Ted Cruz says 'consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the bedroom' as he promises his account will never like porn again

[jpsb]

Please show me which part he wrote.

Do you're own research, but I'll give you a hint, Ocare penalty turned into Ocare tax.

[Oceander]

For the record, Georgia's sodomy law was used primarily against heterosexuals.

For the record, that's just as stupid and barbaric as using it against homosexuals.  Why is it such a hard argument to make that government has no business sticking its nose into the consensual sexual activities of adults?

[jpsb]

This really is no different from arguing with a liberal.

I certainly hope you do better arguing with a liberal than you do arguing with me.

[Oceander]

Every civilization I am aware of had a taboo on homosexual behavior to one extent or the other. With the exception of some Greek city states. The Greeks believed that the female human was inferior to the male human. Ergo incapable of "true love" good only for sex and making babies. Only a male male relationship was capable of a higher love. So they did not place a taboo on
homosexual behavior. I haven't really studies the norms of ancient China or Egypt so I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

Your point being?  Just because they were uniformly barbaric back then doesn't mean we have to continue being barbaric now. 

[jpsb]

For the record, that's just as stupid and barbaric as using it against homosexuals.  Why is it such a hard argument to make that government has no business sticking its nose into the consensual sexual activities of adults?

Governments have every right to enforce the norms of society and do penalize behavior
that is detrimental to said society. Nobody cares what you do in your bedroom but we
do care about STD like aids, metal illness and dancing around naked in public.

[Silver Pines]

This really is no different from arguing with a liberal.

@Hoodat

Agreed, unfortunately.

[Hoodat]

Do you're own research

You want me to find something that doesn't exist?  Sounds like something I would hear from someone at DU.  In yet another shift of the goal posts, you accuse Roberts of re-writing Obamacare, yet you can't identify the part that Roberts wrote.  But instead of manning up, you ask me to do your research for you?  Bwaahaaahaaaaa!!!  Seriously, what is your DU handle?

but I'll give you a hint, Ocare penalty turned into Ocare tax.

A penalty is a tax.


tax


noun

1.  a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

2.  a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tax?s=t

Now that we have that out of the way, maybe you can tell us how Cruz's statement on Roberts is somehow worse than Trump's statement on Barry.

[Oceander]

Governments have every right to enforce the norms of society and do penalize behavior
that is detrimental to said society. Nobody cares what you do in your bedroom but we
do care about STD like aids, metal illness and dancing around naked in public.

Actually, no, this society does not have the same power to impose norms on individuals, that is what the constitutional rights are about in large part. 

And if you want to worry about STDs and AIDS, then worry about that and not about whether two grown men want to suck each other's willies in private. 

[jpsb]

Your point being?  Just because they were uniformly barbaric back then doesn't mean we have to continue being barbaric now.

What makes you think being a moral civilization is the same as being barbaric? There are certain things a man should not do. Now if you want to do that in private, who cares, but trying to normalize deviant behavior is a very bad idea.

[Cyber Liberty]

Do you're own research, but I'll give you a hint, Ocare penalty turned into Ocare tax.

@Oceander explained to me once, with great patience, that Roberts applied the law correctly when he did that.

[jpsb]

Actually, no, this society does not have the same power to impose norms on individuals, that is what the constitutional rights are about in large part. 

And if you want to worry about STDs and AIDS, then worry about that and not about whether two grown men want to suck each other's willies in private.

Of course it does, what part "government of the people, by the people, for the people" do you not get?

Once we get rid of the tyrants on the bench, maybe we can get back to sane government.

[jpsb]

@Oceander explained to me once, with great patience, that Roberts applied the law correctly when he did that.

Now I know why you are wrong about that. /s

I think all go with Scalia on this

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” Scalia wrote. “This Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

[Cyber Liberty]

Now I know why you are wrong about that. /s

Didn't say I bought it.  /s
 

[Hoodat]

For the record, that's just as stupid and barbaric as using it against homosexuals.  Why is it such a hard argument to make that government has no business sticking its nose into the consensual sexual activities of adults?

I wasn't arguing against you.  I was simply pointing out that anti-sodomy laws do not automatically linked to the homosexual agenda.  There was a case in Georgia where a husband raped his estranged wife.  The jury could not convict him of rape since he was still legally married to the victim.  But they had no problem convicting him of violating the sodomy law.   Without that law, the man would have gone free.

