User Panel
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
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. Untrue. This is about demoralizing the assholes. |
|
Quoted:
Will not comply http://blog.colourfulrebel.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/sneakhype-thigh-gap-9.jpg View Quote nice pussy |
|
|
Ok, so will they be arresting all the gay men for this or do they get a pass being a protected class?
|
|
Quoted:
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 View Quote Still stupid. I don't care if someone sticks in int another dude, or goat. Both are disgusting acts to me but I honestly do not give a shit if folks want to do it. |
|
Quoted:
Still stupid. I don't care if someone sticks in int another dude, or goat. Both are disgusting acts to me but I honestly do not give a shit if folks want to do it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
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 Still stupid. I don't care if someone sticks in int another dude, or goat. Both are disgusting acts to me but I honestly do not give a shit if folks want to do it. The goat might have some legitimate concerns on the topic though. |
|
Quoted:
Will not comply http://blog.colourfulrebel.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/sneakhype-thigh-gap-9.jpg View Quote |
|
|
The law is already unconstitutional, and a waste of everyone's fucking time. DUMB SHIT BE DUMB.
|
|
|
Quoted:
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. It bans it for straight couples too. Well, what would be the difference? Buttholes are still buttholes. It's basically the gayest thing you can do with a woman. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote I try to explain that to people from time to time. The extreme left and extreme right aren't on a line, it's more like a loop with a small gap between the ends, just with different interests. |
|
|
Democrats want a big enough government to control everything. Republicans want a small enough government to fit in your bedroom.
|
|
Quoted:
Well, what would be the difference? Buttholes are still buttholes. It's basically the gayest thing you can do with a woman. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
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. It bans it for straight couples too. Well, what would be the difference? Buttholes are still buttholes. It's basically the gayest thing you can do with a woman. I take it you are opposed to blow jobs too, because dudes have mouths as well? |
|
Quoted:
The law is already unconstitutional, and a waste of everyone's fucking time. DUMB SHIT BE DUMB. View Quote You're right, it is unconstitutional and this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Because MI did not pass a new law prohibiting oral or anal sex. End of story. The article is a blatant lie designed to stir up controversy and it seems it has been quite successful in doing so. The law that was passed merely expanded the definition of animal abuse and created a new state prohibition on animal abusers adopting new animals from shelters for a period of five years post-conviction. Somehow, this animal statute's failure to amend the prohibition on oral/anal sex out of a much older (now unconstitutional) statute has been construed by the source of the article as "REPUBLICANS BAN ORAL/ANAL SEX!!!!!11111ONE!!!" Unfortunately, it seems that many here have fallen for the lie hook, line, and sinker. |
|
|
Quoted:
You're right, it is unconstitutional and this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Because MI did not pass a new law prohibiting oral or anal sex. End of story. The article is a blatant lie designed to stir up controversy and it seems it has been quite successful in doing so. The law that was passed merely expanded the definition of animal abuse and created a new state prohibition on animal abusers adopting new animals from shelters for a period of five years post-conviction. Somehow, this animal statute's failure to amend the prohibition on oral/anal sex out of a much older (now unconstitutional) statute has been construed by the source of the article as "REPUBLICANS BAN ORAL/ANAL SEX!!!!!11111ONE!!!" Unfortunately, it seems that many here have fallen for the lie hook, line, and sinker. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The law is already unconstitutional, and a waste of everyone's fucking time. DUMB SHIT BE DUMB. You're right, it is unconstitutional and this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Because MI did not pass a new law prohibiting oral or anal sex. End of story. The article is a blatant lie designed to stir up controversy and it seems it has been quite successful in doing so. The law that was passed merely expanded the definition of animal abuse and created a new state prohibition on animal abusers adopting new animals from shelters for a period of five years post-conviction. Somehow, this animal statute's failure to amend the prohibition on oral/anal sex out of a much older (now unconstitutional) statute has been construed by the source of the article as "REPUBLICANS BAN ORAL/ANAL SEX!!!!!11111ONE!!!" Unfortunately, it seems that many here have fallen for the lie hook, line, and sinker. I think it made news because the law was under review, and they had a chance to change it, and didn't. |
|
Quoted:
You're right, it is unconstitutional and this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Because MI did not pass a new law prohibiting oral or anal sex. End of story. The article is a blatant lie designed to stir up controversy and it seems it has been quite successful in doing so. The law that was passed merely expanded the definition of animal abuse and created a new state prohibition on animal abusers adopting new animals from shelters for a period of five years post-conviction. Somehow, this animal statute's failure to amend the prohibition on oral/anal sex out of a much older (now unconstitutional) statute has been construed by the source of the article as "REPUBLICANS BAN ORAL/ANAL SEX!!!!!11111ONE!!!" Unfortunately, it seems that many here have fallen for the lie hook, line, and sinker. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The law is already unconstitutional, and a waste of everyone's fucking time. DUMB SHIT BE DUMB. You're right, it is unconstitutional and this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Because MI did not pass a new law prohibiting oral or anal sex. End of story. The article is a blatant lie designed to stir up controversy and it seems it has been quite successful in doing so. The law that was passed merely expanded the definition of animal abuse and created a new state prohibition on animal abusers adopting new animals from shelters for a period of five years post-conviction. Somehow, this animal statute's failure to amend the prohibition on oral/anal sex out of a much older (now unconstitutional) statute has been construed by the source of the article as "REPUBLICANS BAN ORAL/ANAL SEX!!!!!11111ONE!!!" Unfortunately, it seems that many here have fallen for the lie hook, line, and sinker. but the replies that gloss over every post concerning dog dick or goathole and just read the op will keep coming, I assure you |
|
Should be that way all over the country.
