So it Begins: This State Forces LGBT “Accommodation” Rules on its Churches

How so because of religion? And secondly again there are not any concrete cases with names or even a date. All I see is an opinion piece that can be compared to an onion article.

 

Blue laws were instituted because of Sunday being the "lords day".
The advocate is not a satirical website and that was not an opinion piece, I'm sorry but not suppressed that Fox News didn't pick up the story. The nytimes, msnbc, ACLU, and the Facebook and twitter of the arresting office coleberate the issue. I know y'all have issues differentiating between fact and false stories so I'll credit it to reaching for anything that simply justifies your own narrative.

Either way I'm done with your game, cheers.

 

I want a name and date of the last person who was arrested strictly for butt sex, but I have not been supplied with such yet. I can find people arrested for stealing candy bars, but I can't find people arrested for butt sex....why is that?

It is no game, it is just a question you can not provide real info on other than "I say there is people being arrested for butt sex, so that's all I need" .

 

I posted several valid sources including the Facebook and Twitter of the arresting office that admitted to the detention. I'm sorry you are having issues with the victims not wanting to be named. The arresting officers as well as the police chief are named in the various articles. That's a far cry from me just saying something is true without evidence - you are calling it a lie because "that's all you need". Post evidance it is false besides just your opinion.

Sodomy is still illegal in numerous states and religious law firms and orginizations constantly block efforts to repeal these blatantly unconstitutional laws.

 

Twitter and facebook. Yeah ok.

 

How are churches violating regulations prohibiting non-profit organizations from discriminating?

 

Its a responsibility for procreating. Every state has a statute similar to this.


160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Only women give birth and only men are held responsible for them doing so.

 

Troll. Looks like it.

 

This statute is only valid in Texas and medical science is making your last sentence false.

In era of DNA paternity testing, Supreme Court finally (and greatly) weakens presumption of in-wedlock paternity

The Presumptions of Privette: Have They Perished with the Coming of Daniel and Disestablishment of Paternity

 

http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/20/texas.sodomy/

- - - Updated - - -

http://nation.time.com/2013/07/31/louisiana-sodomy-sting-how-invalidated-sex-laws-still-lead-to-arrests/

 

You cant back up any claim yet im the troll lol.

Please give any name to someone who was arrested for butt sex.

- - - Updated - - -

1998? got anything more recent, or more stories to show us this HUGE attack on gays and lebians?

Now I concede that the law is absolutely stupid, but I have a feeling more gays get sent to jail for prostitution than they do for simple butt sex with their partners.

So 2 confirmed in the last 20 years. Lets keep it going and see hw many people were arrested for butt sex.

 

Heeeeeey. You didnt specify dates. You asked..and ye received.

- - - Updated - - -

*ahem* and i fully expect an "im sorry and thank you."

 

Yes you're the troll. You have shifted the question three times now.

First you wanted a source
Then you wanted specific names of the victims
Then you wanted within a specific date

Now you want additional sources

You couldn't have just said that sucks that people are being targeted with an unconstitutional law and instead have made yourself to look like a typical poster here that ask for something and then ignores it. No wonder most people have stopped looking for sources to post - no one is interested in actual information if it discredits their view.

 

Again that does not impose a responsibility on married couples to have children. You still have not presented a compelling government to deny this right to gays

 

No no that's fine really. I'm glad someone could find something and bring it to the table other than speculative stories and Facebook.

Now let's see how many more we can find and see if it is some huge attack against the gay community or just a stupid law that can hardly even be enforced or won't be enforced because of its stupidity.

Does it need to be gone? Sure it does but I would like to see how big this witch hunt really is.

 

Lol me troll because I want answers and not just Facebook posts.

I've already said its stupid and do not agree with such laws. It is you who is making the claim like everyone in the gay community is targeted for it or is in danger.

I'm asking how often it is truly used, simple as that and yes I like concrete evidence like JOMV actually put on the table.

Don't get pissy because I'm not just going to accept everything little thing you throw at me and take it for 100% truth. Sorry, but that's how retarded things like BLM start.

 

My point remains the same with any state. Use Californias if you like-

7540. Except as provided in Section 7541, the child of a wife
cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is
conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage.

7611. A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if....
(a) He and the child's natural mother are or have been married to
each other and the child is born during the marriage.....

Don't see anything there that contradicts my last sentence.

 

Has absolutely no bearing on marriage laws. NONE

 

I SAID

Not a responsibility to procreate.

 

Again it has absolutely no bearing on who can marry

 

Defines one of the many duties of marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

I made no claim that it did. Although it demonstrates why marriage was limited to men and women for centuries.

 

No it does not. It is not a legal duty of marriage to procreate. If you procreate and are not married the child is STILL your responsibility.

- - - Updated - - -

Tradition is no defense for violating civil rights. It never has been and never will be.

 

I never claimed it was. How long you going to busy yourself chasing that strawman?

I never offered it as a defense. How long you going to busy yourself chasing that strawman?

 

Good. I am glad we agree there is no compelling interest in denying marriage to gays

 

I never claimed it did. How long you going to chase after that strawman?