If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(HelenaIR.com)   Montana GOP ends call to make homosexual acts illegal. This is not a repeat from the 1980s   (helenair.com) divider line 85
    More: Amusing, GOP, Montana, sex life, gays and lesbians, local taxes, GOP ends  
•       •       •

2375 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2012 at 1:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-21 01:05:55 PM
serious, these people need to stay out of the bedrooms of american citizens. what one consenting adult does with another concenting adult behind closed doors is not something that should be legislated.
 
2012-06-21 01:12:32 PM
Don't most of the bills also ban the stuff hetero couples do?

//Party of Small Government FTL
 
2012-06-21 01:16:01 PM
Of course Republicans want those acts made illegal... Legalizing them just means longer lines at their favorite glory hole.
 
2012-06-21 01:21:08 PM
Farking Republicans.
 
2012-06-21 01:24:08 PM

Cythraul: Farking Republicans.


That's the problem.
 
2012-06-21 01:25:57 PM
Can public dancing be far behind?
 
2012-06-21 01:30:48 PM
I think there are three states that still prosecute sodomy laws. They figure that since they aren't applied specifically to gay sodomy that they weren't affected by Lawrence v. Texas.
 
2012-06-21 01:32:28 PM
The GOP had held the position seeking to criminalize homosexuality since a 1997 Montana Supreme Court case struck down similar state laws. The party had been criticized in recent years for continuing to maintain the stance.

Is that a Larry Craig joke?
 
2012-06-21 01:32:38 PM
Of course, they're not actually calling on the party to admit that such acts are legal; nor for the party to say they should be legal. They've just decided to shut up about it in favor of spending more time pushing for issues they still have a hope in hell of getting laws passed on that will withstand court challenges.
 
2012-06-21 01:35:15 PM
FTFA: The GOP had held the position seeking to criminalize homosexuality since a 1997 Montana Supreme Court case struck down similar state laws. The party had been criticized in recent years for continuing to maintain the wide stance.

FTFTA
 
2012-06-21 01:37:45 PM
Also,

The party in the past had said that it had remained since no one had ever taken the initiative to change it and pointed out that it represented a wide stance that the legislature should make laws and not the courts.

FTFTAA
 
2012-06-21 01:42:00 PM
Trudeau was a Prime Minister that people either loved or hated. One thing I think we all agree on though, is when he said this in 1967, he was right.

"We take the position that there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

Now, I love you Americans, I really do, but you scare me at times.
 
2012-06-21 01:43:09 PM
See at first I saw subby's headline and I thought the Montana was taking anti-sodomy laws off the books, since the Supreme Court long ago ruled them unconstitutional.

Then I read the article and saw they were trying to get around the SC and get them BACK on the books. goddamnitsomuch.

The delegates did, however, make it clear at Saturday's platform convention that the party supports "the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman," adding the sentence to the national affairs portion of its platform.

Does this mean they admit that marriage equality shouldn't be governed by states' rights?
 
2012-06-21 01:44:17 PM
For how much they hate Muslims, GOPers sure love Sharia Law. Seems like you could swap out a GOP legislature with a radical Islamic council of Imams and see practically no difference in their social agenda.
 
2012-06-21 01:45:49 PM
It's so strange that the GOP supposedly opposes government intrusion into peoples' lives and favors small government...and yet on the other hand, they would approve of laws that literally intrude into the bedrooms of grown adults and go so far as to make certain sex acts illegal. I just don't get it. Even if they find gay sex to be personally distasteful, I would still think their political ideology would prevent them from passing any laws against it. That's the epitome of 'Big Brother' government.
 
2012-06-21 01:46:22 PM

meat0918: Don't most of the bills also ban the stuff hetero couples do?


Not Republican hetero couples, because going into the bedroom and climbing under the covers with the lights out, then pulling down one's pajama bottoms immediately followed by 40 seconds of missionary-position pumping and then a long shower to wash off the shame, would still be legal under the these laws.
 
