Current Events > Architect of Texas abortion ban wants to make gay sex illegal again

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.them.us/story/architect-texas-abortion-ban-wants-to-make-gay-sex-illegal-again

---

Wow who could have seen this coming

---

But gay sex doesnt lead to abortion

only gay sex with priests is allowed.

---

the crime of oral or anal sexual contact or penetration between persons or of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal especially

so non-piv sex? aka sex only for the purpose of PROCREATION

so not just sex that is 'gay' even though anal happens between men and women
I hate reports making fake news titles

nothanks1 posted...

so not just sex that is 'gay' even though anal happens between men and women
I hate reports making fake news titles

He talks about the ruling that legalized gay marriage in the same sentence. It's absolutely clear what he's targeting.

---

There's only one way these people will ever stop and nobody wants to go there, so enjoy your descent into hell, everybody.

---

I remember when some liberals acted like they would never try that due to popular sentiment. They still think Republicans can be reasonable and that real life is like The West Wing.

---

I think there will be a 2nd Civil War someday. Because of shit like this

nothanks1 posted...

the crime of oral or anal sexual contact or penetration between persons or of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal especially

so non-piv sex? aka sex only for the purpose of PROCREATION

so not just sex that is 'gay' even though anal happens between men and women
I hate reports making fake news titles

Those laws were never used against straight people, get a clue.

---

I do find it amusing that Republicans have directly told me that they don't care about gay rights and that it's settled, yet they consistently try to erode LGBT rights at every single turn.

But yeah, fuck this.

---

After this, it will be interracial marriage.

---

Solar_Crimson posted...

After this, it will be interracial marriage.

---

Fuck conservatives.

---

If they invalidate the rationale for Roe then sodomy laws and laws against different races marrying would have legal precedent.

This is Pandoras box.

---

Thats the opposite of freedom.

Controlling what two consenting adults do in private is authoritarian. Whatever happened to the govt having less control over our personal lives?

---

This guy would also love it if sex with siblings was made legal

SSJPurple posted...

Thats the opposite of freedom.

Controlling what two consenting adults do in private is authoritarian. Whatever happened to the govt having less control over our personal lives?

They never cared about that. There are pro-life Republicans who got caught forcing mistresses to have abortions and still for re-elected.

They only want power.

---

the ones worried about "slippery slope" are the ones actually going down the Slippery Slope for their own beliefs...what a shocker, the GOP is full of projection..

---

Rathinor posted...

This guy would also love it if sex with siblings was made legal

Only in the pussy without a condom would be acceptable going by his logic. If it leads to a child, it's God's work!

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

If they invalidate the rationale for Roe then sodomy laws and laws against different races marrying would have legal precedent.

This is Pandoras box.

And the entire point of what social conservatives have been pursuing since Schlaefly helped turn the moral majority from a pro segregation group into a anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-equality organization.

---

this is despicable if true.

---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

If they invalidate the rationale for Roe then sodomy laws and laws against different races marrying would have legal precedent.

This is Pandoras box.

Would depend entirely on how they write the opinion, there are ways to completely invalidate it that would only affect abortions. Some ways of doing it could definitely affect sodomy laws, but not marriage laws. Abortion and sodomy are based on interpreting parts of the constitution to granting a right of privacy, while marriage is based on the idea that equal protection makes it illegal for states to selectively deny marriages to large classes of people.

You could actually write an opinion that would basically reverse it. So that instead of abortion being legal everywhere before viability and up to the states after, it is illegal everywhere after viability and up to the states before. Due to "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", and using the reasoning that the earliest point we can definitely determine if someone is a person being the point of viability(with it being possible someone is a person sooner), you could decide that states would be violating the constitution if they allow abortions after viability because it would mean they are depriving the unborn person of life.

---