Read Romans 1 starting at verse 26. Between abortion and homos our nation is in for some real bad times if it doesn't get fixed |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote Here is a better experiment go ask a gay guy to vote for a Republican who voted for this bill. |
|
Does this mean the MI gov will now have to stop fucking the public in the ass?
|
|
|
|
Quoted: 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.) View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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.) Florida.... 798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.—If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 800.02 Unnatural and lascivious act.—A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother’s breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section. |
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
Should be that way all over the country. Read Romans 1 starting at verse 26. Between abortion and homes our nation is in for some real bad times if it doesn't get fixed View Quote How about we use The Constitution to govern the country and use The Bible as an individual's guide to morality? So where does the government get this power to regulate sex between consenting adults in their respective constitutions? |
|
Ya know how I keep hearing about how there is no blue law left and all that...
yeah, here's a case in point in why I have nothing but contempt for the religious right. now, don't confuse that with religion...because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's why religion and politics can never be joined at the hip. |
|
Quoted:
This is the first I have heard of this but, you can keep your butt fuckers and we'll keep our standard capacity mags and guns. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. |
|
|
Quoted:
Should be that way all over the country. Read Romans 1 starting at verse 26. Between abortion and homos our nation is in for some real bad times if it doesn't get fixed View Quote by get fixed, you mean follow your religious law....I presume. and if that is your meaning....come and make me because I will go out of my way to disobey any blue law I can (that is...without banging a dude) just to be spiteful. |
|
THIS LAW IS ABOUT NOT FUCKING GOATS OR SUCKING DOG DICK
it amended an EXISTING STATUTE which contained provisions ALREADY STRUCK DOWN BY THE SC |
|
I was just assured in another thread that morality would NEVER be pushed by representatives in government.
|
|
|
Quoted: This type of language will trigger the hurt feels and cause many GD posters to need a safe space. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Should be that way all over the country. Read Romans 1 starting at verse 26. Between abortion and homos our nation is in for some real bad times if it doesn't get fixed This type of language will trigger the hurt feels and cause many GD posters to need a safe space. You probably don't see the irony of your post. |
|
Quoted:
I take it you are opposed to blow jobs too, because dudes have mouths as well? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. It bans it for straight couples too. Well, what would be the difference? Buttholes are still buttholes. It's basically the gayest thing you can do with a woman. I take it you are opposed to blow jobs too, because dudes have mouths as well? Reductionism doesn't work here. Most people also have hands, therefore masturbation is gay. See? It's nonsensical. Besides, that's not what I'm saying anyhow. I'm saying buttfucking is the most gay thing you can do with a woman. Consider it this way. Penile-vaginal intercourse is "straight sex," unquestionably. As soon as you do anything else, it calls into question whether it's even "sex" or not. Obviously, there are legal definitions related to penetration of the body, but socially and colloquially, there are a lot of folks who, for example, don't consider a handy to be "sex," per se. For another example, clothing-on dry humping, even to mutual climax, "doesn't count as sex" to a lot of high school kids. Even if you do consider these things to be sex, there is a common social hierarchy of the acts, loosely ranking them based upon intimacy. A handy might be "sex" to you, but it's a low form of intimacy within that spectrum. A beej might be next (AKA "third base"), but intercourse is at the top (AKA "scoring," "home run," etc). Buttfucking is the highest possible level of intimacy for two gay men. It's the most gay thing that they can do. For straight relationships, the highest possible level of intimacy is penile-vaginal intercourse. Buttfucking is less intimate than that, plus it's a conscious rejection of the highest level of intimacy. You're deliberately choosing NOT to fuck her right in the pussy, and instead pick the hole that has poop inside of it. Unlike the use of manual or oral stimulation within foreplay (with the ultimate goal of "going all the way"), the anus is pretty much a dead end road. Going ass to vag is asking for an uncomfortable infection. I know they do it in the movies, but it's really inadvisable. It's done for its own sake, on purpose, and in rejection of the vagina. When a man rejects women entirely when it comes to sexual activity, that man is gay (we'll ignore the animal fuckers and solo adventurers for a moment). When you partially reject a woman - especially the portions of her body which specifically make her feminine - I mean, maybe it doesn't make you completely gay, but it makes you partially gay. In the case of buttfuckery, this is the most gay you can be while still having sex with a woman. You've specifically rejected the vagina and sought out that act which is also the highest possible level of intimacy for gay men. |
