Would never be used to support incest, polygamy, or bestiality? And all the crap Santorum got from making his statement? Boston Globe article here for those that don't remember. uhm, yeah... http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1607322,00.html "It turns out the critics were right. Plaintiffs have made the decision the centerpiece of attempts to defeat state bans on the sale of sex toys in Alabama, polygamy in Utah and adoptions by gay couples in Florida. So far the challenges have been unsuccessful. But plaintiffs are still trying, even using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest." Where does it stop? Or do we have to include everyone in order to not be discriminatory?
It doesn't and it shouldn't. As long as all parties are able to consent, everything should be on the table.
I like how Scalia cleverly inserted state laws against masturbation, adultery, and fornication (and how others have mentioned sex toys) into the discussion. God forbid that state laws against fornication should be overturned!
Nothing was stopping these types of plaintiffs from filing lawsuits based on a right to privacy before Lawrence. And.....as the article clearly states.....Lawrence doesn't necessarily make their arguments winners now. Post again, when someone wins a case to marry their 12-year-old niece by citing Lawrence as precedent. Until then.....this is much ado about nothing.
Actually, if you read the article more carefully, it turns out that the critics, in fact, were wrong. Plaintiffs may have brought numerous suits, but the article makes it clear that lower courts almost unanimously are NOT allowing the Lawrence decision to serve as a precedent for broadening privacy rights. But hey, the false indignation was top notch. Kudos!
I'm failing to see why any of these should be banned and look forward to the day that the laws are called into question and done away with. Ok, maybe bestiality since it may be kind of hard to determine whether or not that ferret was consenting. But other than that, have fun.
Yup. In Utah (Zombie Jesus I love this state) it is considered sodomy. Clearly a bit difficult to enforce, but it is the law. And I forgot to mention, in Oklahoma it is illegal to masturbate while watching two people have sex in a car. You can't make this stuff up, people.
It's also illegal to go whaling from your car in Oklahoma or have sex in any position other than missionary.
Whaling? Really? Huh, I'm just a ********ing scofflaw then I guess. As far as the "any other position" thing, that's pretty common for that to be considered sodomy. True story, I know a guy who got busted in the Marine Corps for sodomy for tea-bagging a guy. Since "to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal" constitutes sodomy according to the UCMJ and "any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense" he pretty much had to just take the punishment on that one.
Tea bagging is sucking a guy's nuts, right? What the hell is whaling? I could go to urbandictionary.com, but I'm a little leery of that at work.
No, tea-bagging is when you - generally while the victim is passed out drunk - squat over them and dip your nuts in their mouth. There's nothing gay about it, I swear!
Whaling is where you literally harpoon a whale. Nothing sexual about it unless your name's Captain Ahab. Not sure why it's illegal in Oklahoma seeing as it hasn't been ocean front property in a couple million years probably.
Holy shit. I've never seen that. My doesn't that look like something right out of a Norman Rockwell painting.
Of course "harpooning a whale" could mean something completly different if you think about it. Ever go hogging?
They're well known believers in global warming down Oklahoma way - they're just getting a jump with preemptive legislation.
We actually sent out a Christmas card this last year possing as this. Although I had to photoshop the boy on because we don't have a handsom son.