Even vegetables and fruits!?? So you could seriously go to jail for eating a fruit and its seed and thereby having oral sex with an apple tree? (Ya, you swallow its seed)

And just what if someone where to shove a banana up their.... Never mind...

You probably shouldn't google it, not unless you want to be scarred for life.

Just don't squeeze that lemon juice in your eyes... Prison 6 years!!

In an explicit, sexual manner, probably, but "'any act of sexual gratification involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another, anus to mouth or involving invasion of the anus or vagina of one person by a foreign object manipulated by another person."

So theoretically, if someone were feeding me apples.... And the banana poses a problem, you would have to hold it and i would have to sit.... I'm just gonna go make out with an orange or something

Me thinks you're reading a bit too much into it.

Nothing of what i say should be taken seriously, i'm just joking

I figured so.

Naw, that's Michigan

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/1.....wn-front-yard/

no sodomy laws are just stupid anyway
Blame them laws on church going people
like STFU!! SEX IS FUN!!!!

Sleeping beats sex, by far even. Sorry but it's true

true I agree but what happens AFTER sex?
You go to sleep quickly

Well, you have to tire yourself out of course, usually doing some very exhausting activity involving.... Various things... Tihi

Lol, fun fun.

"Now I can love melons in the privacy of my own home without fear!"

well if they tried to punish by those laws in past befor elegalizing it Well law suit and bam insta rich as it was ruled unconstitutional in court and supreme court. and guess what homosexual sex and stuff and relation ships is seen as sodomy thus iderectly this legalizes marragie or sets grounds for it.

No it doesn't. It means that sodomy (aka deviant sexual acts) is legal, it doesn't legalize marriage between homosexual couples. It sets the groundwork for same-sex marriage, but that is up to the state, and whether or not the state will recognize marriage licenses between same-sex couples. That is a completely different can of worms.

yet if feds reconise hetero then by equal protection laws it has to reconise same sex or of 2 consenting adults. and thus even states have to reconise it.

Yes, if marriage licenses are moved to Federal Jurisdiction, then all states have to recognize them, or if there is Bill passed by Congress and Ratified by the President, or if an Amendment introduced and ratified by a 2/3rds majority that states that marriage is between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man, et cetera. However, I am failing to see your point. I do not want to criticize, but I can barely understand what you are saying or trying to convey by the way you are typing.

well supreme court ruled marraige a right. there for no law can deny a right if you allow one couple to marry then has to apply to all consenting adult couples. evne cousins can be legal but thats up to the adults but it can be blocked due ot health. so DOMA violates the civil right to marraige. as well 1st amend of seperation of church and state. thus should stay to consenting adults which would rule out beast and pedo as both no both consenting adults.

Please show me where in the Amendment I where it says separation of church and state, and which US Supreme Court Ruling it was that says marriage is a right.

I am for equality of marriage and separation of church and state, however, separation of church and state does not appear in the Bill of Rights, it was a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson to explain the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and Free exercise clause. I would like to see the Court summary of the case where marriage is considered a right.

well its a news peice but may sem bias but it uses court ruleings as reference http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ge.....ivil-Right.htm . and 1st amendment free speech and press soon but also seperation of church and state. this means can not use religion dogma to create laws favoring one religion or another and so on. and cant use government law to truely opress the church. or practice there of. SO churches can say dislike gay marragie and can not be forced to host the wedding[ unless they rent out their building to host weddings publicly which then it falls under buisness regulations and thus can not descriminate] and so on and thus lets it be up to the worshipers choice to have or not have but can not u se its dogma to force peopel to not have.

and it was referenced by jefferson and his idea and outlook of the 1st amend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separa....._United_States

even with out the seperation of church and state. it woudl still violate 1st amend. as marraige being define as man and women comes from biblical texts and thus religion law or dogma. there for defining it only as man and women is courts favoring religion or A religion which is actualy violate of 1st amend.

So you're referencing Loving v Virginia (1967), which was used to uphold Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2008), in which the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the California Supreme Court's ruling that Proposition 8 was illegal and unconstitutional, however, the Supreme Court has not finished its ruling, which means that Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2008) could be overturned. The history of the Supreme Court includes cases that were upheld only to be repealed many years later, such as Plessy v Ferguson (1896) which was overturned by Brown v Board of Education (1954).

Marriage licenses are granted by the state, not the church, and are legal documents. See my previous entry about this: https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/4473553/

Jefferson's commentaries and the reason the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses exist is to prevent religious persecution. The Federal Government cannot declare a state religion or fund a state religion nor can it prevent people from exercising their rights to practice a religion.

Biblical marriages include men and women, but they also include polygamy, marriage between man and a slave, marriage between two slaves, and variations there of, but it also depends on which version of the texts you are using; the Christian Bible, the Torah and Levitical Law, or Islam and its various commentaries.

