Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium Member today for an ad-free experience. 

     

IGNORED

Why do (Michigan) Republicans hate anal and oral?


Recommended Posts

You can listen to it

 

Or you can read the excerpt from the actual law here.

 

If you don't like links, here's the relevant quote:

 

Any person who shall commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 15 years, or if such person was at the time of the said offense a sexually delinquent person, may be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the maximum of which shall be life.

 

In other words, they snuck in a sodomy law with an animal cruelty law.

 

According to the Young Turks guy in the first link, sodomy includes not only anal but also oral. I didn't know this. This means that if you give or get a blowjob in the state of Michigan and are caught, you could go to jail for up to 15 years.

 

Think about that for a moment. How can they possibly get away with this?

 

Now for those who are fine with religious beliefs dictating legislation for those who either interpret their religion differently or don't believe in religion at all, how is this in any way acceptable? Why do these folks care at all what happens in the bedroom of others? And even if we say, "fine, have those beliefs - I don't agree with them, but you have the right to believe what you believe" - what is the justification for legislating this? How can this possibly be defended except by the most extreme theocrats?

 

Where's Juan Savage when we need him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't knock it until you try it, Eric.

Anyhow, this one isn't old - its new.

No, the link you provided is the original 1931 law that was updated in the '50's. It just hasn't fallen off the records like making it illegal for teachers to marry back in 1886.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the great state of Massachusetts laws on sodomy.

Sodomy

MGL c.272, s. 34 . Crime against nature

Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.

MGL c.272, s. 35 . Unnatural and lascivious acts.

Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail or the house of correction for not more than two and one half years.

Edited by notti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the great state of Texas laws on sodomy:

 

Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast such as a chupacabra, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years. If you were just out with your drinkin buddy and tippin cows and something happens, well sheet why didn't you invite me, you boys get on home now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mt, what is your position on anal? Against, indifferent, or "all in?"

 

No, the link you provided is the original 1931 law that was updated in the '50's. It just hasn't fallen off the records like making it illegal for teachers to marry back in 1886.

 

OK, thanks. But why is this coming up in the news? I'm confused. Did it get repealed and then folded back in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the same as laws across the country, (like your home town) they become irrelevant and aren't prosecuted. In an election year stupid shit like abortion is discussed ad nauseum even though the Supreme Court ruled on it in 1972. It is just political fodder.

Edited by notti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the same as laws across the country, (like your home town) they become irrelevant and aren't prosecuted. In an election year stupid shit like abortion is discussed ad nauseum even though the Supreme Court ruled on it in 1972. It is just political fodder.

Abortion is so irrelevant that states like Texas do everything they can to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get one and higher courts frequently have to intervene. Is that what you mean by irrelevant?

Perhaps it's irrelevant to an old dude who will never have to get one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...