Montana GOP: Homosexuality is a crime

[^_^ 5,021]

The Republican Party in Montana still wants to make homosexuality illegal.

The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997.

...

Gay rights have been rapidly advancing nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay marriage is now allowed in five states and Washington, D.C., a federal court recently ruled the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional, and even a conservative tea party group in Montana ousted its president over an anti-gay exchange in Facebook.

But going against the grain is the Montana GOP statement, which falls under the "Crime" section of the GOP platform. It states: "We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gays_in_montana

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I sense a theme. Republican bad, Democrat good.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's pretty obnoxious stuff, however, I don't think we are going to pretend that all conservatives are this right wing, are we?

[Danno 1,228]

Montana!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The "land of the free" indeed.

[Peikko 1,575]

Montana!

Are you being sardonic? Or, do you honestly believe that homosexual acts should be made illegal and prosecuted?

[Danno 1,228]

Are you being sardonic? Or, do you honestly believe that homosexual acts should be made illegal and prosecuted?

No one bats an eye when a woman and her Male Shepard dog are prevented from relations.

If we are to be consistent we should also respect the rights of different communities to uphold similar laws dealing with such issues.

[Peikko 1,575]

No one bats an eye when a woman and her Male Shepard dog are prevented from relations.

If we are to be consistent we should also respect the rights of different communities to uphold similar laws dealing with such issues.

You do understand the concept of consent, right?

[^_^ 5,021]

That's pretty obnoxious stuff, however, I don't think we are going to pretend that all conservatives are this right wing, are we?

All? No. But seeing how this is the official party platform of one of our 50 states, "many" is a safe bet.

[Peikko 1,575]

However you failed to answer my question, would you really re-introduce laws to make homosexual acts illegal and if you do, what would you consider an appropriate sentence for someone caught breaking the law? What do you think should happen should someone repeat their offenses because they can't learn to be heterosexual or keep their trousers on?

Edited September 19, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[^_^ 5,021]

However you failed to answer my question, would you really re-introduce laws to make homosexual acts illegal and if you do, what would you consider an appropriate sentence for someone caught breaking the law? What do you think should happen should someone repeat their offenses because they can't learn to be heterosexual or keep their trousers on?

Madame, seeing how this post is the first time in this thread you've posed those questions, I fail to see how you can accuse Danno of having failed to answer them.

[Peikko 1,575]

All? No. But seeing how this is the official party platform of one of our 50 states, "many" is a safe bet.

I find that very sad; that it is even seriously considered by a legitimate political party.

Madame, seeing how this post is the first time in this thread you've posed those questions, I fail to see how you can accuse Danno of having failed to answer them.

Not the part about asking him if he wants to criminalize homosexuality it isn't, no. I have indeed added new ones though

[^_^ 5,021]

I find that very sad; that it is even seriously considered by a legitimate political party.

We're a representative democracy. Even the bigots and haters deserve representation. They are fortunate to have it in the form of a major political party. They are fortunate here in America; in most other countries they are relegated to the fringes.

[Danno 1,228]

You do understand the concept of consent, right?

I would assume the dogs erection and rapid humping can be interpreted as "consent".

Edited September 19, 2010 by Danno

[Peikko 1,575]

Suggesting a familiarity with the details of bestiality that I confess I lack. However, no, I don't think one could legally accept an erection and participation as consent - it is not considered consensual when a child has sex with an adult no matter what the enjoyment level of the child is.

There is that little matter of predatory behaviour. I think it's safe to say that a human having sex with an animal is predatory, don't you?