2012-06-21 01:46:34 PM

effexca: Trudeau was a Prime Minister that people either loved or hated. One thing I think we all agree on though, is when he said this in 1967, he was right.

"We take the position that there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

Now, I love you Americans, I really do, but you scare me at times.


Excuse me? Americans? You must be thinking of republicans. The rest of us long ago decided that what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business. You want whips, chains, pornography, oral sex or paper cups - ain't nobody else's business; just provide your own first-aid kits and give me warning of needing eye bleach before you show off the pictures of grandma.
 
2012-06-21 01:46:51 PM
I wonder to what degree these same people engage in or try to engage in or want to engage heterosexual activities that aren't strictly penis-vagina intercourse. Oral sex, anal sex, pegging, toys, petting, and so on. Because if they don't have a problem with a woman giving a man a blowjob, or a man going down on a woman, they really shouldn't have a problem with a man giving a man a blowjob, or a woman going down on a woman.

This movement to treat the LGBT community as second-class citizens is filled with so much cognitive dissonance that I have a hard time believing these peoples' heads haven't exploded out of sheer irony.
 
2012-06-21 01:47:00 PM
Town of Buttfark, MT: "Come at in me, bro!"

// too much?
 
2012-06-21 01:47:36 PM

effexca: Trudeau was a Prime Minister that people either loved or hated. One thing I think we all agree on though, is when he said this in 1967, he was right.

"We take the position that there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

Now, I love you Americans, I really do, but you scare me at times.


Imagine how we feel!
 
2012-06-21 01:47:52 PM

Karac: See at first I saw subby's headline and I thought the Montana was taking anti-sodomy laws off the books, since the Supreme Court long ago ruled them unconstitutional.

Then I read the article and saw they were trying to get around the SC and get them BACK on the books. goddamnitsomuch.

The delegates did, however, make it clear at Saturday's platform convention that the party supports "the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman," adding the sentence to the national affairs portion of its platform.

Does this mean they admit that marriage equality shouldn't be governed by states' rights?


I doubt it. But it does seem to indicate that if SCOTUS ever makes a supportive decision for gay marriage regarding Prop 8 or DOMA in a way that applies that decision federally, states like Montana will try and find ways to keep their bigotry ball rolling, despite such a SC ruling.
 
2012-06-21 01:48:05 PM
The GOP is obsessed with the packing of fudge.
 
2012-06-21 01:48:41 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: For how much they hate Muslims, GOPers sure love Sharia Law. Seems like you could swap out a GOP legislature with a radical Islamic council of Imams and see practically no difference in their social agenda.


Yeah, but you're missing the point. It's not Sharia when "Christians" do it, because America is God's gift to us.

/ I use the word Christian here loosely.
 
2012-06-21 01:48:57 PM
"And to ensure no such illegal acts occur the Prime Sponsor of the measure will don chaps and a leather vest and go undercover at Rod's ManHole every night. Especially Tuesday, because that's when that guy who looks like Wesley Snipes likes to try the Argentinian Badminton Slap."
 
2012-06-21 01:49:50 PM

Gotfire: The GOP is obsessed with the packing of fudge.


Obligatory:

media.reason.com
 
2012-06-21 01:49:56 PM
While we're at it, can we make being nearsighted illegal? Some people develop that way, biologically, and I want my gubment mandated lasik.

I guess that will happen after they outlaw polyester blends, non-kosher foods, and short hair for women. They need to hurry up, I am just ITCHING to lob rocks for Jesus.

/It's what he would want.
 
2012-06-21 01:50:45 PM

Karac: effexca: Trudeau was a Prime Minister that people either loved or hated. One thing I think we all agree on though, is when he said this in 1967, he was right.

"We take the position that there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

Now, I love you Americans, I really do, but you scare me at times.

Excuse me? Americans? You must be thinking of republicans. The rest of us long ago decided that what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business.


My mistake. Apologies.
 
