Why Are Republicans So Fixated On SEX???????

You tell me because I thought that they wanted government off of our backs (no pun intended). We actually have Republicans trying to institute anti-sodomy laws in this day and age. Really?

“My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts, are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country, it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that.” -Ken Cuccinelli

Today, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, gubernatorial candidate, culture warrior, and the man who has been successfully executing his plan to overturn Lawrence V Texas and reinstate sodomy laws, is On Our Radar.

Holy Rick Santorum Batman!

 

Unlike you, Little Joe, I believe consenting adults should be able to do what they want in their own bedrooms. In fact, I think anything (and I mean ANYTHING) should be allowed to have sex with you.

 

Yet you support a political party that does nothing but get into people's bedrooms. Hum? And really, your only answer is to make this about me? How pathetic.

 

The sad thing is, this proposed law would go against the practices of quite a few Republican politicians. Not to mention the Catholic church. It'll never gain traction.

 

But Coin personally is not like that. He only supports people who are. So I guess as long as you are in effect paying someone to shove the knife in rather than doing it yourself there is no blood on your hands.

 

I believe consenting adults should be able to do as they wish in the privacy of their own bedrooms, Takiji. Little Joe does not share my view. I can't speak for all Republicans of course and I know many Democrats who share Little Joe's narrow view. What is your opinion?

 

Within certain broad guidelines I agree. I don't think snuff film makers, for example, should be allowed to walk if they can somehow prove that their victims were in fact consenting. But generally, yes. I agree that the government needs to stay out of your bedroom. This is in contrast to the views held by the freedom-loving Republican members of certain Republican-controlled state legislatures. I think it's worth pointing out that none of this really speaks to questions such as marriage equality, and the availability not to mention legality of birth control.

 

They (republican politicians) demand the government stay out of their lives, while simultaneously writing laws that insist the government do just that..."to those people over there." You know...the heathens.

 

It sad when you have to make up words and put them in someone else's mouth to make yourself feel good.

Like I know that you believe that all black people should be shipped to Africa. It's a real sad belief on your part and we all wish that you would just grow up and try to treat people with respect but knowing the way you think, no one holds out much hope that you will ever get past your rabid racism anytime soon.

You also hate women, gays, civil rights, old people, most animals, the environment, Santa Claus, and sunny days. You worship Satan, regularly diet on puppies and kittens, push blind people down, and throw rocks at parades.

You're just a bad person.

 

LOL.. Say what you will about me. Just remember, it was YOU who said he was against allowing consenting adults the freedom to do what they want in the bedroom. Not me... YOU!

 

Yeah I know. The only freedom they care about is the freedom to limit the freedom of others.

 

Would you limit what two (or more) same-sex biological siblings should be allowed, under law, to do in the bedroom? Should their marriage be legalized and, if so, should they be free to consummate that marriage?

Our resident pinheaded liberal, Little Joe, calls the union of same-sex biological siblings "incest" and disagrees with legalizing their union if they plan on having sexual relations.

My argument is that same-sex biological siblings have ZERO chance of producing offspring which has been the age-old argument against opposite-sex siblings marrying.

So, if society is going to allow same-sex marriages, do we draw a line if the couple is too closely related? If so, why?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here....

 

What i want is for same-sex couples wherever they reside to be able to marry under the same terms that currently exist for heterosexual couples.

 

Do you mean "same sex" couples? I assume that's just a typo.

Anyway... the debate over same-sex marriage isn't really just about "same-sex" marriage. It's about marriage equality. If the debate focused only on "same-sex" marriage, that would be just a bit selfish on the part of same-sex couples, wouldn't you agree?

So, if society is going to allow marriage equality (not just opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage), then marriage should be equal for ALL people. Shouldn't it? Or do you disagree?

 

No, I would not agree. We are asking for a specific change in the law arising from a specific set of circumstances.

 

So, (Supreme Court case aside) are you saying that you don't agree that marriage should be equal for all people?

 

Until I've heard the arguments for "all people" I can't really say. Do you think all people should have the right to vote?

 

You must certainly have an opinion whether or not marriage should be permitted for "all people".

 

Equating same-sex marriage as being the same thing as marriage equality for all people is just a really poorly made argument from the git-go. Like your incest argument or the Right-wingers that say if you allow same-sex marriage then why not people and dogs. It's just plain taking a real situation involving millions of people being treated unfairly and equating their situation with an extreme unrealistic example strictly to try and draw a comparison that has no rationale connection to the real-world situation of same-sex marriage. This is a classic straw man fallacy of extension argument. In other words, same-sex marriage will lead to incestuous marriages and people being able to marry their dogs therefore same-sex marriage is the same as incest and bestiality. If this is the best argument you have, try again.

 

hat you're making here is a poorly disguised version of the slippery slope argument. There may be very good reasons for extending the bounds of marriage to include other types of couples, while in other cases there may not be. But you seem to be saying that if one supports marriage equality for some people under one set of circumstances then one must logically support marriage equality for "all people" under all circumstances. That's nonsense.