Michigan's banning homosexual sex?

[Valystria]

Technically, gays can have neither anal or oral sex, but how would you enforce this?

Why can't they?

There is a staggering amount of video evidence proving your claim is demonstrably untrue.

[Ostroeuropa]

Technically, gays can have neither anal or oral sex, but how would you enforce this?

Why can't they?

There is a staggering amount of video evidence proving your claim is demonstrably untrue.

I only have first hand anecdotal evidence myself.

[Quokkastan]

Technically, gays can have neither anal or oral sex, but how would you enforce this?

Why can't they?

There is a staggering amount of video evidence proving your claim is demonstrably untrue.

"Honestly mods, I only linked to "Gay Anal Sluts VI" out of a sense of academic responsibility."

[Valystria]

Why can't they?

There is a staggering amount of video evidence proving your claim is demonstrably untrue.

I only have first hand anecdotal evidence myself.

This places us in a difficult situation in which we are unable to provide any verifiable evidence in a way that would be rules acceptable.

[Ostroeuropa]

I only have first hand anecdotal evidence myself.

This places us in a difficult situation in which we are unable to provide any verifiable evidence in a way that would be rules acceptable.

That feel when the rules of a forum prevent you from properly arguing. This is why the PG13 rules are a terrible.

[Hjallaland]

So anal and oral sex are now considered homosexual sex?

On the ban itself, its redicilous.

[Alvecia]

Does this actually change anything? If people acccused of breaking this "law" are charged, surely they can just cite the Supreme Court case and get aquitted?
So this is a law designed to....waste time and money?

[USS Monitor]

This is the same state that thinks it's OK to have people drinking contaminated water if it saves the government a few dollars.

[Ethel mermania]

Does this actually change anything? If people acccused of breaking this "law" are charged, surely they can just cite the Supreme Court case and get aquitted?
So this is a law designed to....waste time and money?

No the law is written to pass the legislature. Since anal sex is constitutionally protected. And the point of the law is to protect animals, the legislator did not rewrite the portion of the current law that bans anal sex


Fairly clever of the Republican legislator, if you ask me.

[AiliailiA]

When I first read this I tought it was an April fool, but well, it's not April, not even closer

http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandcult ... -in-prison

Excerpt from the article:

The latest of these controversial bills is in Michigan, where officials have just passed a law that puts sodomy on a level with bestiality. According to various reports, the state’s Senate have overruled the US Supreme Court with an unconstitutional ban on both anal and oral sex – making it technically illegal to be gay.

“A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for no more than 15 years,” states the legislation, which was originally pushed to protect animal rights. The sentence apparently jumps up to life if the defendant already has any sex offense charges.

That's absurd, it's so absurd that's almost unbelievable!!!
Those *censored* are trying to ban lesbian sex, and making it punishable with up to 15 years of prison!!!
Where are American Feminists? Where are the allies? What's happening?

I cannot say what I would do in a similar situation, because I bet that's against the rules of the forum, but, OBIOUSVLY, I TOTALLY oppose it!!!

What do you think NSGs?
What we can do against such injustice?

If that's so, I feel sympathy for the citizens of Michigan whose tax dollars will be spent in a futile attempt to defend such obviously unconstitutional state laws against higher legal authority.

There does seem to be a trend of full-retard Republican state legislatures testing the limits of their state power. Hopefully they fail, but honestly it's quite possible that a majority of voters approve of their tax money being spent that way, to fight "federal over-reach" which is actually quite constitutional.

There is a structural fault: the appeal process of the state and federal courts is so slow that a state government can break the law on its first day in office, and two years later go to elections again without having been brought to book.

[Ethel mermania]

When I first read this I tought it was an April fool, but well, it's not April, not even closer

http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandcult ... -in-prison

Excerpt from the article:


That's absurd, it's so absurd that's almost unbelievable!!!
Those *censored* are trying to ban lesbian sex, and making it punishable with up to 15 years of prison!!!
Where are American Feminists? Where are the allies? What's happening?

I cannot say what I would do in a similar situation, because I bet that's against the rules of the forum, but, OBIOUSVLY, I TOTALLY oppose it!!!

What do you think NSGs?
What we can do against such injustice?

If that's so, I feel sympathy for the citizens of Michigan whose tax dollars will be spent in a futile attempt to defend such obviously unconstitutional state laws against higher legal authority.

There does seem to be a trend of full-retard Republican state legislatures testing the limits of their state power. Hopefully they fail, but honestly it's quite possible that a majority of voters approve of their tax money being spent that way, to fight "federal over-reach" which is actually quite constitutional.

There is a structural fault: the appeal process of the state and federal courts is so slow that a state government can break the law on its first day in office, and two years later go to elections again without having been brought to book.

Maybe it's a couple liberal bloggers going full retard on something they clearly are not cwpable of understanding And then the rest of the herd bleatijg onwards without actually bothering to fiind out what is going on.

May i suggest reading the Snopes or Detroit free Press articles cited earlier in the thread?

[Alvecia]

If that's so, I feel sympathy for the citizens of Michigan whose tax dollars will be spent in a futile attempt to defend such obviously unconstitutional state laws against higher legal authority.

There does seem to be a trend of full-retard Republican state legislatures testing the limits of their state power. Hopefully they fail, but honestly it's quite possible that a majority of voters approve of their tax money being spent that way, to fight "federal over-reach" which is actually quite constitutional.

There is a structural fault: the appeal process of the state and federal courts is so slow that a state government can break the law on its first day in office, and two years later go to elections again without having been brought to book.