2012-06-21 01:54:24 PM

Dr Dreidel: Town of Buttefark, MT


FTFY

/Go Pirates
 
2012-06-21 01:54:38 PM

Cyberluddite: Gotfire: The GOP is obsessed with the packing of fudge.

Obligatory:

[media.reason.com image 395x264]


Does the board behind him on the right say "Americano Steamer"?
 
2012-06-21 01:55:16 PM
Check out the very end of TFA: The Montana Democratic Party jabbed the Republicans over the reversal. "We welcome the current leaders of the Montana Republican Party to the 21st century, after decades of trying to get the government to invade the private lives of Montanans," said party executive director Ted Dick.

The Dems sent out a guy whose last name is "Dick" to comment on this? Excellent trolling there, guys.
 
2012-06-21 01:56:32 PM

Cyberluddite: Check out the very end of TFA: The Montana Democratic Party jabbed the Republicans over the reversal. "We welcome the current leaders of the Montana Republican Party to the 21st century, after decades of trying to get the government to invade the private lives of Montanans," said party executive director Ted Dick.

The Dems sent out a guy whose last name is "Dick" to comment on this? Excellent trolling there, guys.


I noticed that too, and found it interesting. Usually, most of the famous "Dick" politicians I know of are all Republican.
 
2012-06-21 01:57:36 PM
Government so small it'll fit into your underpants, apparently.
 
2012-06-21 02:00:29 PM
The GOP had held the position seeking to criminalize homosexuality since a 1997 Montana Supreme Court case struck down similar state laws. The party had been criticized in recent years for continuing to maintain the stance.

They understand that Lawrence v. Texas prevents them from doing this, right? Or do they just not care that the first time they tried to enforce such a law, even Clarence Thomas would laugh them out of court?
 
2012-06-21 02:01:54 PM
"It's midnight in Montana and I can't get my d*ck out of this cow."

\RIP Carlin
 
2012-06-21 02:03:30 PM
Even the most goosestepping conservatives make themselves scarce in threads like these lately.
 
2012-06-21 02:06:11 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

Gotta remind this guy to stay out of Montana. They don't seem to like the guys there.
 
2012-06-21 02:07:25 PM

Cyberluddite: Check out the very end of TFA: The Montana Democratic Party jabbed the Republicans over the reversal. "We welcome the current leaders of the Montana Republican Party to the 21st century, after decades of trying to get the government to invade the private lives of Montanans," said party executive director Ted Dick.

The Dems sent out a guy whose last name is "Dick" to comment on this? Excellent trolling there, guys.



Cam here to say this. I love Ted Dick.
 
2012-06-21 02:08:33 PM

Curse of the Goth Kids: Government so small it'll fit into your underpants, apparently.


Hence the double-pocketed, breatheable cotton pouch...those bastards have been preparing for this the whole time! Underpants are just government crotch-holsters!
 
2012-06-21 02:09:09 PM
Sheep are still fine, right boys?

/I'm laughing cuz you picked the UGLY one!!!
 
2012-06-21 02:12:03 PM

Curse of the Goth Kids: Government so small it'll fit into your underpants ass, apparently.

 
2012-06-21 02:14:52 PM
It's a lot more fun when you know it's illegal. Remember how much fun drinking was before you turned 21? It's a lot like that.

//or so they tell me

///not that there's anything wrong with that
 
2012-06-21 02:16:44 PM

Combustion: Sheep are still fine, right boys?

/I'm laughing cuz you picked the UGLY one!!!


That's the Sheriff's girlfriend!
 
2012-06-21 02:17:57 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: For how much they hate Muslims, GOPers sure love Sharia Law. Seems like you could swap out a GOP legislature with a radical Islamic council of Imams and see practically no difference in their social agenda.


There is absolutely no difference between Radical Islamic Conservatism and Main-stream Conservative American Christianity. None. Cut from the same cloth. Same ideas, same wishes, worship the same demon.

Well, okay, there is one difference: The Muslims are brave enough to actually follow through with some of their threats. Main-stream Conservative American Christianity talk a good game, but - excepting the occasional Tim McVeigh - generally aren't brave enough to do anything of any substance.
 
