tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2345301614097694480.post3980396167253729380..comments2007-06-12T17:19:02.712-06:00Comments on relevanTomorrow: A Reply to Scalia's Dissent in Lawrence v. TexasJulianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02654601545112013373noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2345301614097694480.post-27811020908255734572007-06-12T17:19:00.000-06:002007-06-12T17:19:00.000-06:00I liked this reasoning you used, which having no l...I liked this reasoning you used, which having no law background I've never thought through: You want law x for stated reason p. The best law to ensure p is law y, which you don't actually want. Therefore, p was a smokescreen for your prejudice.Greg Ver Steeghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08362278486243625798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2345301614097694480.post-75342520795047368522007-06-06T16:15:00.000-06:002007-06-06T16:15:00.000-06:00On the bestiality subject and consent, here is at ...On the bestiality subject and consent, here is at least a thought or two:<BR/><BR/>I don't know how you would prove this in court short of a demonstration or physical evidence in the form of video, but here is a thought. Animals are quite clear on when they don't like something. Unless the animal is deaf, mute, blind, or has some other disabling ailment (at which time the question of animal Midnight Sprinterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15012311388865439994noreply@blogger.com