User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 1:59:14 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. Legislating morality is the antithesis of "smaller government." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dear Republicans, Just shut the fuck up about sex. Stick to limited government. Thanks. Yep. Legislating morality is the antithesis of "smaller government." +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 1:59:49 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I might only be able to carry ten rounds....but at least I can legally get a blow job.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.frontiersmedia.com/frontiers-blog/2016/02/08/michigan-senate-passes-bill-that-makes-anal-sex-punishable-by-15-years-in-prison/ Oral too. Damn Michigan...you boring.  I might only be able to carry ten rounds....but at least I can legally get a blow job. 7 rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:01:38 PM EDT
[#3]
Yay for the GOPe conservatives. The big question is what does Ted Cruz think about it? Considering his strong Evangelical push I'm sure he supports the ban. Cruz also claims to support freedom and limited regulations, unless you are Muslim or gay. So where does he stand on this?
This is a big part of why there is so much revolt against the GOPe and politicians pushing social issues. Who cares what consenting adults do in the bedroom? I sure don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:02:54 PM EDT
[#4]
lol Michigan you might want to worry about clean drinking water before butt sechs
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:03:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fucking assholes. Can get you 15 years in Michigan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:04:57 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I predict that Thursdays will eventually have quite a few law breakers in those parts 
we really need to just bulldoze that whole state and start over. thirsty Thursdays can get a little out of hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:05:09 PM EDT
[#7]
A dick up their ass? No.
A bug up their ass? Yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:05:27 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
7 rounds. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.frontiersmedia.com/frontiers-blog/2016/02/08/michigan-senate-passes-bill-that-makes-anal-sex-punishable-by-15-years-in-prison/ Oral too. Damn Michigan...you boring. I might only be able to carry ten rounds....but at least I can legally get a blow job. 7 rounds. I think they tossed out that part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:05:31 PM EDT
[#9]
Laws prohibiting sodomy do not seem to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. A substantial number of sodomy prosecutions and convictions for which there are surviving records were for predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent, as in the case of a minor or the victim of an assault. As to these, one purpose for the prohibitions was to ensure there would be no lack of coverage if a predator committed a sexual assault that did not constitute rape as defined by the criminal law. Thus the model sodomy indictments presented in a 19th-century treatise, see 2 Chitty, supra, at 49, addressed the predatory acts of an adult man against a minor girl or minor boy. Instead of targeting relations between consenting adults in private, 19th-century sodomy prosecutions typically involved relations between men and minor girls or minor boys, relations between adults involving force, relations between adults implicating disparity in status, or relations between men and animals. To the extent that there were any prosecutions for the acts in question, 19th-century evidence rules imposed a burden that would make a conviction more difficult to obtain even taking into account the problems always inherent in prosecuting consensual acts committed in private. Under then-prevailing standards, a man could not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a consenting partner, because the partner was considered an accomplice. A partner’s testimony, however, was admissible if he or she had not consented to the act or was a minor, and therefore incapable of consent. See, e.g., F. Wharton, Criminal Law 443 (2d ed. 1852); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Law 512 (8th ed. 1880). From Lawrence v. Texas. Blowjobs and anal are not illegal in Michigan. The cops aren't going to arrest two consenting adults for such a thing in private. Two dudes butt-fucking each other on the steps of city hall? Yeah. But that's not so much about the butt-fucking as it is about the chosen very public venue. This is the argument dunderheads tried to throw at Ken Cucinelli when he was running for governor of Virginia, and in their zeal they ignored every bit of fact and accumulated jurisprudence on the matter in favor of a thoroughly stupid narrative...and you can see how effective this stupid narrative is in this very thread as people repeat it like fucking parrots without actually examining the issue. These laws have been on the books for decades/centuries. When Texas actually tried to fine two gay dudes $200 bucks for butt-fucking in private the USSC slapped it down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:06:28 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: https://www.frontiersmedia.com/frontiers-blog/2016/02/08/michigan-senate-passes-bill-that-makes-anal-sex-punishable-by-15-years-in-prison/ Oral too. Damn Michigan...you boring. Seems a little bit... self-defeating |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:06:35 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It may be on the books in MS, but I've never heard of being prosecuted if its between two consenting, adult humans. Kiddy diddlers and horse fuckers, yes. Although kiddie diddlers usually get "Touching a minor for lustful purposes." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mentions "more than a dozen states..." What are the others and what's the impact to the adult film industry? As of April 2014, 17 states either have not yet formally repealed their laws against sexual activity among consenting adults, or have not revised them to accurately reflect their true scope in the aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas. Often, the sodomy law was drafted to also encompass other forms of sexual conduct such as bestiality, and no attempt has subsequently succeeded in separating them. Thirteen states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah. Four states specifically target their statutes at same-sex relations only: Oklahoma, Kansas[16][17] Kentucky, and Texas. Alabama (Alab. Code 13A-6-65.) Florida (Fld. Stat. 798.02.) (Fld. Stat. 800.02.) Georgia (Ga. Stat. 16-6-18.) (Ga. Stat. 16-6-18.) Idaho (I.C. § 18-6605.) (I.C. § 18-6605.) Kansas (Kan. Stat. 21-3505.) Kentucky (KY Rev Stat § 510.100.) Louisiana (R.S. 14:89.) Maryland (Md. Code Ann. § 3-321.) (Md. Code Ann. § 3-322.) Massachusetts (MGL Ch. 272, § 34.) (MGL Ch. 272, § 35.) Michigan (MCL § 750.158.) (MCL § 750.338.) (MCL § 750.338a.) (MCL § 750.338b.) Minnesota (Minn. Stat. 609.293.) (Minn. Stat. 609.34.) Mississippi (Miss. Code § 97-29-59.) North Carolina (G.S. § 14-177.) (G.S. § 14-184.) (G.S. § 14-186.) Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. § 21-886.) South Carolina (S.C. Code § 16-15-60.) (S.C. Code § 16-15-120.) Texas (Tx. Code § 21.06.) Utah (Ut. Code 76-5-403.) It may be on the books in MS, but I've never heard of being prosecuted if its between two consenting, adult humans. Kiddy diddlers and horse fuckers, yes. Although kiddie diddlers usually get "Touching a minor for lustful purposes." In the books yes. Usually it's a add on with rape. So they get a rape charge and a charge of crimes against nature. I mean think about it...how will it stand if your ex girl friend goes to the court and says yes your honor he fucked me in the ass last night. Yeah that will stand up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:06:54 PM EDT
[#12]
This shit always happens when Republicans get the super majority, they start passing all these nonsense morality laws and shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to reelection.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:07:18 PM EDT
[#13]
This law was made by republicans because of their hate for Muslims.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:08:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Good old Republicans. Telling others how to live via legislation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:10:05 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not any more.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fucking assholes. Not any more.... 
Well done sir! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:10:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yay for the GOPe conservatives. The big question is what does Ted Cruz think about it? Considering his strong Evangelical push I'm sure he supports the ban. Cruz also claims to support freedom and limited regulations, unless you are Muslim or gay. So where does he stand on this? This is a big part of why there is so much revolt against the GOPe and politicians pushing social issues. Who cares what consenting adults do in the bedroom? I sure don't. Here is what every Republican on Earth needs to learn and repeat. "Our government is broken, we can't use a broken government to repair society's ills. I'm going to concentrate on fixing the government. Once that is accomplished, we can look at what a proper role for government with these issues will be" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:11:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not as retarded as it sounds: Senator Jones updated the language of the ban in his bill, but neglected the opportunity to remove the unconstitutional elements. He told The New Civil Rights Movement why: "The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done,” Jones said. "Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional.” "If you focus on it, people just go ballistic,” he said. "If we could put a bill in that said anything that’s unconstitutional be removed from the legal books of Michigan, that’s probably something I could vote for, but am I going to mess up this dog bill that everybody wants? No.” Plus which, the main intent of the amendment is to stop bestiality. Give the dogs a break, one thing at a time, OK?
It sounds even stupider the more it gets explained. I can't wait to read about how quick this gets overturned as soon as some blue noses in MI use this new law to enforce their morality on humans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:14:24 PM EDT
[#18]
Here's an experiment:
People in Michigan, go up to a police officer and report that tonight you will be getting a blowjob from your wife or girlfriend in your bedroom. Or report that you will be engaging in some anal sex with your wife or girlfriend in your bedroom. Or report that you did the same last night. Report back tomorrow how many of you are arrested. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:16:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well done sir! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fucking assholes. Not any more....
