Why is sodomy a right but not dueling?

Why is sodomy a right but not dueling?
Is the Supreme Court just making shit up as they go along?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_at_Dawn
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because sodomy is right and dueling isn't! Get over it.

You want to point your weapon at another man and see who shoots first?

It would solve a lot of problems.

how does dueling advance the Jewish agenda?

>Is the Supreme Court just making shit up as they go along?

yes

>dueling
Lmao why did i find the notion of dueling so funny out of a sudden

Anyways, it's for the same reason comitting suicide is illegal

For years I've maintained, in principle, that duels to the death should be legal. There are some pretty serious practical problems though.

Modern people wouldnt be honourable enough to follow its rules anyway

TRICK QUESTION! It doesn't. That's why it has been outlawed. Jews would never honor a duel. They are rats and flee at the first sign of trouble.

Capitalism

Unless you bring back flintlocks, dueling with modern weapons is... just weird and overpowered in some cases.

>implying it wouldn't be me shooting first every time

Whilst you spent time studying the meme, I studied the flintlock.

Also imagine all those fedoras that will want to duel using their katanas

Dueling has pretty much always been illegal, everywhere

People would just do it anyway

Sodomy isn't a right. Laws banning it are government overreach.

Flintlocks OR swords. Opponent's choice.

Negative

>I can't settle my differences with other men without using weapons
>I am a weak beta cuck that can't fight
Giant soft yank cunt detected

>not challenging your rival to competitively pounding each other's asses under an oak tree at sunset like gentleman used to do

>Sodomy isn't a right.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
> Laws banning it are government overreach.
why?

Go away nigel

>it's for the same reason comitting suicide is illegal
Yes, a dead goy is not a producing goy.

The state wants maintain its monopoly on force.

Mistakenly step on someone's foot.
"WTF IT'S D-D-DUEL TIME"
Choice 1:
Risk death because some nigger has daddy issues
Choice 2:
Be ridiculed for the rest of your life for not accepting

Doesn't sound that fun desu

I just want to kill people who insult me with a sword. Is that so wrong?

All you would have to do is apologize

Check out the opening scene of Barry Lyndon - fantastic cinematography.
Also Tomorrow at Dawn: French NEET LARPing as a Napoleonic soldier winds up with more than he bargains for: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_at_Dawn

yes

>Is the Supreme Court just making shit up as they go along?
Since 1803.

Read up on history and you'll know why.
Sage.

>protip: they weren't back then either

I truly want sword duel back here in France.

Sodomy was always illegal throughout history

that may be true during 1800s, but it was fairly common in 1600s and 1700s. Mostly by really poor people, or really rich people tho. (and of that, still majority backwoods idiots) Duels left the favor of the upper-classes by around 1810-ish, and the last illegal, but tolerated duels, occurred in the 1880s out west

investigate Vladimir Volkoff and his campaign to reintroduce it. Think Bernard Lugan was also a member

Joseph Conrad's short story The Duellists and the Ridley Scott film of the same name are also worth watching.

That's Frog/Glenn from Chrono Trigger.

That's not how duels work, fag. If the man isn't satisfied by an apology he can still press a duel.

But they didn't have cameras in every bedroom so it was relatively easy to do without getting caught.

>he can still press a duel.
and you can refuse it

I saw the Ridley Scott movie a while ago, but I never looked for anything else, thanks for all these other recommandations, user.

One form of dueling was called Spanish style. Two lines were drawn twenty paces apart. Other lines was drawn ten paces further back behind each line, where the participants started.

On a signal, the duelers could approach the inner line, without crossing it, as fast or as slow as they wanted and fire their weapon at any time. However, if they missed, they had to stand where they were and give the other side a chance to fire.

This offers up a lot of strategies: Run up as close to get the best chance of hitting, but if you miss you're a sitting duck? Hang back and wait hoping the other will miss so you can take your time make make the best shot? The possibilities are endless.

If this was around today, people would be streaming this shit.

We had Trial by Battle for quite some time before it was repealed.

>Some guy gets accused of murdering his wife
>Denies it
>Gets taken to court (obviously)
>He finds out about this law
>Demands the usage of it
>No one can complain because it's law
>Says he'll fight the victim's brother because the father is too old and it wouldn't be fair
>Brother shits himself and refuses
>Court has no option, but to set him free
>Law immediately repealed

desu senpai I think it's the only way. Not necessarily the battle, but if someone gets the death penalty it should be down to the victim's family to do the deed (unless they had no family or the family member who can is physically unable) otherwise it shouldn't go ahead.

Well, you Muslims think an honour killing is beating a defenseless woman to death in a mob of 3-5.
What would you know about duelling.

kek