How about applying some science and law to all these conflicting (and some rather absurd) scenarios that people are floating? And why some of this behavior is “ingrained”
a) Incest vs homosexuality
Damn, we breed horses and dogs with their siblings to accent certain traits and we definitely know that inbreeding also brings out certain recessive traits that limit survivability. Isn’t this fairly common knowledge. If someone disagrees, please post and we’ll ridicule you accordingly.
Therefore, from a reproductive behavior standpoint, modern societies and most modern religions have proscriptions against this behavior (see the Hapsburgs for an example of a royal family that played it sort of loose).
So, and I guess I need to remind some of you, the biological prohibition against incest does not really apply to homosexuality. I won’t even delve into the Greek tradition of homosexuality.
(b) State sodomy laws (including fellatio and cunnilingus)
Let’s not pretend that marriage is a federal institution or complain about states allow gay marriage. Remember that’s why certain states still have sodomy law on the books. You can talk about not interfering with privacy rights, but that’s just a legal “fiction” concocted by those “activist” judges. In theory, under strict construction, you don’t have privacy rights and states can enforce those sodomy laws against consenting adults (even heterosexuals). And need I remind you that sodomy is defined as “deviant” sex acts and includes oral AND anal sex.
Imagine, state laws prohibiting oral sex. You should be blessing those liberal judges that there’s no enforcement of those provisions…… Well, in 1986, these prohibitions were still deemed constitutional.
From Wikipedia:
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults. Seventeen years later the Supreme Court directly overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and held that such laws are unconstitutional. (See judicial review.)
So unless all of you are Quakers that are having sex with sheets between your bodily parts so it’s just about reproduction, don’t be hypocrites about what certain “conservatives” have put on the books. Y