|
My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time — To let the punishment fit the crime — The punishment fit the crime; And make each prisoner pent Unwillingly represent A source of innocent merriment! Of innocent merriment! |
|
|
Quoted:
Reductionism doesn't work here. Most people also have hands, therefore masturbation is gay. See? It's nonsensical. Besides, that's not what I'm saying anyhow. I'm saying buttfucking is the most gay thing you can do with a woman. Consider it this way. Penile-vaginal intercourse is "straight sex," unquestionably. As soon as you do anything else, it calls into question whether it's even "sex" or not. Obviously, there are legal definitions related to penetration of the body, but socially and colloquially, there are a lot of folks who, for example, don't consider a handy to be "sex," per se. For another example, clothing-on dry humping, even to mutual climax, "doesn't count as sex" to a lot of high school kids. Even if you do consider these things to be sex, there is a common social hierarchy of the acts, loosely ranking them based upon intimacy. A handy might be "sex" to you, but it's a low form of intimacy within that spectrum. A beej might be next (AKA "third base"), but intercourse is at the top (AKA "scoring," "home run," etc). Buttfucking is the highest possible level of intimacy for two gay men. It's the most gay thing that they can do. For straight relationships, the highest possible level of intimacy is penile-vaginal intercourse. Buttfucking is less intimate than that, plus it's a conscious rejection of the highest level of intimacy. You're deliberately choosing NOT to fuck her right in the pussy, and instead pick the hole that has poop inside of it. Unlike the use of tactile or oral stimulation within foreplay (with the ultimate goal of "going all the way"), the anus is pretty much a dead end road. Going ass to vag is asking for an uncomfortable infection. I know they do it in the movies, but it's really inadvisable. It's done for its own sake, on purpose, and in rejection of the vagina. When a man rejects women entirely when it comes to sexual activity, that man is gay (we'll ignore the animal fuckers and solo adventurers for a moment). When you partially reject a woman - especially the portions of her body which specifically make her feminine - I mean, maybe it doesn't make you completely gay, but it makes you partially gay. In the case of buttfuckery, this is the most gay you can be while still having sex with a woman. You've specifically rejected the vagina and sought out that act which is also the highest possible level of intimacy for gay men. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. It bans it for straight couples too. Well, what would be the difference? Buttholes are still buttholes. It's basically the gayest thing you can do with a woman. I take it you are opposed to blow jobs too, because dudes have mouths as well? Reductionism doesn't work here. Most people also have hands, therefore masturbation is gay. See? It's nonsensical. Besides, that's not what I'm saying anyhow. I'm saying buttfucking is the most gay thing you can do with a woman. Consider it this way. Penile-vaginal intercourse is "straight sex," unquestionably. As soon as you do anything else, it calls into question whether it's even "sex" or not. Obviously, there are legal definitions related to penetration of the body, but socially and colloquially, there are a lot of folks who, for example, don't consider a handy to be "sex," per se. For another example, clothing-on dry humping, even to mutual climax, "doesn't count as sex" to a lot of high school kids. Even if you do consider these things to be sex, there is a common social hierarchy of the acts, loosely ranking them based upon intimacy. A handy might be "sex" to you, but it's a low form of intimacy within that spectrum. A beej might be next (AKA "third base"), but intercourse is at the top (AKA "scoring," "home run," etc). Buttfucking is the highest possible level of intimacy for two gay men. It's the most gay thing that they can do. For straight relationships, the highest possible level of intimacy is penile-vaginal intercourse. Buttfucking is less intimate than that, plus it's a conscious rejection of the highest level of