Eleven years ago, the Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws saying you couldn't put your peener in another adult man's butthole. (At least, that was how Antonin Scalia characterized it in his "colorful" dissent!) Well time moves slowly in ol' Alabammy, as it was just three days ago that an appeals court there did the same!
Proving or disproving &quot;consent&quot; is often a pain in the ass . . . having an anti-buttsex law gives the DA a super-convenient lesser charge for defendants to plead guilty to. That&#039;s <strike>the real</strike> one of the reasons STRANGE wants to keep it illegal.
Why is it so difficult for these people to grasp that it&#039;s not about who sticks what where. It&#039;s about whether it was a consensual sticking or not. !!!Facepalm!!! I just realized he&#039;s not being thick (maybe) but he is being a disingenuous homophobe.
A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if they wanted to, so forgive me if Strange&#039;s argument is a bit...shall we say, peculiar? Bizzare? Out of the ordinary?
The whole idea of &quot;consent&quot; seems to be completely lost on corn pone yokels. The speed with which they can blindly jump to the conclusion that &quot;mutual agreement&quot; is exactly the same thing as &quot;being forced&quot; is truly astounding.
He&#039;s more convincing with the cape. And the All Seeing Eye of Agamotto.
Ah, &#039;bammy. The sweet music of treefrogs and banjos. Nothing Strange about that.
Roosters?
&quot;The defendant is charged with one count of felony hold my beer&quot;.
If only this guy was a doctor. [gestures hypnotically]
And as my ex pointed out to me, sometimes yes means Meh.
Given their elected officials, it&#039;s obvious the people there will agree to anything, thus the need to protect &#039;em.
Proving or disproving &quot;consent&quot; is often a pain in the ass . . . having an anti-buttsex law gives the DA a super-convenient lesser charge for defendants to plead guilty to. That&#039;s <strike>the real</strike> one of the reasons STRANGE wants to keep it illegal.
Short version: Outlaw Consensual Butt Sechs because it&#039;s Strange.
and chickens!
Why is it so difficult for these people to grasp that it&#039;s not about who sticks what where. It&#039;s about whether it was a consensual sticking or not. !!!Facepalm!!! I just realized he&#039;s not being thick (maybe) but he is being a disingenuous homophobe.
Small government in action.
I&#039;m glad Alabama has solved all its other problems so they have time for this junior high school legislating.
No BJs in Alabama? Add that one to the &quot;never visit&quot; list.
Only the legitimate kind.
A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if they wanted to, so forgive me if Strange&#039;s argument is a bit...shall we say, peculiar? Bizzare? Out of the ordinary?
The whole idea of &quot;consent&quot; seems to be completely lost on corn pone yokels. The speed with which they can blindly jump to the conclusion that &quot;mutual agreement&quot; is exactly the same thing as &quot;being forced&quot; is truly astounding.