The argument was brought up by another poster that a failure to defend the Texas sodomy law was the equivalent of siding with deviant homosexual behavior.  That claim is patently false.

[jpsb]

Didn't say I bought it.  /s
 

OK that's better.

[Hoodat]

What makes you think being a moral civilization is the same as being barbaric? There are certain things a man should not do. Now if you want to do that in private, who cares, but trying to normalize deviant behavior is a very bad idea.

So you think it should be illegal for a wife to give her husband head?  Wow.

[jpsb]

The argument was brought up by another poster that a failure to defend the Texas sodomy law was the equivalent of siding with deviant homosexual behavior.  That claim is patently false.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

The "good men" did nothing.

[Cyber Liberty]

OK that's better.

We really are on the same side, jp.  If there was a foxhole I had to be  to be in, I'd like nobody better to share it with.

[jpsb]

So you think it should be illegal for a wife to give her husband head?  Wow.

This is a family friendly forum so I'll not go into the details other than to say I am using the old school definition of sodomy. Not the new PC definition.

[jpsb]

We really are on the same side, jp.  If there was a foxhole I had to be  to be in, I'd like nobody better to share it with.

thanks, I happen to like the agenda Trump campaigned on. But you are correct we are on the same team and so is Ted Cruz and yes Donald Trump too. My fox hole days are behind me. I pulled a rifle out of the gun safe the other day and I could barely see the sights. Hope I never have to use it. Oh and it took me three tries to open the safe. LOL.

[Hoodat]

This is a family friendly forum so I'll not go into the details other than to say I am using the old school definition of sodomy. Not the new PC definition.

The 'old school' version of the Texas law outlawed oral sex between husband and wife.

[Cyber Liberty]

This is a family friendly forum so I'll not go into the details other than to say I am using the old school definition of sodomy. Not the new PC definition.

So Claymore charges are out.  Got it.   

[jpsb]

The 'old school' version of the Texas law outlawed oral sex between husband and wife.

Old school as in Biblical.

[Smokin Joe]

And Trump said his sister would be a "phenomenal" Supreme Court Justice.

As for Roberts, I don't see a case where Roberts compromised himself.  Care to enlighten us?  Even with the Obamacare decision, he based it upon longstanding legal precedence, saying that plaintiff had no standing until after a tax went into effect.  I strongly suspect that if the tax case returned to the Supreme Court, he would declare it unconstitutional.  But then that is an entirely different matter.

Anyway, I will take Roberts any day of the week and twice on Sundays over Maryanne Barry.  I will never have to worry about Roberts declaring partial birth abortion a Constitutional right.

The first break from precedent was in declaring a penalty which had been repeatedly described as and called a penalty by its authors in the Senate is suddenly a 'tax', the very thing we had been repeatedly told by the authors of that part of the legislation and its proponents it most assuredly was NOT.

In doing so, Roberts effectively rewrote the law. That is not the job of the SCOTUS: it may rule on the Constitutionality of the law, but writing it is the domain of the Congress. A penalty for violating a law is one thing, a tax upon those who are in noncompliance is another. It is a fine difference when the law covers all citizens, but a difference, nonetheless.

In addition, since the now Justice-deemed Revenue measure ("TAX") originated in the Senate, that, too is in violation of the Constitution, which specifies taxes and other revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate is free, of course to impose a penalty for the violation of a law, but not to impose taxes. That is the purview of the House of Representatives.

In addition, whether or not I have insurance is something I should not be forced to surrender for the purpose of being penalized (5th Amendment), and possibly a HIPAA violation as well. This angle was not pursued, because, after all, who would rule it was constitutional to be penalized for NOT buying something just because you were breathing and not engaging in any special activity which might require some mitigation of risk, and who would think the Supreme COurt of the United States of America ( Land of the free/Home of the Brave) would ever rule in favor of a tax for just being alive?--especially when we had been told for months the damned thing was a "PENALTY".
 
Roberts should have been kicked off the bench over that ruling, and still should be, IMHO.

[Oceander]

Of course it does, what part "government of the people, by the people, for the people" do you not get?

Once we get rid of the tyrants on the bench, maybe we can get back to sane government.

So then you have no problem with a state or city deciding that if you're going to sell cakes commercially, that you have to sell to all comers and can't just pick and choose based on your private beliefs.  After all, the people in several cities have decided that it should be illegal to refuse to sell cakes to gay people.  Aren't the people of those cities entitled to enforce their agreed-upon norms?