Texas GOP Platform Calls For Imprisonment of Homosexuals

[JayHawk]

He doesn't bring it to me, but he makes a full pot in the morning and when I wake up and stumble into the kitchen, it's usually already made. When it's not, I ask... "where's the coffee?"

And he usually snaps back "at the grocery store where you forget to buy it, asshole."

And then I make tea. Or he does.

either way.

LOL... ok context is good

Back to topic

 

[construct]

Being Gay and acting on your sexual desires are two completely different things.

Construct, are you reading this?

Yes. I'd just transpose it to read, "Desiring an intimate relationship with a member of ones own sex and acting on your sexual desires are two completely different things." That kind of goes without saying doesn't it?



The Texas homosexual conduct law (which is still on the books) criminalizes acts. I don't know what these Texas Republicans are yammering on about. They've already got it. It's criminalized. Done. Next. (Of course, there is that problem with Lawrence v. Texas that makes that law or anything remotely similar to it unenforceable, but there's nothing these Republicans can do about that no matter how much they froth at the mouth.)

Perhaps they're upset that the Texas law does not call for imprisonment. Indeed, no one was ever imprisoned under it. Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner weren't imprisoned under it. It's a class C misdemeanor like speeding. It's punishable by a fine up to $500 . . . per incident. That's not quite as cheap as condoms, but it's not jail time.

They did say, however, that they wanted to make it a felony for any public official to celebrate a so-called gay marriage. They want it to be a felony, folks. That means at least some time in a jail . . . not for committing a homosexual act but for celebrating a gay wedding.

I don't care how you try to weasel around all this, MysticWizard. You can quibble all you like with the thread title, but the Texas Republican platform is evil . . . unmitigated evil.

The Texas Republican Party is controlled top to bottom by Christian political extremists. There is no such thing as a moderate Republican in a position of leadership in the Texas Republican Party. Texas is not goddamn New England, boys and girls. Quibbling over whether ALL Republicans oppose gay rights is utterly irrelevant to anyone living in Texas (like me, for instance). NO Texas Republican with any clout at all favors anything that would make life easier or more convenient for any gay person. There's no need for us Democrats to paint Texas Republicans with a broad brush. They've already painted themselves.

 

[MystikWizard]

I've been with my husband for 18 years.

18 YEARS.

when I married him, I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

When I cared for him when he was sick, I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

When I washed his underwear, I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

When I bought him a motorcycle, I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

When I talked him into moving with me to a new country, I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

When I waited for him to get home, I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

When I woke up this morning and said "where's my coffee?" I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

But the whole time, he was my husband.

The GOPigs of Texas want to make our marriage punishable by jail time. They want to make it illegal that we're not cowering in the closet like good Republicans.

And you are defending them.

Just so we're clear.

I am not defending them. I already stated that I do not agree with the GOP platform in Texas regarding oral sex.

However, speaking of Oral sex, when you want to suck your husband's penis, and vice versa (oral sex), which is what their platform is about, then yes you are acting on your sexual desires.

All I want to see is a spade called a spade in this situation. Again, if you are a woman performing oral on a man according to the GOP platform, you would be just as guilty.

All I am getting at is false advertising as far as the thread title is concerned. It is heavily implied that the GOP platform is calling for Gays to be imprisoned because of their orientation, and as I've pointed out several times, that isn't the case. So the headline is misleading.

That was my only beef with the whole thing going on here. I never said that I agree with their platform. I obviously do not.

Thank you, kindly.

 

[MercuryJones]

It is heavily implied that the GOP platform is calling for Gays to be imprisoned because of their orientation,

Not so.

Mystik didn't even know about the sodomy plank in the Republican platform - he had to have it located for him.

No one likes to make a mistake in public, but by doubling down you just compound your error and your embarrassment.

 

[hotatlboi]

All I want to see is a spade called a spade in this situation.

lmao, you seem to be the only one not doing that by feigning a misconstruction where there is none.

The only reason the GOP says they want to ban sodomy is their hatred for gay people. If you can't see that then you aren't very perceptive imo.

