Sodomy Laws

[woolfe9999]

Well if you are going to say it's ok for homosexuals to have sex and we shouldn't have laws against it, then you need to also support repealing laws against incest.

I wasn't disclosing my position about incest. I was answering her's question, and correctly, I might add.

- wolf

 

[zsdersw]

He's FABULOUS!!!

I'm not a flamer, but I'm fabulous in other ways. I'm a fabulous cook, baker, pitcher (*ahem*..), kisser, bj giver, driver (if you're going slow in the left lane I'll pass you on the right, get back in the left lane, and slow down until you move over.. then I'll speed up), listener, confidant, and I'm also a very fabulous Director of IT.

 

[Narmer]

Dog humping explained.

http://www.vetinfo.com/dog-humping-explained.html

I'm not a pet owner and that took 1 second of Googling to dispel a notion that was fairly obvious to me at 2nd thought.

And you think straight men have sex with other men in prison because of sex? Also, when you're having sex with a woman, you don't seek do dominate her? Face it, dog and man are of the same mind.

 

[PJABBER]

I voted no, the second option.

I am against sodomy laws that exist for the purpose of precluding lifestyle choices for consenting adults. Don't ask, don't tell seems about right.

I am for sodomy laws that are a mechanism for public health, especially as they might help prevent the spread of AIDS and protect animals (if I am reading this right, bestiality is included in the definition of sodomy here.)

The closer a behavior goes toward the predatory, ie pedophilia, the more an interest a society should have in proscribing it.

The closer a behavior comes to affecting the viability or survival of a society, ie marriage, the more interest a society should have in regulating it.

 

[Narmer]

I'm not a flamer, but I'm fabulous in other ways. I'm a fabulous cook, baker, pitcher (*ahem*..), kisser, bj giver, driver (if you're going slow in the left lane I'll pass you on the right, get back in the left lane, and slow down until you move over.. then I'll speed up), listener, confidant, and I'm also a very fabulous Director of IT.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[MJinZ]

And you think straight men have sex with other men in prison because of sex? Also, when you're having sex with a woman, you don't seek do dominate her? Face it, dog and man are of the same mind.

I didn't realize prison rape was consensual either. :awe:

Men who have sex with other men in prison who would otherwise be "straight" either do it for dominance (like all people who rape) or for sexual release through human contact (which, as you may not know, is not replaceable by masturbation).

 

[Narmer]

I didn't realize prison rape was consensual either. :awe:

Do people consent to their dogs humping them?

 

[JEDIYoda]

You're not the authority on what's important.

This belongs at best in Off Topic!!
No this topic is NOT important!! You yourself said it was not important!!

Read what you said -- The Lawrence v. Texas decision of 2003 effectively ruled unconstitutional the sodomy laws of any states that had not already repealed them on their own.


Only in your twisted/perverted mind is this a subject that anybody cares about!!

 

[sandorski]

I voted no, the second option.

I am against sodomy laws that exist for the purpose of precluding lifestyle choices for consenting adults. Don't ask, don't tell seems about right.

I am for sodomy laws that are a mechanism for public health, especially as they might help prevent the spread of AIDS and protect animals (if I am reading this right, bestiality is included in the definition of sodomy.)

The closer a behavior goes toward the predatory, ie pedophilia, the more an interest a society should have in proscribing it.

The closer a behavior comes to affecting the viability or survival of a society, ie marriage, the more interest a society should have in regulating it.

If Sodomy covers all those things, then perhaps the term "Sodomy" shouldn't be used. That way you can address more particular instances.

 

[MJinZ]

Do people consent to their dogs humping them?

OH yes, a lack of consent would be the other foot in swift kicking motion.

 

[Possessed Freak]

I'm not a flamer, but I'm fabulous in other ways. I'm a fabulous cook, baker, pitcher (*ahem*..), kisser, bj giver, driver (if you're going slow in the left lane I'll pass you on the right, get back in the left lane, and slow down until you move over.. then I'll speed up), listener, confidant, and I'm also a very fabulous Director of IT.

Well, La Di Da!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Well if you are going to say it's ok for homosexuals to have sex and we shouldn't have laws against it, then you need to also support repealing laws against incest.

another idiot who has to lump other issues in with the homosexual issue!!

Incest is a seperate individual issue, it has nothing to do with the homosexuality issue!

 

[zsdersw]

This belongs at best in Off Topic!!
No this topic is NOT important!! You yourself said it was not important!!

Read what you said -- The Lawrence v. Texas decision of 2003 effectively ruled unconstitutional the sodomy laws of any states that had not already repealed them on their own.


Only in your twisted/perverted mind is this a subject that anybody cares about!!

And yet you read and posted in it anyway.

 

[zsdersw]

Thanks for proving my point.

You had one?

 

[squirrel dog]

Peace loving Muslims will kill you in a very unpleasant manner for sodomy.

 

[Narmer]

You had one?

Yes, that you are a militant gay. We get it that you're proud to be gay. No one cares though.

 

[PJABBER]

Yeah, being militant gay is kind of like being a one trick pony. Once we have seen the act it is time to get some popcorn.

 

[zsdersw]

No one cares though.

That's clearly wrong. Posts that no one cares about don't get 60+ replies.

 

[xj0hnx]

Actually, yes it does. That's what hate crimes, genocides, and crimes against humanity are.

They are more serious than crimes against a rich person (like stealing their wallet) or a stupid person (punching them in the face).

Laws treat anti-humanistic behavior more seriously because they are infact much more grave in light of trying to preserve both a semblance of humanity and civilization.

That's not what a "hate crime" is, a hate crime is when the victim is targeted because of their belonging to a specific group, such as being attacked because someone is black, or because someone is gay. It's retarded because if someone is attacked and has their head bashed in with a hammer is doesn't make the crime any more, or less brutal because it was done because of the color of their skin, or sexual orientation.

 

[Narmer]

That's clearly wrong. Posts that no one cares about don't get 60+ replies.

I can't speak for others but, as I've said earlier, I'm hear to tell you what I think cause I'm tired of seeing these gay threads. The damn case you mentioned was 7 years ago and you're bringing it up just to talk about it. Why? It's not important today but to gay militants like you it will be important all day everyday. No one cares though.

 

[Moonbeam]

I love blasting my chick in the ass

No nonononononono NOMoonbeam, don't say it..............................

 

[zsdersw]

That's not what a "hate crime" is, a hate crime is when the victim is targeted because of their belonging to a specific group, such as being attacked because someone is black, or because someone is gay. It's retarded because if someone is attacked and has their head bashed in with a hammer is doesn't make the crime any more, or less brutal because it was done because of the color of their skin, or sexual orientation.

This is lost on too many people, I'm afraid.

 

[zsdersw]

I'm tired of seeing these gay threads.

That's too bad.

No one cares though.

If you don't care to speak for others, perhaps you should stop using "no one" and instead just say "I".

 

[Doboji]

I love blasting my chick in the ass

Posts like this are why I keep coming back to AT for more.... I spit my juice all over my keyboard when I read this...

 

[dmcowen674]

From the link...



Pretty fucking pathetic it was ever there, however, it seems you left out a relevant part of the story. Knowing you, it was left out intentionally. But then, no one here expects honesty out of you. Hell, no one here even expects sanity from you.

The opinion of the one Republican in that piece bodes nothing on the topic at hand that the state Republicans are pushing for criminalizing the entire segment of the population.

So who is being the dishonest one here again?