2012-06-21 02:18:33 PM

Gyrfalcon: The GOP had held the position seeking to criminalize homosexuality since a 1997 Montana Supreme Court case struck down similar state laws. The party had been criticized in recent years for continuing to maintain the stance.

They understand that Lawrence v. Texas prevents them from doing this, right? Or do they just not care that the first time they tried to enforce such a law, even Clarence Thomas would laugh them out of court?



They honestly just don't care.

When you believe that God hates all the same people as you do, it's easy to believe that everyone else does too. It simply never occurs to them that they are wrong.
 
2012-06-21 02:19:17 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: "And to ensure no such illegal acts occur the Prime Sponsor of the measure will don chaps and a leather vest and go undercover at Rod's ManHole every night. Especially Tuesday, because that's when that guy who looks like Wesley Snipes likes to try the Argentinian Badminton Slap."


I can barely see through the tears of laughter to type this...
 
2012-06-21 02:21:41 PM

kid_icarus: It's so strange that the GOP supposedly opposes government intrusion into peoples' lives and favors small government...and yet on the other hand, they would approve of laws that literally intrude into the bedrooms of grown adults and go so far as to make certain sex acts illegal. I just don't get it. Even if they find gay sex to be personally distasteful, I would still think their political ideology would prevent them from passing any laws against it. That's the epitome of 'Big Brother' government.


It's not strange when you realize what their real goal is: making the federal government into a Prosperity Gospel-based theocracy.
 
2012-06-21 02:22:59 PM
And yet people STILL vote for these idiots.

I know there are some (relatively) sane conservatives/Republicans still out there. But they are so blinded by ideological concerns, that they ignore what Republicans are *actually doing* when they get elected to office.

I have a friend that disagrees with Republicans on pretty much all social issues, and disagrees with them on defense spending, and disagrees with their "lower taxes for the rich" policies, and disagrees with them on health care reform, but STILL votes Republican every time. Why? He thinks that the government should spend their money more responsibly, and that is what Republicans say they will do. I've pointed out to him that, in fact, they DON'T do that, and often do the opposite, but he doesn't care.
 
2012-06-21 02:26:34 PM
A question to all conservatives:

You can argue that the definition of "marriage" should be "one man and one woman" by appealing to tradition. I think your logic is flawed, but whatever.

I don't see how you can argue that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors that involves no one else should be subjected to state scrutiny, I really don't - unless you invoke a religious argument.

If you do invoke a religious argument, then I have another question for you:

You think that God's Law should be implemented in the civil law, fine. God's Law also includes a whole hell of a lot of providing for the poor - in fact, that's mentioned thousands of times throughout the Bible, while homosexuality is mentioned once or twice. Why aren't you pulling thousands of times harder to get legislation that helps the poor enacted into civil law?
 
2012-06-21 02:30:07 PM

realmolo: I have a friend that disagrees with Republicans on pretty much all social issues, and disagrees with them on defense spending, and disagrees with their "lower taxes for the rich" policies, and disagrees with them on health care reform, but STILL votes Republican every time. Why? He thinks that the government should spend their money more responsibly, and that is what Republicans say they will do. I've pointed out to him that, in fact, they DON'T do that, and often do the opposite, but he doesn't care.


Doesn't matter. To some of these people, it's like a religion. You telling the guy that is like pointing out to a fundie Christian that it's really improbable that Jesus Christ's mother was knocked up by God rather than some random human guy and that the only evidence that story is based on is her word that it happened and some dream that her husband had--there's no way that such a person is going to be swayed by logic because it's simply a matter of faith and deeply-held beliefs for them. "Saint Ronnie said it, I believe it, that settles it."
 
2012-06-21 02:31:26 PM

Lord Dimwit: A question to all conservatives:

You can argue that the definition of "marriage" should be "one man and one woman" by appealing to tradition. I think your logic is flawed, but whatever.

I don't see how you can argue that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors that involves no one else should be subjected to state scrutiny, I really don't - unless you invoke a religious argument.

If you do invoke a religious argument, then I have another question for you:

You think that God's Law should be implemented in the civil law, fine. God's Law also includes a whole hell of a lot of providing for the poor - in fact, that's mentioned thousands of times throughout the Bible, while homosexuality is mentioned once or twice. Why aren't you pulling thousands of times harder to get legislation that helps the poor enacted into civil law?


free market jebus
strangefigures.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-21 02:33:02 PM
They might have to be rather clever in defining those 'acts' since most of them can be done between heterosexual couples.
 
2012-06-21 02:36:31 PM
"We welcome the current leaders of the Montana Republican Party to the 21st century, after decades of trying to get the government to invade the private lives of Montanans," said party executive director Ted Dick.

Wait was that last line a joke?
 
2012-06-21 02:38:14 PM
The closeted GOPers want it illegal so it's hotter when they're doing it on the sly.
 
2012-06-21 02:40:19 PM
The party in the past had said that it had remained since no one had ever taken the initiative to change it and pointed out that it represented a stance that the legislature should make laws and not the courts.

I guess the Montana GOP doesn't like that whole "checks and balances" thingy.
 
2012-06-21 02:49:04 PM
I accidentally posted both of my comments in the wrong thread, so here's the q&d re-try:

The Name: FTFA: But party executive director Bowen Greenwood says the decision to drop the language came as part of a larger effort to simply shorten a 31-page platform.

I'm not sure which is worse: this being the only reason they dropped it, or Republicans saying this is the only reason they dropped it to appease their base.

The Name: Oh, and can we please stop pretending that it's possible to be both a Republican voter AND a good, decent person? Have we not had enough of these isolated incidents to put these people where they belong, i.e. in the same class as Klan members and Neo-Nazi groups?
 
2012-06-21 02:55:11 PM

Cinaed: They might have to be rather clever in defining those 'acts' since most of them can be done between heterosexual couples.


B-b-b-but they eat da poo-poo!

Besides, a man sticking his penis in another man's penis - that shiat ain't natural! If lesbians had orgies, the combination of that many holes would surely create a supermassive black hole (you've seen some of the lesbians, amirite?) that threatens us all!

// oh, wait - Republicans don't believe in science
 
Ehh
2012-06-21 03:06:40 PM
Came for gay cowboys, leaving disappointed.
 
2012-06-21 03:07:54 PM

Lord Dimwit: You think that God's Law should be implemented in the civil law, fine. God's Law also includes a whole hell of a lot of providing for the poor - in fact, that's mentioned thousands of times throughout the Bible, while homosexuality is mentioned once or twice. Why aren't you pulling thousands of times harder to get legislation that helps the poor enacted into civil law?


The ban on homosexuality is more important precisely BECAUSE it's only mentioned once or twice. Jesus assumed that people would see and understand it's obvious importance after only hearing about it once, while he would have to keep reinforcing the idea of social justice because it is so far from the basic tenets of Christianity - looking down upon your neighbors and assuming the poor are poor due to immorality.

It's like this. What's more important: taking out the trash, cleaning your room, or not touching a hot stove? Which one did your mother only tell you once, and which ones does she still carp on when she sees your arpartment today?
 
2012-06-21 03:07:59 PM
I have a serious question for moderate republicans. What's your tipping point? Everyone has one. I left the party about 2003 when it was clear that they'd gone off the deep end in a big way.

You do realize that these assholes, even those elected in other districts, speak for you on a national level don't you?

So again, what's it going to take, or are you just content to let the derp go to 11 and endorse this shiat by proxy.

/ex-republican. Ain't going back to they do some serious, serious soul searching, purging, and walk the desert for a decade or two. Not holding my breath though.
 
2012-06-21 03:12:42 PM

deeyablo: I guess that will happen after they outlaw polyester blends,


Apparently the prohibition in Leviticus is specific to combining flax and wool, known in England as "linsey-woolsey". In colonial America this term was more often applied to cotton-wool blends.
 
