But I see no problem whatsoever with ratifying male-female sex as the norm and discouraging homosexual sex as a threat to the social order.
Your racial/gender analogy fails because we do have laws that pertain only to one sex because of biological reality. Equal protection survives only as far as the male and female body are reasonably equal. There you have it. Two hundred and fifty posts and no one's layed a glove on me.
Probably because social conservatism is actually more logical than libertarianism, by far.
I would normally see no problems with these types of laws, but for the fact that we have enough government intrusion as it is. The only way you can consistently enforce this law is to monitor people in their homes and that ain't going to happen. Look at how this case has played out and look how they were found.
Men cannot become pregnant, therefore we could prohibit abortions without discriminating against women or men, but you made me think about future possibilities.
In the future, some San Francisco doctor might find a sick way to impregnate men and make men pregnant through artificial means. If men become pregnant, abortion of an 8-month baby should be illegal.
Whether a pregnant woman or a pregnant man, the issue is the life of an 8-month baby.
At present, a woman can perform cunnilingus.
A man can perform cunnilingus.
Cunnilingus is not necessary for procreation.
You might have the heart on the right place, (trying to curtail immoral behavior), but your head should tell you that it is difficult to convince the Supreme Court to accept this Texas law.
I hope to see you on another thread agreeing 100%
I'm invincible! The Black Knight always triumphs!