Wait--Occam's razor is that a notorious liar and user of people is being completely honest and had no ulterior motive in his approval of a lunatic? That seems contradictory.
You have convinced me, I'd like to amend my answer. I'd say him seeking counsel from a lunatic, and him being a conniving liar are equally plausible.
Geez! You nailed it. And look at all those people liking the shit in this thread! WTF is up with that?
You're openly bi-sexual right? So when it was illegal to have same-sex intercourse in this country should you have been jailed for breaking that law?
There's a huge difference between raping someone, robbing people, murdering people, and pillaging/rioting communities.....and having consensual sex with someone. And since having gay sex hasn't been illegal at the Federal level in my lifetime, then I'm ignoring that example. In fact, when doing a quick google search, I can find no instance (google search was "who was the last person to be arrested for homosexuality?") in THIS country of anyone actually being arrested just for being gay in the last 40 years. Unfortunately, yes. They're out there; mainly in the Northern parts of Portland (specifically, my experience has been in the North West side of Portland; industrial and urban), and in Hillsboro. Which is a shame, because many people who live there are good folks just trying to get by.
You conveniently picked the post-hippy date of 40 years ago, and inserted the word "Federal." Better not travel to conservative states. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ed_for_having_consensual_sex_in_some_red.html
Nice try, but I already saw the Slate article. The cases that they cite there are domestic violence cases (Slate conveniently ignores that) and prostitution cases. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "homosexual acts", as the article is trying to push. But officer......I don't know anything about no guns!
A buddy of mine had the state of california confiscate his guns. He had a loud argument with his then wife and the cops came. He wasn't arrested or anything. The next day, he was presented an order to surrender his guns. Which he did. I don't think that's constitutional. I do think it might be OK to turn over the guns for a while to cool down. We don't want domestic disputes to escalate to shootings. But forever? That's a violation of the 2nd.
My article links to this one. http://theweek.com/articles/465821/why-many-states-still-have-antisodomy-laws Regardless, it was within your lifetime that police routinely ran stings in bathroom stalls. I used to read about them definitely in the 80s and maybe in the 90s.
Guns confiscated over an argument? With no physical violence? Personally, I think that's going a bit too far. If I were the responding officers, I think a more reasonable approach would simply be to break up the couple for the evening until things cool down. Which is how I think the majority of police responses to arguments end. Alcohol also plays a part in that. Sober up for a night and reapproach things with your significant other when you're sober. But coming by with an order to sieze guns without physical harm or a history of domestic violence? Over a heated argument? Yeah, that's a bit much in my opinion. But this is California. The politicians know what's best for the people. .....I trust I don't have to use green font for sarcasm there....
Okay, I'm going to use common sense here and say that there was likely a LOT more to that woman having her job offer rescinded than simply being Lesbian. Especially if the SUPREME COURT denied her appeal. "Stings in bathroom stalls"....for SOLICITING SEX. It has nothing to do with being gay. They were arrested for SOLICITING SEX. Try and keep up. Your articles are blowing shit greatly out of proportion; especially as it is trying to compare the solicitation of people under the age of 18 for sexual activity with that of a gay person being denied a job. Nevermind the fact that you are derailing this thread further away from the original topic. So just stop while you're behind.
So you're just going to ignore those 3 examples. You just say you're against solicitation for sex, when it's not for money. The articles I used to read were of a man playing footsy with a man in an adjoining stall. It was not prostitution. In the 70s and 80s, public stalls always had gay messages scrawled on the wall, sometimes with phone numbers. You have no problem with police busting people for that.
So you JUST ADMITTED that it was for the purposes of SOLICITING SEX. Which, in most locals, is ILLEGAL. Money doesn't have to change hands in order for that to apply. Remember....the basis of this argument is: OBEY THE LAW. You run a far less risk of not going to prison, or having the police arrest you or confiscate your things, if you simply OBEY THE LAW. And soliciting sex in a public bathroom is AGAINST THE LAW. Again....try and keep up here. And get back on the topic at hand. I'm getting tired of having to explain this to someone who I assumed was smart enough to figure all of this out on his own.
