sodomy is the final redpill.
see
But their concepts directly led to its acceptance.
Law shouldn't dictate what two consensual adults do to each other behind locked doors.
But inevitably this lifestyle will take a public front.
No it fucking didn't.
see
sodomy is almost as irrelevant a law as suicide. its not like your local police force is in your bedroom
Who are these women?
>No it fucking didn't.
Yes, it did. When you give individual liberty you doom yourself to being led by people motivated entirely by self-interest and not the interest of the people. This is what America became as it was created and led by Liberal principles.
I want to impregnate and breed this woman
Yet it didn't for the first 350 years until post-modernism and feminism entered the game. Yet you blame classical liberalism instead of post-modernism.
>tfw she retired
One hand washes the other. Classical Liberalism was not capable of handling the Modern Era, it is a concept that ultimately became what it is today due to its weakness.
>kike law
Nobody said anything about mosaic law.
No, but it is solely a homosexual one.
Yes, substantive due process is a farce created by the shitshow that was the Slaughterhouse cases
The due process clause is a procedural guarantee that in order for the state to deprive you of life, liberty or property they have to do so through legislation and subsequently a standard judicial process
the basis for the you refer to ethics is biblical you retarded kike
in any normal legal system only insane kikes would even dream about outlawing homosexual activity
even the word sodomy is biblical you fucked up kike
Lawrence v Texas began as a case where a police officer walked in on some fags buttfucking and arrested them. The max penalty for sodomy in Texas at the time was like $100 fine.
One up the bum, no harm done.
No not the state, but the villagers should be able to throw you down a f****** well for being a degenerate.
Yea that's why the jewish media and the jewdicial system has been pushing homophilia. Good theory retard.
Any same society represses sodomy, adultery etc. It's common sense recognized in the religious laws.
Uhhhhh can someone provide a name for some...research
>Any same society represses sodomy, adultery etc. It's common sense recognized in the religious laws.
I second Anons position
2 tons of fun.
The problem is when liberal judges confuse policy disagreement with constitutionality. "I think gays should be allowed to marry" becomes "George Washington and the Philadelphia Convention clearly believed that they were protecting a right to same sex marriage when they wrote the Constitution".
Yea we should also legalize murder, theft, rape and usury because that's kike law. dumb fuck
But they extend the Liberal logic behind the Constitution to defend their thoughts hence why they win these cases...
>Yea we should also legalize murder, theft, rape and usury because that's kike law. dumb fuck
false equivalency you kike
>Specifically, privacy and individual rights would suggest citizens cannot be stopped from performing same sex acts by the government, as in Griswold v Connecticut.
Griswold v. Connecticut is a fucking disgrace.
I think it's Natalie Austin - zishy
Because the last time we did nothing we got AIDS
Now 36 million people are now living with HIV/AIDS, and nearly 22 million people have died since 1980.
But go ahead keep telling yourself degenerate behavior doesn't hurt anyone else,as long as it's two consenting adults.
How is it a false equivalency you dumb fuck? that's literally your whole argument for allowing sodomy.
you are basing your entire ethics on the bible and jesus the kike
This
Why not just ban gay proganada to minors like Russia? Ban gay marriages and stop promoting homosexuality as something normal in media. That seems to be the biggest problem.
If by "extend" you mean "torture" you are are correct. No one until this century believed there was enforceable Constitional protection for same sex marriage. Somehow this basic right escaped literally everyone's notice until a couple of years ago. I'm not even against gays marrying but saying there existed a Constitutional right that nobody noticed until two years ago is stupid.
WHO
MOAR
NOW
No I don't. Your whole argument is "the bible said it therefore it's wrong". Homophilia serves no purpose, it's dysgenic and spreads diseases and is mentally unhealthy. Society should normalize and promote the decent (re-)productive lifestyle that is monogamic heterosexuality! That is common sense and has nothing to do with religion, it was just written into the religion.
because it's only a problem if you're a stinking christkike
no my argument is there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality
penis in butt doesn't create sickness
you have the mental age of a 12 year old gimp
It inevitably sprang from Liberal ideology and the Constitution is a Liberal document. The ideology itself is the problem because it produced this effect over time. It is very natural for a society that spends so much time on "individual liberty" to be taken over.
