GOP hopeful wants to make oral sex a felony

maybe we can make sodomy punishable by fines, not jail.

whipassmt

This is a joke right?

[QUOTE="Wolf-Man2006"]

What? :lol: I'm wondering if he's actually married.. *looks up his name on Wikipedia* ..... I have no idea, but I'm going to assume that he's single... This guy won't go down on you ladies

whipassmt

So none of this excuses him from being a socially right-wing nutjob.

[QUOTE="capaho"]

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"] Has anyone ever been charged? How would they enforce such a law, and what's their reasoning for making it illegal?Fightingfan

I doubt that the law is enforceable.  The Supreme Court's ruling on the issue years ago was clear and decisive.  The government does not have any authority to interfere with private, consensual relations between adults.  So-called sodomy laws are illegal.  The religious zealots who are attempting to re-impose them are just going to waste a lot of taxpayer money in their incessant quest to impose their religious ideology on everyone.

Yes, that is entirely true. Once again you're bringing up an argument that has no relation to the question. That exchanging money for sex is illegal has no bearing on consenting adults engaging in whatever sex acts they choose to in private.

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="capaho"]

I doubt that the law is enforceable.  The Supreme Court's ruling on the issue years ago was clear and decisive.  The government does not have any authority to interfere with private, consensual relations between adults.  So-called sodomy laws are illegal.  The religious zealots who are attempting to re-impose them are just going to waste a lot of taxpayer money in their incessant quest to impose their religious ideology on everyone.

worlock77

Yes, that is entirely true. Once again you're bringing up an argument that has no relation to the question. That exchanging money for sex is illegal has no bearing on consenting adults engaging in whatever sex acts they choose to in private.

Isn't sodomy rape? Or it just another word for anal sex? I've never seen the word sodomy used casually like in this thread lol.Fightingfan

cock

dick

mhm

Isn't sodomy rape? Or it just another word for anal sex? I've never seen the word sodomy used casually like in this thread lol.Fightingfan

It seems that either people on this forum or the article itself are taking this out of proportion. One problem I have with the article is that it mentions a new site, but it provides neither a link nor a url for the site, and of course it would be more accurate for viewers to see the site itself not just the article.

Also here is a relevant portion of the article:

"The website goes on to state that the law would only be applied "to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public," but the law itself states that "if any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony."

Cuccinelli's argument is the court shouldn't have struck down the entire law, rather it should've upheld the law and that Virginia would prosecute under this law for non-consentual sodomy, public sodomy or sodomy against minors.

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]Isn't sodomy rape? Or it just another word for anal sex? I've never seen the word sodomy used casually like in this thread lol.ad1x2

Democrats want "revenue increases", so maybe we can make sodomy punishable by fines, not jail.

whipassmt

That would amount to a tax on sodomy, and the Republicans claim they are against any new taxes.  They would rather put gay people in prison for consensual sex, because that is the real purpose of sodomy laws.

My wife and I would get locked away for life :P Seriously though, I hate politicians that try to take the fun out of life. "The government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."UltimateviL

the Republicans claim they are against any new taxes.capaho

No, their idea of taxes is to lower it and start taxing everything including the air you breathe. ;)

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Democrats want "revenue increases", so maybe we can make sodomy punishable by fines, not jail.

capaho

That would amount to a tax on sodomy, and the Republicans claim they are against any new taxes. They would rather put gay people in prison for consensual sex, because that is the real purpose of sodomy laws.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] That can't be entirely true because prostitution is illegal. Fightingfan

Yes, that is entirely true. Once again you're bringing up an argument that has no relation to the question. That exchanging money for sex is illegal has no bearing on consenting adults engaging in whatever sex acts they choose to in private.

The Supreme Court has never made prostitution illegal. Indeed, the Supreme Court does not make laws, they only interpret the constitutionality of existing laws. And for that matter there are no federal laws prohibiting prostitution. The existing laws against it are on a state level, hence why it's legal in Nevada. And perhaps that argument could be made, but someone would have to challenge prositution laws on similar grounds.

[QUOTE="capaho"]the Republicans claim they are against any new taxes.Jebus213

No, their idea of taxes is to lower it and start taxing everything including the air you breathe. ;)

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="capaho"]the Republicans claim they are against any new taxes.whipassmt

No, their idea of taxes is to lower it and start taxing everything including the air you breathe. ;)

You know what, I'm going to let you figure that comment out. I just don't even...