 

[MollyontheShore]

One more reason to avoid Texas like the intellectual plague that it is (no offense to people from Texas, it's mostly the GOP).

 

[IllgetyouHackman]

You're being extremely misleading yet again. It doesn't say anything about doing prison time if you violate the sodomy law. It's punishable by a fine. Actually Texas is the only state whose sodomy laws don't include jail time as a punishment.

Virginia, Utah, South Carolina, Alabama, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Missouri, Mississippi, Michigan, Louisiana, Kansas, Idaho, and Florida all call for jail time.

I'm sorry but what sodomy laws are there? Did I fall asleep for 7 years and Lawrence v. Texas was overturned? Can't we just all agree that this is absurd scapegoating at best? These people need to find better things to do with their time.

 

[MercuryJones]

I'm sorry but what sodomy laws are there? Did I fall asleep for 7 years and Lawrence v. Texas was overturned?

Lawrence doesn't remove the laws from the books. It just makes them irrelevant.

The Texas Republican Platform seeks for the feds to effectively step aside and let them apply their own laws. It's not going to happen, but it's vile of them just the same.

 

[IllgetyouHackman]

Lawrence doesn't remove the laws from the books. It just makes them irrelevant.

The Texas Republican Platform seeks for the feds to effectively step aside and let them apply their own laws. It's not going to happen, but it's vile of them just the same.

Just seems to me we post what bigots think to ruffle our own feathers here, no sense in it.

 

[construct]

Just seems to me we post what bigots think to ruffle our own feathers here, no sense in it.

Whether we're ruffling our own feathers or they're ruffling our feathers, our feathers need to be ruffled. And if yours aren't, I'll ruffle 'em for ya.

 

[construct]

Texas Democrats amended the state sodomy law to remove jail-time, not Republicans. Democrats held the majority leadership in the Seventy-third Texas Legislature (1993) when that change took place. So taking down the homo-bashing a notch was not a GOP victory, and probably not one Republicans would have ever made.

I missed this before. Let me just speak as kind of a footnote here about the history (and other things). I was working on this back in 1993.

In 1993, the whole Penal Code was due to sunset out. If it had not passed, there would be no criminal code in Texas. The Democratic Governor, Ann Richards, had promised during her election campaign to remove the homosexual conduct law from the code. The committee draft had a homosexual conduct section. It was identical to the revision that was passed as part of the old criminal code when it was enacted in 1973. I called the Democratic chair of the committee and demanded its removal threatening a lobbying effort against the whole code should that not happen. He became very angry with me and told me that the Republicans threatened to block the code if it were not left in. Since then, the fine for a Class C misdemeanor has been raised, but the homosexual conduct law hasn't changed since 1973.

I know full well that somebody is fixing to shriek that he's been thrown under the bus. Wrong. The bus was already upon you. I call your attention to the speed and size of that bus so that you'll be aware of how difficult it was to have saved you from that bus.

That section of the penal code (21.06) is still there waiting to spring into action the moment Lawrence is overturned.

In a previous post, I noted that in this instance a Class C misdemeanor is nothing to make light of. You would be subject to a $500 fine each and every time you go down on somebody. That's why my comparison to the cost of condoms was apropos. Just because the punishment doesn't happen to be jail time doesn't mean it's not egregiously burdensome. So all Mystic Wizard's quibbling about the thread title is pointless, stupid, and, oh what's the right word, unhelpful.

Have a nice day.

 

[T-Rexx]

How sad it is that the major America political party choses to advocate bigotry and hatred as national policy.

And how much sadder that this policy works so well for them amongst the American electorate.

 

[construct]

O and btw, did you forget to add a quote before the second half of your post?

No. I looked for one, but I found so many that I figured I'd just talk about some things in a general sort of way. Perhaps I forgot to skip an extra double-space. In any case, the last few paragraphs were not directed particularly toward you. They hoped for a much more general audience.

 

[Kulindahr]

LOL

Kind of like talking to a person with schizophrenia.

Or dual personality?