Homosexuality is entirely based on promiscuous behavior and carries with it no biological function other than self-interest. Not only is it useless but it also is based in hedonism which is why homosexuality attracts deviants, pedophiles, and other miscreants. Look at any homosexual parade for examples.
If I decide to have unprotected sex with someone, I'm consenting to the risk that I might catch AIDS.
I haven't had unprotected sex with degenerates, so no AIDS for me. I don't need your laws.
...
>1 post by this ID
This guy keeps spamming the board with threads.
>no my argument is there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality
Stop using pretentious words like "inherently". Let's say you right, there's nothing "inherently" wrong with it just something wrong with it, what does that change? nothing! It's not your argument it's your claim and it's wrong.
>penis in butt doesn't create sickness
It doesn't "create" it. It transmits it. And there's a fucking reason AIDS predominately affects filthy SODOMITES. SO you're just flat out wrong.
>you have the mental age of a 12 year old gimp
>"Waah wahh why won't you accept my degenecy as just as valid as decent family making normal people?!?!"
>Yea that's why the jewish media and the jewdicial system has been pushing homophilia. Good theory retard.
you're a retarded kike
No you are a retarded, degenerate faggot. WHY are the jewish media and the jewdicial system has been pushing homophilia if you're right YOU FUCKING RETARD!?
...
As a legal question? I think it's unconstitutional to prohibit gay buttsex and not straight buttsex. But can a state prohibit all buttsex? If they can prohibit consensual high-interest loans, drug use, prostitution, or purchase of unsafe food and drugs, then I don't see why they can't prohibit buttsex.
Should states be able to prohibit same-sex activity, as a general question? No. States should be strictly limited in their authority, because they have a tendency to be abusive and always increase their power at the expense of those they govern. Private same sex activity doesn't affect anyone else, so its not the state's business.
It's not that same sex activity is completely harmless or good. It's just that empowering the state to prohibit it creates more problems than it solves.
>If they can prohibit consensual high-interest loans, drug use, prostitution, or purchase of unsafe food and drugs, then I don't see why they can't prohibit buttsex.
just because they do one thing doesn't give them authority to do another
>just because they do one thing doesn't give them authority to do another
No, but it's hard to argue that the state can prohibit wearing blue shirts but not red shirts.
The same justifications are used when the state prohibits most consensual activities. "This is against our shared moral values", "this activity drains public health resources", "this act risks public disorder". If those are valid reasons to empower the state to prohibit activity A, then they are also valid reasons to prohibit activity B.
The issue isn't whether or not Liberalism is good, but a narrow argument over whether or not a right to same sex marriage exists in the Constitution as written. We could have just as easily legalized same sex marriage on a state by state basis or by actually amending the Constitution to make explicit a right to same sex marriage. However what the Supreme Court did was substitute its own interpretation of what a liberal society means for the democratic process because it fundamentally distrusts democracy.
they aren't valid reasons
they only derive their validity from custom
I'm not saying they are objectively valid reasons.
As a general rule, I don't think the state should prohibit any consensual activities.
But OP was asking about a legal decision made by the US Supreme Court concerning a state law. I'm criticizing the legal reasoning of the court, not justifying laws against butt sex.
the reasoning is based on flawed judgements
Don't we already have public sex laws? Where are you allowed to have sex in public?
I swear the moment your perfect social-conservative state becomes reality access to Sup Forums would be outlawed.
You are allowed to be public about your degeneracy. It should be kept taboo, shameful and criminal to publicly be a sodomite.
you should be kept taboo, shameful and criminal because you are a disgusting human being
It really doesn't matter because the people against it just shitpost on an Indonesian frog trading board about the vocal minority who keep these laws from changing.
So you and the rest of the silent majority can keep quiet like the beta bitch you are