intimacy. You're deliberately choosing NOT to fuck her right in the pussy, and instead pick the hole that has poop inside of it. Unlike the use of tactile or oral stimulation within foreplay (with the ultimate goal of "going all the way"), the anus is pretty much a dead end road. Going ass to vag is asking for an uncomfortable infection. I know they do it in the movies, but it's really inadvisable. It's done for its own sake, on purpose, and in rejection of the vagina. When a man rejects women entirely when it comes to sexual activity, that man is gay (we'll ignore the animal fuckers and solo adventurers for a moment). When you partially reject a woman - especially the portions of her body which specifically make her feminine - I mean, maybe it doesn't make you completely gay, but it makes you partially gay. In the case of buttfuckery, this is the most gay you can be while still having sex with a woman. You've specifically rejected the vagina and sought out that act which is also the highest possible level of intimacy for gay men. That seems like way more of a breakdown than it needs to be. I don't really see how giving a woman what she wants is in any way gay, but I don't read into it too much, I would rather just get busy and see where it ends up. If you like to get intimate with the opposite sex, straight. If you like to get intimate with the same sex, gay. If you like to get intimate with both....party animal. |
|
Quoted:
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.) View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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.) That information is incorrect. Sodomy in the 4th degree was amended and listed as unconstitutional YEARS ago in Kentucky. There is no law that targets same sex sexual relations in Kentucky. It may still be in the lawbook but says in black and white it is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. I was a Leo for 5 years here and worked a bunch of sexual assault cases. The only sodomy statute that is enfocable here is forced (or in the case of the victim being underage, or unable to consent for some other reason). ETA: It appears that the online searchable KRS still shows it listed with no amendments or footnotes. Interesting. The text version I've seen is different. |
|
Quoted:
I don't really see how giving a woman what she wants is in any way gay, but I don't read into it too much, I would rather just get busy and see where it ends up. View Quote What if "what the woman wants" is to toss on a strap-on and do you in the butt? If not pegging, then maybe some whips and chains type stuff? When the car battery comes out, do you say the safe word? The point here is not to solicit your personal limits of comfort, but simply to demonstrate that you surely have them. Therefore, hiding behind an excuse that "Well, she likes it up the butt!" doesn't fly. You have agency in this - take ownership of your actions. You're still a consenting party to buttfuckery. And look, if you want to stick your dick in poop for fun, that's none of my or anyone's business. All I'm saying is, it's the most gay thing you can do with a woman. |
|
Quoted:
What if "what the woman wants" is to toss on a strap-on and do you in the butt? If not pegging, then maybe some whips and chains type stuff? When the car battery comes out, do you say the safe word? The point here is not to solicit your personal limits of comfort, but simply to demonstrate that you surely have them. Therefore, hiding behind an excuse that "Well, she likes it up the butt!" doesn't fly. You have agency in this - take ownership of your actions. You're still a consenting party to buttfuckery. And look, if you want to stick your dick in poop for fun, that's none of my or anyone's business. All I'm saying is, it's the most gay thing you can do with a woman. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't really see how giving a woman what she wants is in any way gay, but I don't read into it too much, I would rather just get busy and see where it ends up. What if "what the woman wants" is to toss on a strap-on and do you in the butt? If not pegging, then maybe some whips and chains type stuff? When the car battery comes out, do you say the safe word? The point here is not to solicit your personal limits of comfort, but simply to demonstrate that you surely have them. Therefore, hiding behind an excuse that "Well, she likes it up the butt!" doesn't fly. You have agency in this - take ownership of your actions. You're still a consenting party to buttfuckery. And look, if you want to stick your dick in poop for fun, that's none of my or anyone's business. All I'm saying is, it's the most gay thing you can do with a woman. Then you picked the wrong woman....at least for me anyway, but some straight dudes are probably into it. However. I would contend even that isn't gay. It's still a man and a woman getting intimate, in whatever freaky kink they are into. |
|
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.