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Yes, that is entirely true. Once again you're bringing up an argument that has no relation to the question. That exchanging money for sex is illegal has no bearing on consenting adults engaging in whatever sex acts they choose to in private.

worlock77

The Supreme Court has never made prostitution illegal. Indeed, the Supreme Court does not make laws, they only interpret the constitutionality of existing laws. And for that matter there are no federal laws prohibiting prostitution. The existing laws against it are on a state level, hence why it's legal in Nevada. And perhaps that argument could be made, but someone would have to challenge prositution laws on similar grounds.

[QUOTE="UltimateviL"]My wife and I would get locked away for life :P Seriously though, I hate politicians that try to take the fun out of life. "The government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."whipassmt

It doesn't matter what Cuccinell intends, what matters is the law as it is written. And as written this law could be used to prosecute consenting adults, hence why it was struck down. 

It seems that either people on this forum or the article itself are taking this out of proportion. One problem I have with the article is that it mentions a new site, but it provides neither a link nor a url for the site, and of course it would be more accurate for viewers to see the site itself not just the article.

Also here is a relevant portion of the article:

"The website goes on to state that the law would only be applied "to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public," but the law itself states that "if any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony."

Cuccinelli's argument is the court shouldn't have struck down the entire law, rather it should've upheld the law and that Virginia would prosecute under this law for non-consentual sodomy, public sodomy or sodomy against minors.

whipassmt

Sodomy is any sexual act that is considered "unnatural." It is considered natural to have vaginal sex especially since without it the human race would not be able to reproduce in it's current form. On the other hand, oral and anal aren't considered natural sex acts.ad1x2

If you think back to the gay marriage arguments at the Supreme Court, the definition of a natural sexual relationship put forth by the anti-gay side was that which resulted in progeny.  By that definition, any sexual act that did not result in a pregnancy would be unnatural, and any couple, whether gay or straight, should be denied the right to marry if they are not capable of producing children through sexual intercourse within the marriage.

Ah so this is what this is really about, the following comment on the article (currently the top comment you see when the article is done) sheds some light on this issue. Here is the comment:

"I understand political hacks making this argument, but I can't believe an actual "news" outlet would fall for it. There is a real problem here. We have people in Virginia who molested children. Unfortunately, the laws in effect at the time they committed their atrocities performed sex acts that are defined by the sodomy laws. So a molester claimed that since sodomy wasn't illegal anymore, he had to be released.
Clearly the intent of the supreme court ruling was to make sodomy equivalent legally to other sex acts -- not to grant it special status. So the courts SHOULD interpret the child molestation law with that in mind, not let these criminals off because they committed sodomy instead of other sex acts.
There is no push to re-illegalize sodomy among consenting adults; btw, in some cases the argument used to get these child molesters off might well be used to reduce rape charges to simple assault, since the same problem applies with referencing a sex act using a now-invalidated law.
The point is the law was invalidated not because sodomy is not a sex act, but because consenting adults have a right to do what they want. To use that ruling to say adults can sexually abuse children, or a man could sodomize a woman without it being a sexual assult, is absurd.
It is amazing that a guy who wants to be Governor of Virginia would push to support child sexual predators, just to make a false claim that his opponent wants to make sodomy illegal among consenting adults.
For those who ask why the AG doesn't just make a new law -- we could fix the law for the future, but you can't apply laws retrospectively. The only way to put the current child sexual predators behind bars where they belong is to get the court to recognize that this is not what the surpreme court meant in it's ruling.
I wish we could all agree on that, and if it wasn't for a politician trying to make up lies about his opponent, we probably all would. I doubt anybody here who enjoys sodomy thinks it would be OK to force themselves on children".

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

It seems that either people on this forum or the article itself are taking this out of proportion. One problem I have with the article is that it mentions a new site, but it provides neither a link nor a url for the site, and of course it would be more accurate for viewers to see the site itself not just the article.

Also here is a relevant portion of the article:

"The website goes on to state that the law would only be applied "to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public," but the law itself states that "if any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony."

Cuccinelli's argument is the court shouldn't have struck down the entire law, rather it should've upheld the law and that Virginia would prosecute under this law for non-consentual sodomy, public sodomy or sodomy against minors.

