OffensivelyOpenMinded
Gold Member
- Apr 13, 2016
- 9,612
- 1,085
It doesn't. But it doesn't say states cannot decide to repress homosexuality either. It doesn't mention homosexuality at all...because the idea of homosexuality being anything but a criminal offense to nature and it's laws never crossed their mind. They were sane, they were thinkers.... The founders would be turning over in their graves if they saw what this country has become.Huh?So where in the constudoes it say repression of homosexuality is the law of the land?I'm not revisioning anything, I am giving you an originalist perspective. Originalist means I respect what the document originally intended.How much "revisionism" do you want? Roll back in other civil rights? Roll back worker's rights? And what is noble about criminalizing homosexuality? Why is it good? Who benefits? Who gets hurt? And to what end?There's no irony in it. Faggotry was punishable by death in many places here when the constitution was written. It was never meant to support or promote faggotry. I think it's hilarious that you don't understand that and follow a revisionist line.
So where in the constitution does it say repression of homosexuality is the law of the land?