Uh Oh

[ConHog]

Then ANY lifestyle choice should be allowed, so long as others aren't harmed, and it doesn't harm the children, correct?

That is correct. An American ought be free to pursue any endeavor he wants provided he doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

[jimnyc]

That is correct. An American ought be free to pursue any endeavor he wants provided he doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

So you shouldn't have an issue, with 2 like minded adults, who want to engage in shit smearing on one another, which is a growing fetish. And if they remain clothed, no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do so in their yards, away from where others may be harmed by the filth. And they should be free to go to sanitized clubs to engage their behavior. And then marry based on this behavior. Maybe have TV shows for those interested. They should have ALL the same rights as others, so long as no one else is harmed.

And then cults that gather, they're good for society too. Let them have their seances on the front lawns and let the neighbors kids watch their garbage. Let them leave out cheese and catch hundreds of mice. Then wait till nighttime and sacrifice them to the Gods in front of a campfire. Good old fashioned fun!

And I should be able to place my wife in chains, and a ball gag, and place her in a dog cage in my front yard for all the children to see, so long as she is willing of course. She'll be clothed properly, don't worry.

Shall I continue this list all day?

Sorry, society has ALWAYS determined what is best for society.

[ConHog]

So you shouldn't have an issue, with 2 like minded adults, who want to engage in shit smearing on one another, which is a growing fetish.

None, have at it

And if they remain clothed, no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do so in their yards, away from where others may be harmed by the filth.

Public decency laws would apply

And they should be free to go to sanitized clubs to engage their behavior. And then marry based on this behavior.

If they wish

Maybe have TV shows for those interested. They should have ALL the same rights as others, so long as no one else is harmed.

As long as no one is FORCED to watch sure. BTW they already have that on the internet I'm sure you know.

And then cults that gather, they're good for society too. Let them have their seances on the front lawns and let the neighbors kids watch their garbage.

Unless and until they cross the line free speech laws apply

Let them leave out cheese and catch hundreds of mice. Then wait till nighttime and sacrifice them to the Gods in front of a campfire. Good old fashioned fun!

Animal cruelty laws apply

And I should be able to place my wife in chains, and a ball gag, and place her in a dog cage in my front yard for all the children to see, so long as she is willing of course. She'll be clothed properly, don't worry.

Sure, if you wish, I have oft seen people leading their wives around on leashes, that isn't much different.

Shall I continue this list all day?

Sorry, society has ALWAYS determined what is best for society.

No, society has NOT always made behavior that some find icky illegal, not in the US.

[aboutime]

The constitution gives every American the guaranteed right to do stupid, idiotic, crazy, ignorant, and absolutely Dumb things as long as they obey the laws, and do not harm others.

In other words. The Constitutional rights to be Ignorant CANNOT be taken away.

So. Like it or not. Whatever anyone wants to do...even to the point of eating their own, or someone else's crap, and smearing it all over themselves IS...protected by that same constitution.

[OCA]

The constitution gives every American the guaranteed right to do stupid, idiotic, crazy, ignorant, and absolutely Dumb things as long as they obey the laws, and do not harm others.

In other words. The Constitutional rights to be Ignorant CANNOT be taken away.

So. Like it or not. Whatever anyone wants to do...even to the point of eating their own, or someone else's crap, and smearing it all over themselves IS...protected by that same constitution.

Which amendment?

So society cannot set decency laws? Or limits on behavior?

Last time I checked for the most part smoking crack only affects the smoker.

[ConHog]

Which amendment?

So society cannot set decency laws? Or limits on behavior?

Last time I checked for the most part smoking crack only affects the smoker.

Stop with the absurd, obviously smoking crack affects more than the smoker. As for decency laws, sure but those laws don't apply to what is going on inside your home.

[OCA]

Stop with the absurd, obviously smoking crack affects more than the smoker. As for decency laws, sure but those laws don't apply to what is going on inside your home.

Obviously? You'll excuse me but your word on this board is shit so you'll have to offer up some backup to what you claim.

Society has always set limits, inside the home or not.

[ConHog]

Obviously? You'll excuse me but your word on this board is shit so you'll have to offer up some backup to what you claim.

Society has always set limits, inside the home or not.

My word is for shit? LOL I'm about tired of your stupidity junior, I'll put up my credibility as a poster against yours ANY day of the week.

As for society, of course they have always put up limits, and those limits in THIS country have ALWAYS been this "you mind your business and I'll mind mine; and we'll leave it to gov't to protect those who can't protect themselves.

[OCA]

My word is for shit? LOL I'm about tired of your stupidity junior, I'll put up my credibility as a poster against yours ANY day of the week.

As for society, of course they have always put up limits, and those limits in THIS country have ALWAYS been this "you mind your business and I'll mind mine; and we'll leave it to gov't to protect those who can't protect themselves.

How about Tues. June 5?

[jimnyc]

Public decency laws would apply

The constitution gives every American the guaranteed right to do stupid, idiotic, crazy, ignorant, and absolutely Dumb things as long as they obey the laws, and do not harm others.

In other words. The Constitutional rights to be Ignorant CANNOT be taken away.