Well done sir! I set 'em up, y'all knock 'em down. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:16:21 PM EDT
[#20]
Yay, Christians.
Making the world a more moral place. ETA: Fuck it. I'm making a "You can't spell moral without oral" sign and driving down state to protest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:16:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Looks like you can still fuck your own ass at least... Silver lining and all that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:16:36 PM EDT
[#22]
Thank goodness Michigan state government has solved every other problem now that they have time to worry about this kind of thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:17:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From Lawrence v. Texas. Blowjobs and anal are not illegal in Michigan. The cops aren't going to arrest two consenting adults for such a thing in private. Two dudes butt-fucking each other on the steps of city hall? Yeah. But that's not so much about the butt-fucking as it is about the chosen very public venue. This is the argument dunderheads tried to throw at Ken Cucinelli when he was running for governor of Virginia, and in their zeal they ignored every bit of fact and accumulated jurisprudence on the matter in favor of a thoroughly stupid narrative...and you can see how effective this stupid narrative is in this very thread as people repeat it like fucking parrots without actually examining the issue. These laws have been on the books for decades/centuries. When Texas actually tried to fine two gay dudes $200 bucks for butt-fucking in private the USSC slapped it down. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Laws prohibiting sodomy do not seem to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. A substantial number of sodomy prosecutions and convictions for which there are surviving records were for predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent, as in the case of a minor or the victim of an assault. As to these, one purpose for the prohibitions was to ensure there would be no lack of coverage if a predator committed a sexual assault that did not constitute rape as defined by the criminal law. Thus the model sodomy indictments presented in a 19th-century treatise, see 2 Chitty, supra, at 49, addressed the predatory acts of an adult man against a minor girl or minor boy. Instead of targeting relations between consenting adults in private, 19th-century sodomy prosecutions typically involved relations between men and minor girls or minor boys, relations between adults involving force, relations between adults implicating disparity in status, or relations between men and animals. To the extent that there were any prosecutions for the acts in question, 19th-century evidence rules imposed a burden that would make a conviction more difficult to obtain even taking into account the problems always inherent in prosecuting consensual acts committed in private. Under then-prevailing standards, a man could not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a consenting partner, because the partner was considered an accomplice. A partner’s testimony, however, was admissible if he or she had not consented to the act or was a minor, and therefore incapable of consent. See, e.g., F. Wharton, Criminal Law 443 (2d ed. 1852); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Law 512 (8th ed. 1880). From Lawrence v. Texas. Blowjobs and anal are not illegal in Michigan. The cops aren't going to arrest two consenting adults for such a thing in private. Two dudes butt-fucking each other on the steps of city hall? Yeah. But that's not so much about the butt-fucking as it is about the chosen very public venue. This is the argument dunderheads tried to throw at Ken Cucinelli when he was running for governor of Virginia, and in their zeal they ignored every bit of fact and accumulated jurisprudence on the matter in favor of a thoroughly stupid narrative...and you can see how effective this stupid narrative is in this very thread as people repeat it like fucking parrots without actually examining the issue. These laws have been on the books for decades/centuries. When Texas actually tried to fine two gay dudes $200 bucks for butt-fucking in private the USSC slapped it down. All true. But it doesn't help the optics of the situation. Right or wrong, republicans have been cast by the media as being self-righteous puritanical moralizing assholes. Every republican legislator should know sponsoring something like this has the potential to get spun the way it is, and they are likely to end up doing more damage to their reputation and the republican brand than its worth. Let the dems sponsor this kind of shit; they won't take the flak republicans will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:18:20 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It sounds even stupider the more it gets explained. I can't wait to read about how quick this gets overturned as soon as some blue noses in MI use this new law to enforce their morality on humans. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's not as retarded as it sounds: Senator Jones updated the language of the ban in his bill, but neglected the opportunity to remove the unconstitutional elements. He told The New Civil Rights Movement why: "The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done,” Jones said. "Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional.” "If you focus on it, people just go ballistic,” he said. "If we could put a bill in that said anything that’s unconstitutional be removed from the legal books of Michigan, that’s probably something I could vote for, but am I going to mess up this dog bill that everybody wants? No.” Plus which, the main intent of the amendment is to stop bestiality. Give the dogs a break, one thing at a time, OK? It sounds even stupider the more it gets explained. I can't wait to read about how quick this gets overturned as soon as some blue noses in MI use this new law to enforce their morality on humans. The point that you and most others are missing is that they amended a law to make it harder for animal abusers to adopt pets and ignored the unconstitutional parts that were never going to be enforced anyway. The media sensationalized the story to make it look like they passed a brand new anti-sodomy law. They didn't. If you don't believe me, try John_Wayne777's experiment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:24:45 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:25:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Is there a "religious" exemption ? For priests and Muslims ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:25:12 PM EDT
[#27]
This thread is full of idiots who believe any flashy headline they happen to read.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billengrossed/Senate/htm/2015-SEBS-0219.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:26:13 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stuff like this is why Republicans catch a lot of flak. Nothing in this bill improves the Nation or Economy. Gays are still going to pack fudge behind closed doors. VERY MUCH THIS!!! Stupid! And none of their damned business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:27:54 PM EDT
[#29]
If I can I put my dick in everyone's butt I meet, so Michigan wouldn't welcome me?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:28:19 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's an experiment: People in Michigan, go up to a police officer and report that tonight you will be getting a blowjob from your wife or girlfriend in your bedroom. Or report that you will be engaging in some anal sex with your wife or girlfriend in your bedroom. Or report that you did the same. Report back tomorrow how many of you are arrested. I'm pretty sure that if I went up to a police officer and told him I was going to put a 8" upper on a rifle lower, shoot it in my backyard, then take it back apart without a tax stamp I wouldn't get in trouble either. You could probably tell virtually every police officer I've ever met that you smoked a joint in your own home too. That's a shitty metric for whether the MI republicans are doing something stupid or not. They already have a "seduction" law on the books that makes sleeping with unmarried women illegal. The shitty part is they actually charge people (abet people that did some other bad things) with it once in a while. No consenting adult orifice I put my penis into should amount to a prima facia case for a felony charge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:28:28 PM EDT
[#31]
if you would suck a dog dick you don't need a psychiatrist, you need a baseball bat to the braincase
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:29:18 PM EDT
[#32]
Making sticking it up your ass illegal just further proves that government hates competition.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:32:57 PM EDT
[#33]
If you can no longer get fucked in the ass on a Friday night then there is noting left to live for.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:33:20 PM EDT
[#34]
What about the goat fuckers in Dearborn? Does this apply to them?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:40:15 PM EDT
[#35]
Sodomy laws in Oklahoma used to be charged when Somone was already in deep shit for something really serious. We used to call it stacking charges ,don't know if that is the right term or not but that's what would happen .
I doubt that Michigan will be kicking down doors to see if the gheys are up to buggery |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:41:36 PM EDT
[#36]
I can't believe they didn't put in a religious exemption in for thursday!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:41:48 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one is ever getting out of prison. Finally......... perpetual motion |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:42:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Perhaps there is a serious problem with Muslims and unwitting male participants?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:42:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Republicans love them some statism too, they just fucking LOVE sicking the government on people who aren't living they way they are supposed to.
They just have a different brand of control-freak, but it's there just the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:43:23 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. Legislating morality is the antithesis of "smaller government." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dear Republicans, Just shut the fuck up about sex. Stick to limited government. Thanks. Yep. Legislating morality is the antithesis of "smaller government." indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:44:06 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I set 'em up, y'all knock 'em down. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fucking assholes. Not any more....