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Sodomy is any sexual act that is considered "unnatural." It is considered natural to have vaginal sex especially since without it the human race would not be able to reproduce in it's current form. On the other hand, oral and anal aren't considered natural sex acts.capaho

If you think back to the gay marriage arguments at the Supreme Court, the definition of a natural sexual relationship put forth by the anti-gay side was that which resulted in progeny.  By that definition, any sexual act that did not result in a pregnancy would be unnatural, and any couple, whether gay or straight, should be denied the right to marry if they are not capable of producing children through sexual intercourse within the marriage.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Sodomy is any sexual act that is considered "unnatural." It is considered natural to have vaginal sex especially since without it the human race would not be able to reproduce in it's current form. On the other hand, oral and anal aren't considered natural sex acts.capaho

If you think back to the gay marriage arguments at the Supreme Court, the definition of a natural sexual relationship put forth by the anti-gay side was that which resulted in progeny. By that definition, any sexual act that did not result in a pregnancy would be unnatural, and any couple, whether gay or straight, should be denied the right to marry if they are not capable of producing children through sexual intercourse within the marriage.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]

It seems that either people on this forum or the article itself are taking this out of proportion. One problem I have with the article is that it mentions a new site, but it provides neither a link nor a url for the site, and of course it would be more accurate for viewers to see the site itself not just the article.

Also here is a relevant portion of the article:

"The website goes on to state that the law would only be applied "to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public," but the law itself states that "if any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony."

Cuccinelli's argument is the court shouldn't have struck down the entire law, rather it should've upheld the law and that Virginia would prosecute under this law for non-consentual sodomy, public sodomy or sodomy against minors.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Perhaps, then, they should just pass a new law that specifically applies only to those circumstances.chessmaster1989

I remember that - I think the SC response was to make elderly marriage illegal(satire).Fightingfan

Justice Sotomayor did point out rather sarcastically when that argument was presented that such a standard would also exclude most heterosexual couples over age 50 from being eligible for marriage.  It would obviously also preclude any other adult heterosexual couples who have physical or medical conditions that would prevent procreation regardless of age.  The fundamental flaw in the fundamentalist argument that procreation is the standard for natural sex is that any sexual activity that does not result in a pregnancy would be unnatural.  

Perhaps next the crackpot Republicans in the Virginia government should start some sort of monitoring and reporting system for sexual activity so that anyone who engages in sexual activity that does not result in a pregnancy would be jailed.  They need to get government out of the affairs of business and into the most personal and private aspects of your life where it belongs.

if it becomes illegal to suck the gop will be locked up for life.

if it becomes illegal to suck the gop will be locked up for life.

Riverwolf007

if it becomes illegal to suck the gop will be locked up for life.

Riverwolf007

It is hard to figure why a political party that sucks as much as the GOP does would be against oral sex.

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Kind of pointless since the Supreme Court declared laws against consentual sodomy unconstitutional a few years ago with Lawrence v. Texas. Some areas may still have them on the books but good luck enforcing them. Even the military isn't allowed to punish troops for consensual sodomy anymore despite it still being part of the UCMJ.worlock77

There's a grey area if they can get the supreme court to this it's a... forget the exact word, but when something is generally considered "out of the norm" it's not protected under the 1st amendment.

Scat porn is illegal in the United States, and viewing of the content can lead to an arrest. I forge the exact legal name - I'll think about it in a sec.

^^
Obscenity. If the can prove it's generally unacceptable by the majority pop they can make it illegal.

What you're talking about is something entirely different from what the topic is about. Distributing obscene materials is not the same thing as consenting adults engaging in private acts behind closed doors. And anti-sodomy laws, such as the one proposed here, have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

And no, it takes a little more to have something ruled "obscene" than just being unacceptable by the majority. Were that the case then untold scores of books, music, films, games, etc would have been declared obscene by now. (re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test)

Isn't incest illegal in some places? I don't live in the States so I'm not entirely familiar with the laws there. But I'm almost positive that it's illegal somewhere in the States, if not the whole country. 

you guys are apparently neglecting my posts and continuing to take Cuccinelli's position out of context.

ITT: most people jump to conclusions, few actually do the research.

I wish I could like one of the two major parties, I really do. But both keep on proving to me why I shouldn't.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

There's a grey area if they can get the supreme court to this it's a... forget the exact word, but when something is generally considered "out of the norm" it's not protected under the 1st amendment.

Scat porn is illegal in the United States, and viewing of the content can lead to an arrest. I forge the exact legal name - I'll think about it in a sec.