So. Like it or not. Whatever anyone wants to do...even to the point of eating their own, or someone else's crap, and smearing it all over themselves IS...protected by that same constitution.

Wait a minute...

Certain things can't be done, because it's not "decent" enough for society, but yet there is some hidden constitutional right to do these things anyway? How can one have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to do things, and yet have decency laws to outlaw them?

Sounds to me like there is NO MENTION whatsoever about certain things in the COTUS and that society has made decency laws to protect its citizens. Odd, ain't it?

[ConHog]

Wait a minute...

Certain things can't be done, because it's not "decent" enough for society, but yet there is some hidden constitutional right to do these things anyway? How can one have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to do things, and yet have decency laws to outlaw them?

Sounds to me like there is NO MENTION whatsoever about certain things in the COTUS and that society has made decency laws to protect its citizens. Odd, ain't it?

Simple Jim, You have the right to fuck your old lady. You do NOT have the right to do it where my kids can see. Same with gays. They have a right fuck each other in the ass; they don't have the right to do it where my kids can see. Same with poop eaters or whatever else.

Let me throw THIS at you.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,


Is it reasonable to tell people they can't securely have sex that others have deemed abnormal inside their own home? The ONLY way you can get there is to make gay sex illegal, then I suppose if a cop heard to fags moaning in ecstasy he would have probable cause to kick down their down and drag them off.

On the hand you have no such right to be secure in public view PERIOD. The courts have ruled on that time and time again, that is why - for instance - if you get pulled over for a traffic violation and you have drugs in plain view your dumb ass isn't protected by the 4th Amendment. You had no reasonable expectation of privacy there.

[jimnyc]

Simple Jim, You have the right to fuck your old lady. You do NOT have the right to do it where my kids can see. Same with gays. They have a right fuck each other in the ass; they don't have the right to do it where my kids can see. Same with poop eaters or whatever else.

Let me throw THIS at you.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,


Is it reasonable to tell people they can't securely have sex that others have deemed abnormal inside their own home? The ONLY way you can get there is to make gay sex illegal, then I suppose if a cop heard to fags moaning in ecstasy he would have probable cause to kick down their down and drag them off.

On the hand you have no such right to be secure in public view PERIOD. The courts have ruled on that time and time again, that is why - for instance - if you get pulled over for a traffic violation and you have drugs in plain view your dumb ass isn't protected by the 4th Amendment. You had no reasonable expectation of privacy there.

The point is - you're stating that society has a right to determine what is indecent and what isn't. SOCIETY is determining what is decent and what isn't. Reread that a 3rd time now.

If society ALREADY is deeming what is indecent and what isn't, then it's not much of a stretch to recognize that society deems what is acceptable for society. In fact, it's pretty much the same thing. Unless of course you're saying that polygamy is fine behind closed doors but not in public.

[ConHog]

The point is - you're stating that society has a right to determine what is indecent and what isn't. SOCIETY is determining what is decent and what isn't. Reread that a 3rd time now.

If society ALREADY is deeming what is indecent and what isn't, then it's not much of a stretch to recognize that society deems what is acceptable for society. In fact, it's pretty much the same thing. Unless of course you're saying that polygamy is fine behind closed doors but not in public.

No sir, I'm saying society has a right to determine was is indecent in public, not what is indecent in private.

Let's use this example,

The FCC has an absolute "right" to decide what is aired on tv. No argument there right? Good

Now my question is. Do they have the right to edit your home movies before you watch them?





Oh, as for polygamy. I don't give a shit if 20 guys run around telling people they are married. Whatever. Now if they start groping each other or other such nonsense in public I care. By the same token, I care if you and your wife start groping and such in public.

[jimnyc]

Even there, again, you deem the FCC fine to arbitrarily determine what is and what isn't good for us. But use the same standards against things you disagree with and you cry foul.

Bottom line is, society has ALWAYS made laws and such to protect society as a whole - and that's why polygamy is not allowed currently.

But back to your argument. I should be able to snort cocaine and shoot up heroin all night long, and invite hookers for the party too, and smear shit on one another - just so long as we don't harm anyone else, correct?

[fj1200]

I don't believe so myself, as Loving had nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage or marriages that were not recognized. You can't unilaterally toss in more plaintiffs and claim they are covered.

Interracial marriage was the question before the court so of course they didn't mention gay marriage. I can unilaterally toss in more plaintiffs if the principle is the same. I'll look more if Loving has been used specifically But Olson and Boies argued the Prop 8 case in CA:

To commemorate the 44th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's decision that that struck down laws that forbade African Americans and whites from marrying, AFER's co-counsel in the Prop. 8 case, Ted Olson and David Boies, recorded a special message. They talk about how the Loving case set an important precedent for the current fight for marriage equality.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/ols...#ixzz1wwj4IN4k

Unfortunately it's in video form.

Yep, out of 1 side of their mouth they claim its not covered in COTUS but when a state votes to ban they will say it violates COTUS..........quite a dishonest tactic.

No, you're the one claiming some sort of straight marriage "right" where one is clearly absent. A ban certainly can violate COTUS if someone is denied Equal Protection. You're trying to have it both ways.