Supreme Court Decision

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by SpyMoose, Jun 27, 2003.

  1. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    The Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence V Texas yesterday, this is a case about two homosexual men who were arested in thier homes for sodomy after a neighboor falsly called police claiming to have seen an armed burgeler entering the resedence.

    The supreme court decided that Texas has no right to pass a law making homosexual sodomy illegal. It was a 6-3 decision.

    So, have the rights of Texans to preserve christian morals been violated?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Why should Texans have any special rights for upholding Christian morality as opposed to rational morality?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    well a christian might say there is no morality but christian morality, and the right texas has to uphold it comes from its christian majority.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    <i>So, have the rights of Texans to preserve christian morals been violated?</i>

    What about the rights of Texans to recognise non-Christian morals? Were they violated before this decision?

    I seem to remember something in your Constitution about freedom of religion.
     
  8. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    which you could argue is exactly the reason that the court decision was not just, its denying texas's fundamental christian majority the right to its religiously based morals.
     
  9. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    i thought that the idea was that goverment couldnt legislate about religion?

    in my religion fucking guys is as good at fucking girls (hey guys give the best head

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    so if i lived in texis surly that would be legislating AGAINST my religion
     
  10. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    i think you would be hard pressed to proove that you belong to such a religion, besides even if you could it would be classified as a cult, and you know what happens to cults in texas.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    SpyMoose:

    I hate to tell you, but the Constitution is there in part to <b>protect minorities</b>.
     
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    The Catholic Priests in Texas must have released a collective sigh of relief

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Sorry about that!
    The constitution separates religion from state (probably because Thomas Jefferson hated the Church and wanted to counter its influences right from the start). The ruling was a fair and legal ruling.
     
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    so its not freedom of religion its freedom to be christan?

    GOD BLESS AMERICA *sarcastic*
     
  14. yayacatfight Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    I see the decision as a move in the right direction. Gradually the US has been becoming more liberal which is a good thing. You cannot expect it to happen overnight. Some of the comments by Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist are troubling but those views are on the way out.

    Christianity in America has been dying for a while. There is a long way to go but you can never make major changes in less than a generation or two.

    How about Jerry Falwell, did anyone see him on Larry King? At first he makes me really angry, but then I realize that he is probably alienating more Christians than he is attracting with his warped views.

    The bottom line is whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is up to them. As long as noone gets hurt.
     
  15. yayacatfight Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    good point. agreed.
     
  16. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Spymoose

    Are you joking?
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    yayacatfight:

    <i>Gradually the US has been becoming more liberal which is a good thing.</i>

    I don't know about that. Look at who you have for a President right now - and unfortunately I suspect you'll vote him back in again next election.

    <i>Christianity in America has been dying for a while.</i>

    No. Christianity is, if anything, stronger in the US today than it was 100 years ago.
     
  18. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    On what basis would you clain that today's Christianity is stronger thab its 1903 counterpart? Let me ask a similar question: in what ways were secularism stronger in 1903?
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    CA:

    <i>On what basis would you clain that today's Christianity is stronger thab its 1903 counterpart?</i>

    By "stronger", I mean more dedicated believers. For example, a 1996 Gallup poll, published in the <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, found that 96% of American adults believe in God, 90% believe in heaven, 79% believe in miracles, 73% in hell, 72% in angels and 65% in the devil.

    Church membership rates in the mid 19th century were at around 34%. Today they are at around 60%.
     
  20. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    Thanks, James R.

    Could I ask for the source of your 34% statistic?
     
  21. Greco Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    394

    This is a slippery slope. If whatever is allowed between consenting adults than I see brother/sister, mother/son/, grandmother/mother/son,father/daughter or any combination of family members doing it as long as they are consenting adults.

    I was going to mention bestiality but I dont think animals give their consent.
     
  22. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Greco

    In all honesty, what do you see the demand for consenting
    adult GrandMother / Mother / Son orgies as being vs. homosexual
    and heterosexual preferences? I just don't see a demand for
    this type of sexual behavior.
     
  23. shane1985 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    36
    I don't see why you choose to draw the line at homosexuality. Why is that acceptable, and incest not? I'm just interested in what your standards are, as far as what is right/wrong in regards to sexual morality issues.
     

Share This Page