^^
Obscenity. If the can prove it's generally unacceptable by the majority pop they can make it illegal.

Tropictrain

What you're talking about is something entirely different from what the topic is about. Distributing obscene materials is not the same thing as consenting adults engaging in private acts behind closed doors. And anti-sodomy laws, such as the one proposed here, have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

And no, it takes a little more to have something ruled "obscene" than just being unacceptable by the majority. Were that the case then untold scores of books, music, films, games, etc would have been declared obscene by now. (re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test)

Isn't incest illegal in some places? I don't live in the States so I'm not entirely familiar with the laws there. But I'm almost positive that it's illegal somewhere in the States, if not the whole country.

you guys are apparently neglecting my posts and continuing to take Cuccinelli's position out of context.

ITT: most people jump to conclusions, few actually do the research.

whipassmt

I know the position is being taken out of context. There are comments in the article itself explaining that. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

What you're talking about is something entirely different from what the topic is about. Distributing obscene materials is not the same thing as consenting adults engaging in private acts behind closed doors. And anti-sodomy laws, such as the one proposed here, have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

And no, it takes a little more to have something ruled "obscene" than just being unacceptable by the majority. Were that the case then untold scores of books, music, films, games, etc would have been declared obscene by now. (re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test)

whipassmt

Isn't incest illegal in some places? I don't live in the States so I'm not entirely familiar with the laws there. But I'm almost positive that it's illegal somewhere in the States, if not the whole country.

Was the daughter a minor though or an adult?

I wish I could like one of the two major parties, I really do. But both keep on proving to me why I shouldn't.

sherman-tank1

so much senseless bullshyt.

the country is run by a bunch of greedy little toads with more interest in the pursuit or personal power and financial profit than in an interest in the common good.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

There's a grey area if they can get the supreme court to this it's a... forget the exact word, but when something is generally considered "out of the norm" it's not protected under the 1st amendment.

Scat porn is illegal in the United States, and viewing of the content can lead to an arrest. I forge the exact legal name - I'll think about it in a sec.

^^
Obscenity. If the can prove it's generally unacceptable by the majority pop they can make it illegal.

Tropictrain

What you're talking about is something entirely different from what the topic is about. Distributing obscene materials is not the same thing as consenting adults engaging in private acts behind closed doors. And anti-sodomy laws, such as the one proposed here, have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

And no, it takes a little more to have something ruled "obscene" than just being unacceptable by the majority. Were that the case then untold scores of books, music, films, games, etc would have been declared obscene by now. (re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test)

Isn't incest illegal in some places? I don't live in the States so I'm not entirely familiar with the laws there. But I'm almost positive that it's illegal somewhere in the States, if not the whole country. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#United_States

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="UltimateviL"]My wife and I would get locked away for life :P Seriously though, I hate politicians that try to take the fun out of life. "The government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."worlock77

It doesn't matter what Cuccinell intends, what matters is the law as it is written. And as written this law could be used to prosecute consenting adults, hence why it was struck down.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

Isn't incest illegal in some places? I don't live in the States so I'm not entirely familiar with the laws there. But I'm almost positive that it's illegal somewhere in the States, if not the whole country.

Tropictrain

Was the daughter a minor though or an adult?

This nonsense should be illegal.

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Yes. I saw on the local news a few months ago, a father and daughter were both arrested for incest in Connecticut and their child was taken from them.

whipassmt

Was the daughter a minor though or an adult?

I would assume no, but then again I'm not from the States. lol And the wiki link provided above confirmed that various states do have laws against incest even among adults. So this disproves the comment made about there not being any laws prohibited sexual acts among consenting adults. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

What you're talking about is something entirely different from what the topic is about. Distributing obscene materials is not the same thing as consenting adults engaging in private acts behind closed doors. And anti-sodomy laws, such as the one proposed here, have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

And no, it takes a little more to have something ruled "obscene" than just being unacceptable by the majority. Were that the case then untold scores of books, music, films, games, etc would have been declared obscene by now. (re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test)

Fightingfan

Isn't incest illegal in some places? I don't live in the States so I'm not entirely familiar with the laws there. But I'm almost positive that it's illegal somewhere in the States, if not the whole country. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#United_States

Damn, life inprisonment in some states? Isn't that a little overboard?

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Yes. I saw on the local news a few months ago, a father and daughter were both arrested for incest in Connecticut and their child was taken from them.

whipassmt

Was the daughter a minor though or an adult?