Well done sir! I set 'em up, y'all knock 'em down. I knew that's what you did.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:44:23 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The law generally (it's not just focused on bestiality, it's focused on animal abuse generally - it just happens to amend several different code sections) is geared toward prohibiting animal abusers from being able to adopt new animals from shelters. What they did was amend the definitions of animal abuse in order to broaden the types of disqualifying behavior. As usual, the media takes the entire discussion and law out of context to make it something that it isn't in order to rip on Republicans. The reality is that the senate didn't ban anything new, they simply didn't take the opportunity to amend the law to rescind a ban that was already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. However, if the media was honest, they wouldn't be able to stir up controversy and paint Republicans in a bad light. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wait.....Did they need to pass this because people were fucking animals in a ass? WTF Michigan? The law generally (it's not just focused on bestiality, it's focused on animal abuse generally - it just happens to amend several different code sections) is geared toward prohibiting animal abusers from being able to adopt new animals from shelters. What they did was amend the definitions of animal abuse in order to broaden the types of disqualifying behavior. As usual, the media takes the entire discussion and law out of context to make it something that it isn't in order to rip on Republicans. The reality is that the senate didn't ban anything new, they simply didn't take the opportunity to amend the law to rescind a ban that was already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. However, if the media was honest, they wouldn't be able to stir up controversy and paint Republicans in a bad light. So Democrats are having a hissy fit about a law that is against butt-rape of animals. Figures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:45:00 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's an experiment: People in Michigan, go up to a police officer and report that tonight you will be getting a blowjob from your wife or girlfriend in your bedroom. Or report that you will be engaging in some anal sex with your wife or girlfriend in your bedroom. Or report that you did the same last night. Report back tomorrow how many of you are arrested. I wouldn't. We've had sodomy laws on the books forever. They prosecuted a male ,when it came out in a nasty divorce, that he did not perform oral to her satisfaction. They used the transcripts from the divorce court. When I mentioned this in the past...relating to gay marriage (cannot legally consummate it), I was assured that such laws were struck down in 2008?2002? by the Supremes. How would this new bill differ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:45:24 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Democrats are having a hissy fit about a law that is against butt-rape of animals. Figures. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait.....Did they need to pass this because people were fucking animals in a ass? WTF Michigan? The law generally (it's not just focused on bestiality, it's focused on animal abuse generally - it just happens to amend several different code sections) is geared toward prohibiting animal abusers from being able to adopt new animals from shelters. What they did was amend the definitions of animal abuse in order to broaden the types of disqualifying behavior. As usual, the media takes the entire discussion and law out of context to make it something that it isn't in order to rip on Republicans. The reality is that the senate didn't ban anything new, they simply didn't take the opportunity to amend the law to rescind a ban that was already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. However, if the media was honest, they wouldn't be able to stir up controversy and paint Republicans in a bad light. So Democrats are having a hissy fit about a law that is against butt-rape of animals. Figures. Democrats and GD, apparently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:46:28 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Never pass up a chance to look like a total fool, they have that part down pat. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Hey look! Republicans shooting their chances of reelection in the foot by passing stupid laws. Never pass up a chance to look like a total fool, they have that part down pat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:46:56 PM EDT
[#46]
It'll get vetoed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:48:15 PM EDT
[#47]
#BlowJobsMatter
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:48:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
VERY MUCH THIS!!! Stupid! And none of their damned business. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Stuff like this is why Republicans catch a lot of flak. Nothing in this bill improves the Nation or Economy. Gays are still going to pack fudge behind closed doors. VERY MUCH THIS!!! Stupid! And none of their damned business. Here's a hint: the law wasn't about gays at all. It was about prohibiting animal abusers from adopting new animals for a period of 5 years. In passing that law, a portion of an old law was amended, and that old [unconstitutional as originally applied] law just so happened to by interpretation include oral/anal sex. So instead of paying attention to the fact that people who were convicted of sexually abusing animals are going to be prohibited from adopting new pets, this article says that Republicans passed a law banning oral/anal sex. They did no such thing. The law that was passed has nothing to do with it. They just simply didn't amend the law further to remove an already unenforceable provision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:48:44 PM EDT
[#49]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 2:48:52 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
7 rounds. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.frontiersmedia.com/frontiers-blog/2016/02/08/michigan-senate-passes-bill-that-makes-anal-sex-punishable-by-15-years-in-prison/ Oral too. Damn Michigan...you boring. I might only be able to carry ten rounds....but at least I can legally get a blow job. 7 rounds. You don't need 10 bullets to kill a deeya. The jury is still out as to what a "deeya" is, however. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