Maybe it's a couple liberal bloggers going full retard on something they clearly are not cwpable of understanding And then the rest of the herd bleatijg onwards without actually bothering to fiind out what is going on.

May i suggest reading the Snopes or Detroit free Press articles cited earlier in the thread?

Oh, I didn't see that. That mostly clears things up, thanks.
Good old Snopes.

[Greed and Death]

As I read it, it just looks like the bill to ban people caught engaged in sodomy with animals, from owning animals and the Senator simply neglected to remove the existing yet unenforceable ban regarding humans.

Eh? Wasn't sodomy with animals dealt with a long time ago?

yes but after he got out of prison nothing stopped the person from buying more animals.

[AiliailiA]

If that's so, I feel sympathy for the citizens of Michigan whose tax dollars will be spent in a futile attempt to defend such obviously unconstitutional state laws against higher legal authority.

There does seem to be a trend of full-retard Republican state legislatures testing the limits of their state power. Hopefully they fail, but honestly it's quite possible that a majority of voters approve of their tax money being spent that way, to fight "federal over-reach" which is actually quite constitutional.

There is a structural fault: the appeal process of the state and federal courts is so slow that a state government can break the law on its first day in office, and two years later go to elections again without having been brought to book.

Maybe it's a couple liberal bloggers going full retard on something they clearly are not cwpable of understanding And then the rest of the herd bleatijg onwards without actually bothering to fiind out what is going on.

May i suggest reading the Snopes or Detroit free Press articles cited earlier in the thread?

Read the thread? What, me, read the thread? Hell no, I'm not in the mood to do that.

I'm in the mood to reply to the OP without reading anything else. We all do that sometimes, right?

[Ethel mermania]

Maybe it's a couple liberal bloggers going full retard on something they clearly are not cwpable of understanding And then the rest of the herd bleatijg onwards without actually bothering to fiind out what is going on.

May i suggest reading the Snopes or Detroit free Press articles cited earlier in the thread?

Read the thread? What, me, read the thread? Hell no, I'm not in the mood to do that.

I'm in the mood to reply to the OP without reading anything else. We all do that sometimes, right?

Fair point, carry on.

[Greed and Death]

Maybe it's a couple liberal bloggers going full retard on something they clearly are not cwpable of understanding And then the rest of the herd bleatijg onwards without actually bothering to fiind out what is going on.

May i suggest reading the Snopes or Detroit free Press articles cited earlier in the thread?

Read the thread? What, me, read the thread? Hell no, I'm not in the mood to do that.

I'm in the mood to reply to the OP without reading anything else. We all do that sometimes, right?

But I should not be the voice of reason.

[AiliailiA]

Read the thread? What, me, read the thread? Hell no, I'm not in the mood to do that.

I'm in the mood to reply to the OP without reading anything else. We all do that sometimes, right?

Fair point, carry on.

Seems thought that Michigan deliberately outlaws the provision of animals for "tests of skill in marksmanship".

That's kind of weird. Citizens can get a hunting license and test their marksmanship on wildlife in Michigan, with basically no state supervison of whether they killed, wounded or disabled the animal they shot at. But a private owner of animals is not allowed to let a paying customer shoot at their animal. Quite a double standard there.

[Greed and Death]

Fair point, carry on.

Seems thought that Michigan deliberately outlaws the provision of animals for "tests of skill in marksmanship".

That's kind of weird. Citizens can get a hunting license and test their marksmanship on wildlife in Michigan, with basically no state supervison of whether they killed, wounded or disabled the animal they shot at. But a private owner of animals is not allowed to let a paying customer shoot at their animal. Quite a double standard there.

Canned hunts are generally viewed as unsportsmanlike

[AiliailiA]

Seems thought that Michigan deliberately outlaws the provision of animals for "tests of skill in marksmanship".

That's kind of weird. Citizens can get a hunting license and test their marksmanship on wildlife in Michigan, with basically no state supervison of whether they killed, wounded or disabled the animal they shot at. But a private owner of animals is not allowed to let a paying customer shoot at their animal. Quite a double standard there.

Canned hunts are generally viewed as unsportsmanlike

Of course. The ethical standards of people who kill a defenceless animal with a firearm "for sport" are a sound basis for law.

[Pranovia]

This places us in a difficult situation in which we are unable to provide any verifiable evidence in a way that would be rules acceptable.

That feel when the rules of a forum prevent you from properly arguing. This is why the PG13 rules are a terrible.

I like where this is headed to

[Greed and Death]

Canned hunts are generally viewed as unsportsmanlike

Of course. The ethical standards of people who kill a defenceless animal with a firearm "for sport" are a sound basis for law.

In a democracy composed of hunters yes.

[Kannap]

Good thing I've had a long-standing hatred of Michigan, I'll just add this to the list.

[Fartsniffage]

Good thing I've had a long-standing hatred of Michigan, I'll just add this to the list.

Or you could read the thread and find out it's a bunch of bollocks....

[Kannap]

Good thing I've had a long-standing hatred of Michigan, I'll just add this to the list.

Or you could read the thread and find out it's a bunch of bollocks....

But... but... any reason to continue hating Michigan is something I must cling to, otherwise I'll wither away and have to visit distant northern family.

[Ifreann]

Good thing I've had a long-standing hatred of Michigan, I'll just add this to the list.

Or you could read the thread and find out it's a bunch of bollocks....

Breaking: Britain Bans Bollocks-Bunches.