Supreme Court rebuffs state bids to cut Planned Parenthood funds

And this decision is not about the merits of the case, it is about proceedure.

 

I love it when Conservatives like @Mac-7 bring up children or animals when talking about gays. It really shows their bigotry when they can’t tell the difference between someone raping a child or animal and two adults having consensual sex.

Although it also makes me hope they don’t have kids or pets. They might get confused since they can’t tell the difference.

 

is this English?

 

Nature intended a woman to put a man’s penis in her mouth or up her ass?

Homosexuals don’t make my skin crawl. I don’t really care what they do so long as it’s consensual. But your bigotry against them is so strong you want the government to persecute them.

I really hope you don’t have any kids or pets if you can’t tell the difference between adults having consensual sex and someone raping a child or animal.

 

Be careful how you use the word consent

Your counter argument came up in one of the hedonist liberal euro countries about a decade ago

The beastiality defenders argued that the animal gave consent by not objrcting to the sex

Even liberals thought that was crazy

They didnt win but over time in liberal societies like ours crazy becomes the acceptable

All it takes is one wacko judge to agree with the perverts and then the other 99.9999999% of society can pound sand

 

Really? Have you got statistics?

 

Why did you bother bringing up a legal argument that you admit doesn’t work?

If animals “consent” by not resisting, then it’s not rape if you drug a woman. A person/animal incapable of giving clear consent cannot give consent period.

How screwed up are you by your bigotry when you can’t tell the difference between consensual sex between adults and rape?

 

Off topic claptrap

 

Outlawing homosexuality would be a violation of the US constitution.

 

Of course not

As long as people do what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms its no more than a potential medical problem

But homosexuals wanted to flaunt their activities and have now gained the legal protection to engage in their perversion

 

According to 6 unelected demigods in black robes

 

and would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

non sequitur

 

as is their right, under the US constitution. How you feel about it is utterly meaningless.

 

nope. according to the plain language of the 14th amendment.

Why do you have such a hard time admitting you want to throw out the constitution, in order to target a group of people you hate?

 

Ah, so you are okay with heterosexuals doing “unnatural” things like sodomy but you want to prosecute homosexuals for those same acts.

How is this not a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?

How are you not a massive hypocrite? Clearly your argument about “unnatural” is bullshit when you have no problem with heterosexuals engaging in “unnatural” acts.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the exact same legal protections. Sex is public is covered by entirely different laws than sodomy laws. The sodomy law that was overturned as unconstitutional prosecuted sex acts committed in the privacy of one’s bedroom.

 

No, according to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

Under what 6 people claim is their right

 

Yes

Sex between a man and a woman is ok

But sex with animals, children, or the same sex should be banned

 

Only because those six individuals say so

 

It’s cool, you can have the law back just as soon as you apply the Sodomy Laws against EVERYONE who engages sodomy and not violate the equal protection clause.

You are cool with having the government put you in handcuffs next time you get a BJ from the wife right?

 

So it comes down to bigotry. And more than that, bigotry so deep and irrational that it conflates rape with consensual sex.

I really hope you haven’t ever gotten confused with you kids or pets.

 

No because it’s blatantly obvious. You have openly admitted that you want homosexuals prosecuted for acts that heterosexuals would not get prosecuted for. That is not equal protection.

Would it be equal protection is a state modified their murder laws so that it only is against the law when a white male kills someone?

 

Tell me, what is the practical difference between a man engaging in oral sex with a woman and a woman engaging in oral sex with a woman?

Bear in mind, you can’t use the “unnatural” argument because you already admitted that is bullshit, and any subjective disgust you have has no bearing on the law or individual rights.

 

nope. Under the plain language of the US constitution. I'm sorry you hate gays enough that you are willing to throw out the constitution, and trample on peoples rights. But you will be stopped from imposing your fascist bans, by patriotic americans.

 

The difference is difficult to explain to a hedonist

Like the man said, if you gotta ask you aint never gonna know