First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Michigan Senate Proposes Bill to make homosexual acts a felony
11350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 2/16/16 , edited 2/16/16




Mmm..the title is slightly misleading, but all titles spin it the juiciest way. The Bill is an update on an existing animal cruelty bill last updated in the 50's - so no i am not uninformed lol - the misguided can be for your own judgment. The Bill does have implications to humans and homosexuals. Section 158, as I provided (page 20 of the doc), the one word makes it applicable to humans - "against nature or humankind"

They were updating the bill, and instead of crossing the word humankind out they left it because it would have started a debate over the issue. Which brings us to my point of bitching; as I just posted, I am aware of the Federal legislation in existence that supersedes any state, but my point is that if we have these federal mandates then it should not be a point of contention to make state legislation reflect the Federal mandates. Because to me, choosing to leave that part as is simply condones the anti-gay sentiment/culture. There is no reason to leave it because there is no reason for striking it out to involve a contentious debate. & That is what I don't like...

From GOP Senator Rick Jones: "The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done.....Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional." "But if you focus on it, people just go ballistic....If we could put a bill in that said anything that’s unconstitutional be removed from the legal books of Michigan, that’s probably something I could vote for, but am I going to mess up this dog bill that everybody wants? No." - Ridiculous. Whoever starts a fight over something that has federal mandates in place does not deserve to hold office.

So did they create a new piece of legislation to target gays? - No, but they allowed a derogatory piece of legislation to continue to exist because there are some out there who can't accept reality of Federal legislation, and Michigan Senators are too afraid to confront these people.
runec 
28284 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 2/16/16

Hrafna wrote:


I must admit some morbid curiosity as to the events leading up to this picture. I mean, he's even stuck his hand in the sand for better grip.

Is this someone's fetish? Is he putting himself through college by streaming this on the internet? Did the turtle give consent? Can a turtle give consent if its not of the teenage mutant variety that can talk? Are teenage mutant variety turtles even at the age of consent in the country / state in which this was taken?

I mean, that faint, sad look of shame on the guy's face begs so many questions.


11350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 2/16/16


I understand what you are saying, but I simply disagree that it is not a big deal. I understand they wanted it passed quickly, and that this is the motivation in not editing the part I am talking about, I read Senator Rick Jones' reasons; however, the subtext to these actions are that it is okay to hold one's personal pride in state level legislation because Federal can always supersede, and that message to me is counter intuitive to the kind of culture I would like to live in. If we have a Federal mandate, why should it be a point of contention? Regardless of if it is enforceable, the action itself holds a message I cannot condone.
11350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 2/16/16


15 out of 50 in 2011. Not exactly a lot, but not statistically insignificant either.
5503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Dirt land
Offline
Posted 2/16/16
You got that right.
11350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 2/16/16



Obama falls more moderate in my eyes as well. He ran far more progressive in his 08 campaign than what he ended up being in his presidency. That being said, Bernie is not a 100% progressive, he has been chill on gun laws, but he has been strong on most other progressive lines of thought I feel.
Posted 2/16/16 , edited 2/16/16

biscuitnote wrote:


ElectricRuka wrote:


dougeprofile wrote:

Much better for radical leftists in the government working in conjunction with homosexual advocacy groups to crush anyone who declines to participate in a same sex wedding.

This may just be a poorly written law; I'm pretty sure that sodomy law was either repealed or NEVER enforced. Those kinds of laws were always a bad idea.


There are radical leftists in the government? Since when?


Obama for one



That's more a problem with perspective, many conservatives are so far right and hawkish even moderates look far left compared to them.

As for anti-discrimination, we've had the same law for sex, race, and religion for awhile, why is sexual orientation suddenly so much of a burden? You can decline to do business with anyone, but if you make it clear it because of bigotry you kind of screwed yourself.

2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/16/16

nooneinparticular wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


ElectricRuka wrote:


dougeprofile wrote:

Much better for radical leftists in the government working in conjunction with homosexual advocacy groups to crush anyone who declines to participate in a same sex wedding.

This may just be a poorly written law; I'm pretty sure that sodomy law was either repealed or NEVER enforced. Those kinds of laws were always a bad idea.


There are radical leftists in the government? Since when?


Obama for one



That's more a problem with perspective, many conservatives are so far right and hawkish even moderates look far left compared to them.



Universal healthcare is a leftist concept Obama heavily pushed it
Posted 2/16/16 , edited 2/16/16
Yes, but hardly radical or even necessarily bad.

2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/16/16

nooneinparticular wrote:

Yes, but hardly radical or even necessarily bad.



I think it's bad it will create rationing and shortages.
18722 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Online
Posted 2/16/16

munchthis wrote:

do they know how many hospital visits there are a year just because of people shoving things up their butts?


or, lizards in penises, lolol - ER story-
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 2/16/16
Who cares, you nerds arnt getting any.
660 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Greensboro North...
Offline
Posted 2/16/16

biscuitnote wrote:


nooneinparticular wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


ElectricRuka wrote:


dougeprofile wrote:

Much better for radical leftists in the government working in conjunction with homosexual advocacy groups to crush anyone who declines to participate in a same sex wedding.

This may just be a poorly written law; I'm pretty sure that sodomy law was either repealed or NEVER enforced. Those kinds of laws were always a bad idea.


There are radical leftists in the government? Since when?


Obama for one



That's more a problem with perspective, many conservatives are so far right and hawkish even moderates look far left compared to them.



Universal healthcare is a leftist concept Obama heavily pushed it


Doesn't make him a radical, I don't see him taking people's gewns away or burning churches.
218 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/16/16
660 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Greensboro North...
Offline
Posted 2/16/16

biscuitnote wrote:


nooneinparticular wrote:

Yes, but hardly radical or even necessarily bad.



I think it's bad it will create rationing and shortages.


How would it create rationing and shortages

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.