Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually it was frowned upon in those societies...even the Roman society who had a lot of gays. But the societies as a whole still frowned upon them ESPECIALLY if you took the submissive role.
Says who?
And it doesn't even matter. For the bulk of human history, sex is just sex. Perfectly human. Perfectly natural. People have sex. People want to have sex, and they do. In all sorts of ways, in all sorts of positions.
We only started moralizing about sex when the state established a connection between sex and property. It's completely unnecessary in our modern world to moralize about sex.
And it doesn't even matter. For the bulk of human history, sex is just sex. Perfectly human. Perfectly natural. People have sex. People want to have sex, and they do. In all sorts of ways, in all sorts of positions.
We only started moralizing about sex when the state established a connection between sex and property. It's completely unnecessary in our modern world to moralize about sex.
Well Obama opposed the "born alive" bill 3 times. I guess it doesn't matter to him if the baby is born alive or not.
I guess you don't have any clue whatsoever on how to do research.
The "born alive" bill was brought up multiple times because it failed multiple times. Why did it fail? Because Illinois already has laws protecting infants born alive. The "born alive" bill was pointless. Not only was it pointless, but passing a law, when there is already a law on the books, creates confusion and ambiguity in the laws. It's like passing a law against red cars speeding, when there is already a law against cars speeding. A policeman writes up a citation for someone breaking the red car speeding law, and the person argues in court, they were driving a blue car. Anyone with a law degree knows redundant laws are BAD laws.
I guess you don't have any clue whatsoever on how to do research.
The "born alive" bill was brought up multiple times because it failed multiple times. Why did it fail? Because Illinois already has laws protecting infants born alive. The "born alive" bill was pointless. Not only was it pointless, but passing a law, when there is already a law on the books, creates confusion and ambiguity in the laws. It's like passing a law against red cars speeding, when there is already a law against cars speeding. A policeman writes up a citation for someone breaking the red car speeding law, and the person argues in court, they were driving a blue car. Anyone with a law degree knows redundant laws are BAD laws.
Not true. Obama claimed that he voted against the Illinois BAIPA because it failed to contain a “neutrality clause” making it clear that the bill did not affect the right to an abortion. It had nothing to do with what you claimed.
MUAHAHA... "we don't believe a woman should suffer because of an unwanted post pregnancy"
I loved that the dude at about 2mins said "no, they should decide by the 1st trimester" and he (the petitioner) stood back and asked "why do you hate women?"
A law degree isn't necessary, however common sense is. Overlap and redundancy is clogging the government, and killing this country.
Agreed. But since this particular tangent was about Obama, and Obama has a law degree, the remark seemed pertinent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.