Yep. And every blue moon someone actually gets prosecuted under that law.


And of course, with respect to adultery, even when there is no criminal prosecution, you can sue someone for sleeping with your spouse. And that IS still used pretty often.

Again, you miss the point. You were asked why you did not want to see same-sex marriage legalized. If it's against the law, everyone does have to follow suit. Since your religious beliefs (which I respect, by the way) are what you gave as the reason why you do not think same-sex marriage should be legalized, and since you seem to think that is a sufficient reason not to legalize same-sex marriage, the discussion that has followed is right on track.

Meanwhile, I boggles my mind that anyone in law school could actually say "most" of our laws have "some foundation" in the 10 Commandents. Aside from the complete historical inaccuracy of that statement, "most" of our laws have absolutely nothing to do with anything even remotely connected to what is in the 10 Commandments. From a legal standpoint related to modern laws, the 10 Commandments cover blue laws and blasphemy laws (not many or either left), murder, adultery, theft and perjury. That's it -- a fraction of our laws.

I've heard of the antiquated sodomy laws, but this is the first I've heard of fornication laws existing. Interesting.

That's one of the side effects of posting your opinions on a discussion board -- they cause people to discuss.

You might need it as a dedication for other threads on GC. I give out bad recruitment advice to crush people's dreams, and I pick on people and am mean.

I think it is tacky to QFP yourself, so thankfully Senusret I did that for KSUViolet.

I find it to interesting when people (not being passive agressive in this thread, people in real life I hear going off about the government, they do that in Idaho) are all hot for the Founding Fathers and their use of religion, beliefs and ideas, when they would have been screwed over by it. Yeah, they set everything up, that's great, but did you realize that in a lot of cases, your identity would have not have provided all these awesome things? Not owning land, being a woman, being nonwhite, these pedestalled people would, and did, take no issue, raping, killing, beating, stealing from, selling, or owning a majority of those who romanticize and idealize the people and ideas.

What was your point in bringing it up? You shared the info and people are responding. :)

These laws have been striken from the books in most places, are never enforced in others and are mocked when they are enforced. Saying that they get used "pretty often" is quite an over statement. In the end the number of people effected by these outdated laws that are not chapioned by any reputable religious group out there pales in comparison to the numbers effected by the ban on gay marriage.

No, "we" haven't. We don't have to keep our religious beliefs to ourselves.

The problem is that people confuse religious beliefs (or faith and spirtuality) with personal and moral beliefs. MY Christianity does not make statements about sexual orientation or many of the things that some Christians think that it does. The same goes for other religions whose affiliates confuse their religion with extremism.

Unless you live in my state, you can't say it is an overstatement. Yes, people bring actions against people for sleeping with their spouses. The amount of cases in that area alone was enough to spend 4 weeks discussing in advanced torts.

And not all states have stricken those laws from the books. Apparently you are not as informed as you think you are.

^^^ She didn't say "all" ... she said "most"

Not acredited by the ABA, but a higher authority.

Tiers? Oh we're above Tier I, we're Tier H for Holy.

deepimpact, I don't know where you go to school, I am sure it is accredited, I'm just making a funny for Mr. Cat.

It came up when KSUviolet asked me why I was against gay marriage. I simply said that for me personally my feelings about that are based on religion. Then others started getting into the debates about church and state and the founding fathers, etc. I never elaborated beyond that.

I understand what you mean, but some people got a little combative when my response to her question was pretty bland. I intentionally didn't elaborate for that very reason. :)

Has anyone in this thread gotten all hot for the founding fathers? :confused:

Amusing how people get so sensitive when people respond to them. ;) I see you as the sensitive one.

Seriously, deepimpact2, do we need to have a discussion about these laws? I know that your legal education has taught you better than this. :)

I wasn't talking about We as the entire U.S. but We as in the people who were arguing with deepimpact which didn't include you at the time.