2012-06-21 03:29:23 PM

Johnny Swank: I left the party about 2003 when it was clear that they'd gone off the deep end in a big way.


Hey me too. Probably around the same time. Although I did actually vote for Gore but I still thought of myself as republican until they went completely batshiat crazy. And the thing is, even though I'm modestly upwardly mobile, if I suck enough....I mean work hard enough to get to the 1% club, that's not going to change anything. The moment I vote for someone based what I personally pay in taxes is the moment I eat a bullet.
 
2012-06-21 03:37:16 PM
You mean, like, refinishing antiques?
 
2012-06-21 03:48:10 PM

MadMonk: It's a lot more fun when you know it's illegal. Remember how much fun drinking was before you turned 21? It's a lot like that.

//or so they tell me

///not that there's anything wrong with that


you nailed it. knowing it's wrong probably increases the excitement.
 
2012-06-21 03:59:55 PM

kid_icarus: It's so strange that the GOP supposedly opposes government intrusion into peoples' lives and favors small government...and yet on the other hand, they would approve of laws that literally intrude into the bedrooms of grown adults and go so far as to make certain sex acts illegal. I just don't get it. Even if they find gay sex to be personally distasteful, I would still think their political ideology would prevent them from passing any laws against it. That's the epitome of 'Big Brother' government.


I think you're missing the bigger picture. The goal is to keep gay protections out of employment laws, housing discrimination, hate crimes legislation, etc. Being able to throw gays in prison is just a bonus for them.
 
2012-06-21 04:09:11 PM

Lord Dimwit: You can argue that the definition of "marriage" should be "one man and one woman" by appealing to tradition.


Traditional marriage would require you negotiate the bride price with the father to purchase the bride and her dowry. That's how it was done for thousands and thousands of years. The practice of a woman accepting a proposal on her own is a radical modern departure from the definition of marriage. This new kind of arrangement is destroying traditional marriages.
 
2012-06-21 04:16:33 PM

James!: I think there are three states that still prosecute sodomy laws. They figure that since they aren't applied specifically to gay sodomy that they weren't affected by Lawrence v. Texas.


But what about turtles? My local Republican campaign committee says that gay marriage will lead to sex with turtles. Turtles can't consent, and I don't want to have sex with turtles. Only Republicans are coming forward to both speak on behalf of turtles and to protect me so that I am never forced to have sex with a turtle, not even Mitch McConnell, who probably can consent but...ewww.
 
2012-06-21 04:20:11 PM

meat0918: Don't most of the bills also ban the stuff hetero couples do?

//Party of Small Government FTL


Isn't it obvious: they want to shrink government down so small it'll fit inside your vagina.
 
2012-06-21 04:28:05 PM

Dr Dreidel: Town of Buttfark, MT: "Come at in me, bro!"

// too much?


Just the right amount.
 
2012-06-21 04:28:42 PM
The SCOTUS declared laws banning sodomy unconstitutional sometime around 8 years ago or so. There was such a law for all people in the U.S. military, for example.

But I think anyone prosecuted under it would have had a selective prosecution defense. I doubt anyone got charged with nailing their girlfriend in the azz.
 
2012-06-21 04:35:47 PM

Johnny Swank: I left the party about 2003 when it was clear that they'd gone off the deep end in a big way.


I not only voted for Bush in 2004 (my first year voting in a Presidential election), I campaigned for him. I can truly say I was ignorant to what was going on around me at the time. It seems pretty obvious now that the Republican party was moving to the extreme right, but I just didn't pay attention.
 
2012-06-21 05:06:37 PM

Karac: Lord Dimwit: You think that God's Law should be implemented in the civil law, fine. God's Law also includes a whole hell of a lot of providing for the poor - in fact, that's mentioned thousands of times throughout the Bible, while homosexuality is mentioned once or twice. Why aren't you pulling thousands of times harder to get legislation that helps the poor enacted into civil law?

