GOP Gubernatorial Candidate wants to bring back Sodomy Laws

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I cannot believe this guy challenged the Supreme Court's decision to outlaw sodomy laws. I though we were in the 21st century now? What kind of idiot wants to outlaw oral sex? And "natural law" doesn't exist so how can you use it to overturn court decisions? If we lived in nature we'd have to outlaw cars, and money, and television too, is he going to call for that too?

www.queerty.com...




posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I agree it is rather pathetic, one point though sodomy is anal not oral...

Either way it is moronic...



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


when it's voting time again, hope they vote someone else in, with a brain



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

PrinceDreamer
I agree it is rather pathetic, one point though sodomy is anal not oral...


Sodomy


is generally anal sex, oral sex or sexual activity between a person and an animal (zoophilia/bestiality), but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I take it this is aimed at teh horrible gayz? What about all the women who love giving BJs, & anal sex? Yeah, this isn't going to go far. He'll be the butt of ridicule (pun intended) and that's about it.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 



I stand corrected, I was thinking of the word in the biblical sense



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 

I don't know...

If that were to keep our elected officials from bending us over, and taking advantage us, that might not be such a bad idea.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I have often found that when someone wants a BILL passed like this they have been up to something they deem inappropriate so WE ALL NEED a law for the good of "The People"
to prevent their Deviant Behavior...


Foot tapping Law monkeys!
edit on 9-10-2013 by abeverage because: of a deviant edit



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
This is awesome, I truly hope they pass it. Hopefully if they do that maybe something similar would be introduced in Tennessee. [note the sarcasm]
edit on 9-10-2013 by Christian Voice because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 





is generally anal sex, oral sex or sexual activity between a person and an animal (zoophilia/bestiality), but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity.


"may include ANY non-procreative sexual activity"

That doesn't leave much else.
Crazy....



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
never mind

others already defined it
edit on 9-10-2013 by Kaploink because: meh



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Nyiah
I take it this is aimed at teh horrible gayz? What about all the women who love giving BJs, & anal sex? Yeah, this isn't going to go far. He'll be the butt of ridicule (pun intended) and that's about it.


Yea whatever are the prostitutes to do now that 2/3rds of their income would be illegal?


All joking aside, you are probably right Nyiah, this is aimed at the gays. That is usually the demographic that Republicans target when pushing moral laws (read: victimless crimes).



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Just because he may be a total stranger to a healthy sex life, doesn't mean everyone else is. He has no right and no place, IMO. Aside from that... HEY! BOZO! It's the 21st Century!! The tide is going the other direction like a Tsunami. Is he just stupid?

Namely though, it isn't even a gay specific law! (as if that would be better or anything). This, as I read it, would cover my wife and I, depending on the nature of the evenings pleasures. He needs to keep his nose out of my bedroom and stick to the broken state (They ALL are right now) he's trying to get the job of leading.

jeezee... enough with the sexual politics. You'd think these guys were virgins or something.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Why is it anybodys buisness what people do in the bed room? This guy is an idiot and thankfully in America today he not likely find anyone dumb enough to support him.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


Please explain why any government should be passing laws on what citizens do in the privacy of their private bedroom, privately?



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Um, if they ever tried to kick down my bedroom door to check for compliance, the "sodomy" accusation would be at the very end of an extremely long list of charges anyway.

Government shouldn't be in the business of judging morality, it's not in the charter, nor the best interest of the state. Keep your nose where it belongs and tend to real issues the country is facing. The days of overreaching and overzealous legislation are numbered anyway.
edit on 9-10-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


I don't, that was sarcasm, sorry it wasn't apparent. I don't care for the concept of any government interference into our homes, whether or not we own guns, if we wish to home school our children, whether or not we wear seatbelts or helmets. It's no secret on here what my stance is on homosexuality, but if that is the politician's motivation for this, he's going about things the wrong way.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
final edit

This proposed law is absurd. The government would be unable to enforce this short of sending people to spy through windows late at night trying to catch people in the act or catching them in public (which is already illegal). So if this were to pass one of two things would happen. 1) The government spends an increasing amount of money trying to enforce this resulting in a direct correlation of loss of freedoms on top of the freedoms lost through the law itself. 2) The government realizes the futility of enforcing this law and just forgets it is on the books therefore wasting the legislators' times who voted for it when they could be voting for something that CAN be enforced.
edit on 9-10-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


Thank you for the clarification. Just as a suggestion, to avoid misunderstandings like this, it is sometimes helpful to add something like...

[/sarcsm]

at the end of posts meant as such. Avoids the confusion. It's hard to discern sarcasm sometimes in written form.

edit on 9-10-2013 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


Point taken




top topics
 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join