So, conversely.............

A few years ago, Ann Coulter famously stated that: "There is no constitutional right to sodomy" and the right-wing applauded her brilliance.  She was right of course, there was and is no constitutional right to sodomy. What was missing however, was the converse argument which seemed to have been omitted or, at least, quietly ignored.  That being: There is no constitutional right to vaginal intercourse or any sexual position/act. What she said was true but it was also completely dishonest as arguments go.  It was a sound bite constructed to create a half-truth.  We bring this up because, like Coulter, Pastor(?) Foster today tweeted a similarly snide and duplicitous argument, that being: since Jesus didn't speak approvingly of homosexuality, it must follow that he, in fact, disapproved.  Uh no.  The reason it fails is because, the example above, the argument has a converse argument which, by the standard applied, is equally 'valid.'  It's bullshit of course but, hey, whatever works to get the masses believing what you want them to.  The TTM happily retorts.......

Original tweet

Translation:

Aaaand scene.....

end of line........