Slavery is still technically legal in the United States so long as it is used as a form of punishment. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Amendment 13, Section 1.

Polygamy and Polyandry are also illegal under Model Penal Code Section 230.1, which makes it a crime. However, that is not a separation of church and state, it is the state violating religious rights, since Polygamy and Polyandry are legal in several religions, primarily Mormonism and Islam.

Also, you cited about.com and wikipedia. About.com and wikipedia are not considered by anyone to be good reference cites as about.com is considered a periodical/blog and wikipedia can be re-written by any viewer.

well by the current laws and constitution it has to be legalized due to how the laws are. And it has to be called marraige for simpleness cause then you have to write in civil unions in each every law that has marraige as reference. and we know how sleezy insurance and stuff is cause they can then go Oh we apply marrage ratse to married couples not civil unions. and bam descrimination. and for poly say more for it long as all are consenting. and for simpleness of divorce its assets by 3rds not half of assets. frankly in poly marraige the husband or one designated as husband kinda screwed if ever a devorce lol. Yet you can marry by your religion all that but can only obtain benfiits of say couple of 2 cause thats federal law marraige designate the husband and wife. as federal law can not reconise religion law really but then again all one had to do set up rules for poly. as slave and slave is just 2 person marraige.

the basis for separation of church and state is that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or infringing on the free practice there of. and using what respecting meant back then in means in favor of, so congress cant make a law favoring one religion over another, in order for a law to be passed dealing with something religious they either have to find a wording that keeps it in favor of all religions (good luck) or a secular reason.

That's exactly what I said.

Are you referring to Hollingsworth v. Perry, because that did not declare same-sex marriage legal in the United States, and the court has not presented its ruling.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Thomas Jefferson used separation of church and state to describe the meaning of the Establishment and Free Expression Clauses.

Establishment Clause
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It's pretty straight forward. The Federal Government cannot declare a state religion for the United States. The reason for this was that the United Kingdom had two religions; Catholicism and the Anglican Church. Depending on who was in power, each church was recognized as the state religion and then unrecognized, however, when either religion was in power, they would persecute anyone and everyone who did not believe in their religion, often causing the deaths of thousands of people. It is why we have Pennsylvania and Massachusets; both of which were settled by political and religious dissidents from England. However, the Federal Government can recognize a group of people as a religion, even Atheism is recognized as a religion under the Federal Government.

Free Exercise Clause
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Congress cannot pass laws forbidding people to practice their religion, regardless of what religion it is. This was designed to protect people from the religious persecution faced by Catholics, Protestants, Humanists, and Atheists by England and other European Powers.

Personally I think bestiality should still be banded. I maybe a fur, but I thinking yiffing your pets or someone else's pets or any animal aside from humans is totally wrong. Dogs are said to have the mental equivalent of a 2-3 year old .. and thus animals can not consent to such acts.

As for gay marriage.. it will be passed eventually. It will take a few more years.. maybe a decade but it will eventually be passed.. While they legalize that, they should just legalize marriage between anything and anyone no matter how many are involved. Save the drama for all the poly's out there who want to be married to 30495309 people.. or the people out there who want to get married to their pet rock.. who cares.. the only thing it all really effects is tax laws...

and thus why the same sex marraige and stuff must be legalized cause it creates seperate class and keep a couple from reseaveing the same benifits. as well visitation rights in hospital.

well right now civil union have the same rights... and you can file joint on taxes and have hospital rights.... but what everyone is really fighting for is to get married anywhere, including the church. Domestic partnership has been around for awhile and it allows you to put your so in health insurance and what not. There are power of attorneys and other documents that allow a person to choose for you and act in your behalf..

What people are really fighting for is to be able to kiss in public.. been seen without discrimination by others as a couple. The rest is sooo... well.. minor. Hospital rights.... the only time you are not allowed in is if the family says no.. IF the family is there at all... and you can leave your stuff to anyone you want when you die.. it is called a will.. in fact.. sometimes being married doesn't mean you get everything that is left automatically anyway..

I hope this all gets passed in the next couple of years.. seems to be a world trend

yet there are family ordeals with that will when stuff is left to the partner. the family is spitefull and sense his marraige is or partnership is not reconised fully as marraige or a wife husband what ever. the family basicly goes aginst the partners back and changes the will with a lawyer. and basicly leaves him with nothing. if its reconised as a full marraige its harder to contest the will to leave out the partner. and as said above the insurance companys do not give same rates as a couple. joint taxes rates are not same as marraige taxes basicly. and in some areas the joint taxes rates are higher and thus gay couple has to pay more even though they are married. thus descrimination.

The only reason I bring up beastiality is that the law also repeals that on top of what is considered traditional sodomy or deviant sexual acts, ie. oral and anal sex.

Some progress is better than no progress.

Some laws in US are like from the medieval times I see :D