The ban on homosexuality is more important precisely BECAUSE it's only mentioned once or twice. Jesus assumed that people would see and understand it's obvious importance after only hearing about it once, while he would have to keep reinforcing the idea of social justice because it is so far from the basic tenets of Christianity - looking down upon your neighbors and assuming the poor are poor due to immorality.

It's like this. What's more important: taking out the trash, cleaning your room, or not touching a hot stove? Which one did your mother only tell you once, and which ones does she still carp on when she sees your arpartment today?


Your jib, I like the cut of it.
 
2012-06-21 05:32:31 PM

Johnny Swank: I have a serious question for moderate republicans. What's your tipping point? Everyone has one. I left the party about 2003 when it was clear that they'd gone off the deep end in a big way.


There aren't any moderate Republicans left. They've either dropped (or been kicked out of) the party already or they're not really moderate.
 
2012-06-21 06:36:43 PM

Karac: Lord Dimwit: You think that God's Law should be implemented in the civil law, fine. God's Law also includes a whole hell of a lot of providing for the poor - in fact, that's mentioned thousands of times throughout the Bible, while homosexuality is mentioned once or twice. Why aren't you pulling thousands of times harder to get legislation that helps the poor enacted into civil law?

The ban on homosexuality is more important precisely BECAUSE it's only mentioned once or twice. Jesus assumed that people would see and understand it's obvious importance after only hearing about it once, while he would have to keep reinforcing the idea of social justice because it is so far from the basic tenets of Christianity - looking down upon your neighbors and assuming the poor are poor due to immorality.

It's like this. What's more important: taking out the trash, cleaning your room, or not touching a hot stove? Which one did your mother only tell you once, and which ones does she still carp on when she sees your arpartment today?


Wow. That was absolutely stunningly brilliant. All you really needed to do to make it perfect was throw in a sparkly picture of Jesus dying on the cross saying something about how he's not saving those damn gay farkers from going to Hell. As it is though, 9.5/10.
 
2012-06-21 07:03:46 PM

sabreWulf07: Lord Dimwit: You can argue that the definition of "marriage" should be "one man and one woman" by appealing to tradition.

Traditional marriage would require you negotiate the bride price with the father to purchase the bride and her dowry. That's how it was done for thousands and thousands of years. The practice of a woman accepting a proposal on her own is a radical modern departure from the definition of marriage. This new kind of arrangement is destroying traditional marriages.


As well as still not being the cultural norm in modern society. Far more cultures still practice arranged or forced marriages than allow individuals to choose their mates (granted, the number of people who live in cultures that allow individuals to choose whom they marry is greater, but the number of cultures is still fewer than those who practice arranged marriages).
 
2012-06-21 08:22:56 PM

Lord Dimwit: A question to all conservatives:

You can argue that the definition of "marriage" should be "one man and one woman" by appealing to tradition. I think your logic is flawed, but whatever.

I don't see how you can argue that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors that involves no one else should be subjected to state scrutiny, I really don't - unless you invoke a religious argument.

If you do invoke a religious argument, then I have another question for you:

You think that God's Law should be implemented in the civil law, fine. God's Law also includes a whole hell of a lot of providing for the poor - in fact, that's mentioned thousands of times throughout the Bible, while homosexuality is mentioned once or twice. Why aren't you pulling thousands of times harder to get legislation that helps the poor enacted into civil law?


Obviously you read the wrong Bible.
 
2012-06-21 08:45:29 PM
I honestly don't understand this mindset--"Do exactly what I do, believe exactly what I believe, or I can't be happy." Why do they care? How does it hurt them? How is it any of their business at all? And don't say because religion; religion is their excuse, not their reason.


The world would be so much better if everyone minded their own goddam business.
 
2012-06-21 09:23:59 PM

effexca: Trudeau was a Prime Minister that people either loved or hated. One thing I think we all agree on though, is when he said this in 1967, he was right.

"We take the position that there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

Now, I love you Americans, I really do, but you scare me at times.


