• 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

LowDown said:
No, it doesn't even mean that much. It means that Cruz's opponents are stupidly trying to slam him for doing his job as a lawyer, which is completely bogus. For all we know Cruz likes dildos.
Click to expand...

It's within the scope of his job to decline to defend an unconstitutional law.
 
Just spend a few minutes thinking about how you are defending a man who said there is"NO right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship."

Spend some time pondering that. Go head.

Come back here and tout your conservative credentials. Go on cons.
 
Deuce said:
Masturbation seems to qualify.
Click to expand...
The law was against the sale or promotion of sex devices, not the possession or use.

For the record, I think it's a stupid law. In just curious about why some people think it's unconstitutional.
 
Deuce said:
And that freedom absolutely does not include my preferred methods of jerking off.
Click to expand...
Sure it can. Child porn, for example.
 
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...

Hey dildos are legal in texas, you just have a limit on them like liberal states have on firearms, can only own so many. This exludes dallas where realistic dildos are illegal, and shops have been raided for having them. Have a pink 9 inch piece of rubber in dallas, perfectly legal, add some veins to it you are going to jail.
 
Kobie said:
If dildos are outlawed, only outlaws will have dildos.
Click to expand...


If your gun had an attachment for a dildo (google it if you dare) or if you were going to use it as a striking weapon...


................. Would Cruz have argued in support of 2nd Amendment rights?



>>>>
 
I liked his old college roommates tweet.

"Ted Cruz thinks people don't have a right to "stimulate their genitals." I was his college roommate. This would be a new belief of his."
 
Paperview said:
0 to deflection in 1 second.

How about commenting on the actual subject of this thread?
Click to expand...

I believe his comment was "the same defense that Democrats used to defend Hillary Clinton's defense of a child molester"

Ergo, stealing the transitive property from math....

If Democrats defense of Hillary Clinton was that it was her job to defend her client to the absolute best of her ability despite her own feelings or views....

And the defense of Ted Cruz is the same as the defense of Democrats used for Hillary Clinton...

Then the defense of Ted Cruz is the fact he was doing his job to defend his client (the state) to the absolute best of his ability despite his own feelings or views.
 
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...


If masturbation is wrong, why did god create us so that our hands reach our genitals.

Cruz....full of wank.
 
beefheart said:
If masturbation is wrong, why did god create us so that our hands reach our genitals.

Cruz....full of wank.
Click to expand...

It is my experience that the answer to so many of these "why does God..." questions is that God is a titanic asshole.
 
Zyphlin said:
I believe his comment was "the same defense that Democrats used to defend Hillary Clinton's defense of a child molester"

Ergo, stealing the transitive property from math....

If Democrats defense of Hillary Clinton was that it was her job to defend her client to the absolute best of her ability despite her own feelings or views....

And the defense of Ted Cruz is the same as the defense of Democrats used for Hillary Clinton...

Then the defense of Ted Cruz is the fact he was doing his job to defend his client (the state) to the absolute best of his ability despite his own feelings or views.
Click to expand...

But the jobs are not the same. There's a huge difference in the job descriptions of Public Defender and Atty General

Clinton was appointed by a judge to defend this child molester. When a judge appoints a lawyer to defend a criminal defendant, the lawyer can not "Just Say "No". The most they can do is petition the court to re-assign the case, which Clinton reportedly did do.

As an AG, Cruz had a great deal of discretion in choosing what laws he would defend and how he would defend them. He did not have to petition the court in order to avoid defending a specific law.

Prosecutor in controversial case says Clinton had no choice but to defend rapist – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
It is my experience that the answer to so many of these "why does God..." questions is that God is a titanic asshole.
Click to expand...

Pretty much!
 
Paperview said:
It takes a good guy with a dildo to stop a bad guy with a dildo.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'll read beyond page 2 of this thread, but this really deserves an honourable mention :lol:
 
Ted Cruz is one weird ****ing dude.
 
Paperview said:
0 to deflection in 1 second.

How about commenting on the actual subject of this thread?
Click to expand...

I think it WAS a comment on this thread. It is ridiculous and done to try and make Ted Cruz seem like a bad person. Which is ironic coming from the side that has someone who has stood for racists, made racist comments, opposed gay marriage, and is essentially in a scandal a week for lying, stealing, and murdering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom