They are good at mistaking emotion for logic.

Lawrence v. Texas was good in that it agreed homosexual so-called 'sex' can be a religious act, and its ban cannot be enforced in practice, as ResistSSA says (writes) on this comment thread. Yes, it is unlikely that two men would have been caught doing a crime in Texas as the police came into the house.

In my opinion, Lawrence v. Texas was good for society because it categorized the homosexual value system as a form of 'religion'. Actually, it is; and as a religion (within their religion) they can 'marry', Mormons can enter religious rites of polygamous marriage, but that is not to say the secular definition of marriage has to be changed. Secular laws are not a matter of sympathy.

As with all religions, there's an influence into Christianity; even Atheism has had an influence - re-writing of the Bible according to modern values (the root of current modernism), and preconceptions. If Christians were strong and not easily confused by all kinds of books re-interpreting the Bible (Old or New Testaments) through hard to detect illogical rhetoric, same-sex civil marriage advocates wouldn't stand a chance at redefining the/our secular value system, encoded in law. The problem is that many Christians put the desires of their 'neighbor' as more important than their relationship to God, their church becoming more of a charity than a worship. For Christians the 10 commandments are summarized as 2. One 'vertical' and one 'horizontal', so to speak. The first (respect for the teachings of Jesus), is the basis for the second.

The USA has freedom of religion, but when a religion begins to claim that it is above all other religions and tries to become the religion of the State, then freedom of religion disappears. That is what the out-of-the-closet people of homosexual persuasion are out to get. Install their value system as the nation's secular value system. For them Lawrence v. Texas is not enough. They see what they 'don't have', but they have everything. That is the nature of a religion. They have leaders, they donate to their organizations, they believe in their religion's dogma, they are able to freely exercise their religion. But that's not enough for them.

I see Lawrence v. Texas as the revelation, from a great Justice, that the homosexual persuasion is indeed a religion, and should be treated as such. And, as 'bman' points out, it does not impede States from adopting moral codes as law or as part of their Constitution.

Certainly, there are crimes which trump personal privacy. If i were growing 'marihuana' in Hawaii, the police can lawfully enter my private premises, take it all, and put me in jail for some time. That's why marihuana (correct spelling) is grown in State parks in Hawaii I think that's a good analogy: if Federal law can prohibit (of all things!) growing a certain type of plant (poppies or marihuana) and put a heavy sentence on such a trivial matter, then prohibiting other 'personal' activity, is still a lawful possibility. The son of a friend was sentenced to 20 years in prison for keeping some illicit drugs at his home. The mafia burned his beautiful red sports car, and then the police caught him for storing the stuff. But the government does little to stop the spread of AIDS.

From the perspective of stopping the spread of AIDS, a State could still regulate male homosexual 'sex', for practical purposes because viruses can get through the tiniest pore, and there is really no protection.

Lawrence v. Texas also assures us that Justice Kennedy does not believe that ruling by the US Supreme Court automatically leads to same-sex civil marriage becoming Constitutional.

Even the religion of the majority needs to understand that freedom of religion is for EVERYONE, including self professed queers. And we all have a right to contribute to the secular value system that is codified into law through a slow, interactive lawful procedure. This is everyone's right, but if we 'fall asleep' our vote will not be counted.

Separate religion from civil law, and arguments for same-sex civil marriage or civil unions are easily rebutted. Those partnerships are not better than friendships, or blood-related relatives who need to live together for financial reasons; and never is 'marriage' defined as having to last a certain minimum number of years. Obviously, people die, so it would be impractical.

Lawrence v. Texas can be misinterpreted, but the ruling is also very well spelled out. Same-sex civil marriage or civil union advocates reason from their preconceptions - premises we don't all agree with. But, to get their way on this issues, they have to argue unreasonably. They can only win if we permit them to confuse us (and they are good at it.)

As far as heterosexual sodomy goes, the difference is that no one is proposing that that be taught in the schools; the only thing that should be taught in schools with respect to carnal relations between heterosexuals is reproduction.

When you talk about homosexuality (homo=same; sexuality =sex) you are implicitly talking about sodomy. When you teach that certain people who made contributions were homosexual, you are teaching that those people committed sodomy.

We don't teach about other contributors being heterosexual; sexuality is irrelevant to one's contributions.

Lawrence opened the door to teaching about sodomy, even praising people who participate in it. And it was the basis for legalizing same-sex "marriage." It should be overturned.

The government has no interest in being in anyone's bedroom. Enforcing sodomy laws by going into people's bedrooms, generally, doesn't serve the public interest and has never seriously been done in modern US history.

The government DOES have an interest in making sure that what goes on in one's bedroom stays in one's bedroom. Sodomy laws stop people from bringing their bedroom behavior into public. Preventing sodomy from being an openly-discussed subject in public, especially in public schools, serves the public interest.

We've seen where Lawrence leads (in Cali public schools); it's time to overturn it. I'm thinking that maybe the Prop8 case would be an opportune time for the court to do so.

Or how about this: Lawrence was decided in 2003; Massachusetts legalized SSM in 2004.

Wake up, dude.

The problem is not where Lawrence might lead in terms of legalizing other immoral acts; the problem is where Lawrence HAS taken us in terms of exposing, indeed, mandating the teaching about homosexual sodomy to children and to an already STD-ridden, sexually obsessed public.

What people do in their bedrooms is none of my business until they bring what they do in their bedrooms into public. Then it becomes an imposition on everyone else, and my problem.

Lawrence needs to go.

ResistSSA->How can Lawrence v. Texas be overturned quickly to prevent further damage to the country?

Although Lawrence poses a problem, it can be and has been interpreted narrowly to allow morality laws to be upheld.

Anti-Obscenity laws have since been upheld, for example

The Massachusetts Bar Association also has an article that explains adultery is still a crime under Lawrence in Massachusetts.

The 11th circuit court recently said this about Lawrence:

To hold that public morality can never serve as a rational basis for legislation after Lawrence would cause a massive disruption of the social order, one this court is not willing to set into motion.” (from http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611892.pdf)

Here is a very interesting article on the subject as well, Moral Legislation Since Lawrence v. Texas.

What private behavior were homosexuals prevented from participating in prior to Lawrence? Answer: None.

What Lawrence did was make private homosexual behavior public. Ironically, while having no impact on private sodomy activities of 2% of the population, the other 98% of the public was stripped of its right to be free from exposure to behaviors that they find offensive.

Sodomy, heterosexual or homosexual, is behavior that is taught, and its only reason for being is self-gratification; it has no redeeming value and countless negative aspects. Lawrence essentially gave homosexuals the right to promote this bad behavior as normal and harmless; behavior which all of history has recognized as completely the opposite.

(Obviously,Lawrence vs. Texas could only exist because Bowers vs. Hardwich could be overturned).Anyway,we need to eradicate the claim that public policy against doing X is automatically inapplicable to those claiming to be in "the class of persons defined by wanting to do X".

It can't. Because to overturn it would cause further damage. Lawrence v. Texas got the government out of the bedrooms of consenting adults, who are doing absolutely nothing to you personally, unless you are IN that bedroom and consenting. The ones who have no rights in this matter are people who insist that their moral outrage be allowed to dicatate what I may do in my private life. Stop it.

Our legal system, as currently applied, seems to be tilted in favor of the destruction of behavior-limiting laws: Anyone can sue for the denial of a "right", and a court can overturn hundreds of years of legal precedent at the drop of a hat. On the other hand, it seems that the only way to create or reinstate laws that limit bad behavior - that is, one that prevents injury to individuals and to society - is through the lengthy legislative process.

How can Lawrence v. Texas be overturned quickly to prevent further damage to the country?