I can at least say that my state didnt need to wait until the 21st century to modernize. We struck out our sodomy laws back in 1962.
 
2012-06-21 09:49:09 PM

Cyberluddite: realmolo: I have a friend that disagrees with Republicans on pretty much all social issues, and disagrees with them on defense spending, and disagrees with their "lower taxes for the rich" policies, and disagrees with them on health care reform, but STILL votes Republican every time. Why? He thinks that the government should spend their money more responsibly, and that is what Republicans say they will do. I've pointed out to him that, in fact, they DON'T do that, and often do the opposite, but he doesn't care.

Doesn't matter. To some of these people, it's like a religion. You telling the guy that is like pointing out to a fundie Christian that it's really improbable that Jesus Christ's mother was knocked up by God rather than some random human guy and that the only evidence that story is based on is her word that it happened and some dream that her husband had--there's no way that such a person is going to be swayed by logic because it's simply a matter of faith and deeply-held beliefs for them. "Saint Ronnie said it, I believe it, that settles it."


It is so true. I used to be one of those republicans. It's even more ironic considering I am gay also (although I did not come around to actually admitting it until 2 years after I dropped out of the GOP). My sibs are staunch conservatives (although they are cool with me being gay and all that). Interesting, considering republican policies in no way make their lives better. Neither one has health coverage. In fact, my sister was on Medicaid until a short while ago... But it's always the "libs" fault.
 
2012-06-21 10:36:01 PM

downpaymentblues: Johnny Swank: I left the party about 2003 when it was clear that they'd gone off the deep end in a big way.

I not only voted for Bush in 2004 (my first year voting in a Presidential election), I campaigned for him. I can truly say I was ignorant to what was going on around me at the time. It seems pretty obvious now that the Republican party was moving to the extreme right, but I just didn't pay attention.


Everyone starts somewhere, so I'm in no position to judge you, since I also did things when I was young that I later regretted. But I am very curious. What was it that you once saw in the Republicans than inspired you to give them your vote and your effort?

I am entirely sincere in asking this (I know sometimes people ask questions like this for rhetorical purposes, but I assure you, I'm quite sincere.) If you'd rather not discuss your reasons on Fark, please feel free to email me (EIP). I'm being honest, I really can't understand why anyone would vote for a Republican, and I would really like to know. I don't want to go through life not understanding my fellow citizens.

What do the GOP offer that makes people want to vote for them?
 
2012-06-22 12:35:58 AM

FloydA:

What do the GOP offer that makes people want to vote for them?


Fear
 
2012-06-22 12:53:41 AM

KarmicDisaster: Fear


This. It's embarrassing now, but I'll admit to voting for Bush in '04 because I was still freaked out about 9/11 (not afraid of Muslims or terrorist attacks so much as afraid of a potential WWIII). Once I got over that, I just felt like a dumbass for not paying much attention to anything else.
 
2012-06-22 01:35:54 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: KarmicDisaster: Fear

This. It's embarrassing now, but I'll admit to voting for Bush in '04 because I was still freaked out about 9/11 (not afraid of Muslims or terrorist attacks so much as afraid of a potential WWIII). Once I got over that, I just felt like a dumbass for not paying much attention to anything else.


You know we have to kill you now, right?
 
2012-06-22 02:32:32 AM

Gyrfalcon: You know we have to kill you now, right?


Hey, at least I'll confess to my sins! :P
 
2012-06-22 07:00:42 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Gyrfalcon: You know we have to kill you now, right?

Hey, at least I'll confess to my sins! :P


It's okay. I bought two U.S. flags that attach to your car via window-mount after 9/11, and blindly agreed to rushing into the Afghanistan war (but I did NOT agree with the Iraq war). We all have our weak moments. :) And I learned a lot about how not to let fear control my actions in the future.
 
2012-06-22 08:50:01 PM

Cythraul: And I learned a lot about how not to let fear control my actions in the future.


I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
 
Displayed 85 of 85 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report