US Court: Americans have no right to sexual privacy

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-07-31 08:37am

Well, if I remember right, the only way to have sex in Washington D.C. is the missiorary (don't know if I used the right word for it. You know, this extremly basic way to have sex) All other ways are forbidden by law.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-07-31 09:05am

`naeo wrote:For fucks sake, are these magistrates and judges complete dumbfucks?
Why is it that such immoral laws are passed?

"America: Land of freedom" - up my ass.

Yes to your first question.

Because these judges believe that their rulings are moral.

This law won't last long at all because America is the land of the free.

moku · Post by **moku** » 2004-07-31 08:09pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
`naeo wrote:For fucks sake, are these magistrates and judges complete dumbfucks?
Why is it that such immoral laws are passed?

"America: Land of freedom" - up my ass.
Yes to your first question.

Because these judges believe that their rulings are moral.

This law won't last long at all because America is the land of the free.

True. Still it doesn't matter whether they'll stay long or not. The fact that such rulings occur at all get me annoyed. And I am an almost 15 year old - shows perhaps that even virgins think this is utter bullshit.

I am starting to doubt that Kerry will make much of an improvement...

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-07-31 10:52pm

Kerry won't, which is why I repeatly say don't vote for either of those dumbfucks.

How the hell does the government have any right to know or even care about what's going on in my bedroom is beyond me.

I mean who does this hurt, being allowed to buy a sex toy?

Thank God for the Supreme Court, no Inqustions in this country.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2004-08-01 12:39am

`naeo wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
`naeo wrote:For fucks sake, are these magistrates and judges complete dumbfucks?
Why is it that such immoral laws are passed?

"America: Land of freedom" - up my ass.
Yes to your first question.

Because these judges believe that their rulings are moral.

This law won't last long at all because America is the land of the free.

True. Still it doesn't matter whether they'll stay long or not. The fact that such rulings occur at all get me annoyed. And I am an almost 15 year old - shows perhaps that even virgins think this is utter bullshit.

I am starting to doubt that Kerry will make much of an improvement...

This is Alabama we are talking about home of the "Good 'Ole Boys"; despite how many people want to change there it'll be quite some time before fat hicks called by the name Colonel give up control. It would be best not to get too mad at them for sheer idiocy.

moku · Post by **moku** » 2004-08-01 04:54am

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the fucking judge has a toybox.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-08-01 05:27am

of course hypocracy is a near requirement

moku · Post by **moku** » 2004-08-01 05:31am

[Supressed, made-up cough]The Catholic Priesthood[/Supressed, made-up cough]

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-01 11:34pm

frigidmagi wrote:Kerry won't, which is why I repeatly say don't vote for either of those dumbfucks.

Of course he won't have any effect on this decision. This was a decision made by a state supreme court. Kerry is running for president, and the president does not have the power to unilaterally overturn the verdict of any court.

How the hell does the government have any right to know or even care about what's going on in my bedroom is beyond me.

Because dinosaurs like Bush and his cronies have a great deal of power in certain parts of the country. If you can't see the benefit to keeping these people out of any kind of power, then you're deluding yourself.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-02 04:53am

Durandal wrote:
frigidmagi wrote:Kerry won't, which is why I repeatly say don't vote for either of those dumbfucks.
Of course he won't have any effect on this decision. This was a decision made by a state supreme court. Kerry is running for president, and the president does not have the power to unilaterally overturn the verdict of any court.

The court's decision no. But if you think the President's powerless, I suggest you remind yourself of the anti-gay marriage amendment that was so shortly ago defeated.

And Kerry might well be appointing a Supreme Court Justice or two. So I wouldn't dimiss him so quickly.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-02 10:02am

Stormbringer wrote:The court's decision no. But if you think the President's powerless, I suggest you remind yourself of the anti-gay marriage amendment that was so shortly ago defeated.

Sure, the president can huff and puff and introduce all the legislation he wants, but unless he's got support in Congress, that's all he can do.

And Kerry might well be appointing a Supreme Court Justice or two. So I wouldn't dimiss him so quickly.

Assuming he wins. I shudder at the notion of Bush being re-elected and getting to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2004-08-02 12:03pm

Durandal wrote:Assuming he wins. I shudder at the notion of Bush being re-elected and getting to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court.

I on the otherhand am not shuddering. I'm going to be living an hour and a half from the Canadian border and I'm going.