• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos

Paleocon said:
Is it your assertion that the sale of dildos is in fact protected by the constitution?

That's in the 28th Amendment, right?
Click to expand...

Amendment 69
 
Paperview said:
His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."


Mother Jones has quite the piece on a Cruz, in 2007 as Solicitor General, defending fiercely the dildo ban in Texas, going so far as to say a person does not have the right to masturbate, well...more or less.

Read the piece to get the bones of the case, and a bit more on his 76 page brief but this part here, just - Wow.

=====================
"The brief insisted that Texas, in order to protect "public morals," had "police-power interests" in "discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors." There was a "government" interest, it maintained, in "discouraging…autonomous sex."

The brief compared the use of sex toys to "hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy," and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution.

In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz's office declared, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship."

That is, the pursuit of such happiness had no constitutional standing. And the brief argued there was no "right to promote dildos, vibrators, and other obscene devices."

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos | Mother Jones

The case was shot down by the judges, but Cruz and his office stood firm, and appealed. The story notes Cruz was considering fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

He's banning himself?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Nope they can


Nope.
But being incredibly illogical and obsessed about sex toys so much so that defending a ban of them is pretty strange.
Click to expand...

Why? If one disapproves of them...then it isn't really all that weird. I'm sure we could come up with hundreds of "weird things" people want to ban.
 
sangha said:
No, it means the Cruz believed that the constitution allows a state to ban the sale of dildoes
Click to expand...

Since the word "dildo" is not in the text, such an assertion would not be a matter of belief.
 
blackjack50 said:
Why? If one disapproves of them...then it isn't really all that weird. I'm sure we could come up with hundreds of "weird things" people want to ban.
Click to expand...

You can disapprove of sex toys, but outlawing them.... Yea......
 
Paperview said:
er...yes, it's in the statute:

[h=3]Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 43.21 | FindLaw - US Codes:[/h]
(7) “Obscene device” means a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.
Click to expand...


Achem. The Constitution.

Not the statute they were defending against the claim that said statute somehow bizarrely violated a constitution that mentions no such thing.

I do not approve of such a ban but the claim that it would be unconstitutional is absurd on its face.
 
JayDubya said:
Achem. The Constitution.

Not the statute they were defending against the claim that said statute somehow bizarrely violated a constitution that mentions no such thing.

I do not approve of such a ban but the claim that it would be unconstitutional is absurd on its face.
Click to expand...
Funny how no one has been able to explain how it's unconstitutional.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You can disapprove of sex toys, but outlawing them.... Yea......
Click to expand...

Ok? So? Is it really that big of an indictment of his character? As opposed to lying about things constantly and being behind several big scandals?
 
Moon said:
And judges are never wrong.

If it's so clear, please explain it.
Click to expand...

Substantive due process right to engage in intimate, private conduct impermissibly burdened in absence of a sufficient state interest in doing so. (see: lawrence v. texas)

edit: Die in a fire, autocorrect.
 
Deuce said:
Substantive due process right to engage in intimate, private conduct impermissibly burdened in absence of a sufficient state interest in doing so. (see: lawrence v. texas)

edit: Die in a fire, autocorrect.
Click to expand...
But the law is about banning the sale or promotion of sex toys, not their use. Are you saying states are not allowed to control what items are allowed to be sold within their own borders?
 
Moon said:
But the law is about banning the sale or promotion of sex toys, not their use. Are you saying states are not allowed to control what items are allowed to be sold within their own borders?
Click to expand...

Barring sufficient state interest in doing so, correct.
 
Texas.....'nuff said
 
Moon said:
But the law is about banning the sale or promotion of sex toys, not their use. Are you saying states are not allowed to control what items are allowed to be sold within their own borders?
Click to expand...

but Cruz argued that individuals had no right to stimulate their own genitals
 
blackjack50 said:
Ok? So? Is it really that big of an indictment of his character? As opposed to lying about things constantly and being behind several big scandals?
Click to expand...

Uhhh yea... Outlawing objects because you dont like people pleasuring themselves.... Its ****ing outlandish.. He argued "people dont have the right to stimulate ones gentiles"... Thats ****ing outlandish...
 
sangha said:
but Cruz argued that individuals had no right to stimulate their own genitals
Click to expand...

This is where the rubber <<<ribbed for her pleasure>>> hits the road.

They *know* Cruz took it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over the top in his defense of the law, It was a lOt - LOT more <to him> than banning the sale or promotion of sex toy - which even on its own is total ****nutery,
 
Seriously folks...take in a breath and let this ride in your mind, again, a bit further...

"The brief compared the use of sex toys with"hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy...

"There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship."

If you for a minute think -- as a "small government" conservative this is a compelling argument - then you need Loretta to lay you down 'cross her knees to get a good spanking.

Which, I've no doubt is a fond.....<best stop here>
 
Par for the course for Talibornagain Ted.
 
Paperview said:
This is where the rubber <<<ribbed for her pleasure>>> hits the road.

They *know* Cruz took it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over the top in his defense of the law, It was a lOt - LOT more <to him> than banning the sale or promotion of sex toy - which even on its own is total ****nutery,
Click to expand...

That's why some are focusing on the banning of dildoes. They don't want us to notice that, if Cruz had his way, it would be a criminal offense to go wee-wee without using a forceps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom