Montana GOP: Homosexuality is a crime

[^_^ 5,021]

Depends. If a grizzly bear has sex with a 5 year old human child, the human is likely the prey.

If an adult human had sex with a squirrel yes I'd agree the squirrel is the prey. However, if Danno were to have sex with a Neanderthal (not human) transported to our time via a time machine, I'd say that would be about even and possibly consensual.

[Danno 1,228]

You do understand the concept of consent, right?

Don't hide behind a word MC.

People chain dogs to doghouses .. without consent.

People Contain dogs in cages with out consent.

People Harness them to dogsleds and run them to exhaustion .. without consent.

People remove tails, clip ears and snip off dew claws... with no consent what so ever.

They even put those silly bandanas around their necks.

Domesticated animals can and do seek sex with humans at times, it is only our current sense of morality which prohibits it (in some states).

Of course this is completely different than animal Cruelty... in which someone causes injury or harm to an animal.

[Peikko 1,575]

Don't hide behind a word MC.

People chain dogs to doghouses .. without consent.

People Contain dogs in cages with out consent.

People Harness them to dogsleds and run them to exhaustion .. without consent.

People remove tails, clip ears and snip off dew claws... with no consent what so ever.

They even put those silly bandanas around their necks.

Domesticated animals can and do seek sex with humans at times, it is only our current sense of morality which prohibits it (in some states).

Of course this is completely different than animal Cruelty... in which someone causes injury or harm to an animal.

I can't take you seriously Danno, comparing bestiality to homosexuality is just silly.

As far as fictitious slippery slopes go, I can tell you that I would not try to make sex with inanimate objects illegal, just so you know where I stand

[HAL 9000 96]

Darn MC beat me to noticing the slippery slope.

[Danno 1,228]

I can't take you seriously Danno, comparing bestiality to homosexuality is just silly.

As far as fictitious slippery slopes go, I can tell you that I would not try to make sex with inanimate objects illegal, just so you know where I stand

It's not about "slippery slopes" at all, that is a whole other conversation, no we are talking about making laws based on social morality.

You want to hide behind legal terms such as "consent", when in fact many of these laws... based on community morals have nothing in the world to do with consent.

Why do you think we have laws prohibiting sexual relations between family member or sex in public or even public nudity?

Our fundamental point of disagreement here is:

I acknowledge people in this country have always set parameters on sexual relations, some have changed over the years and some still are in place.

You on the other hand believe the Government makes no moral judgments in making these laws, yet you still have not explained why a woman and her willing K-9 can not enjoy the privacy of their bedroom or why an adult father and son cannot do likewise.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Danno

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

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

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats except which portion of our lives they want to have absolute control over. Democrats want to control what happens in your refrigerator, garage, doctors office (except your reproductive organs). Republicans want to control what happens in your bedroom, your reproductive organs (but otherwise they have no interest in medical care) They BOTH want to restrict your freedom of speech and Religion. Democrats would gladly stamp out Christianity while Republicans would stamp out everything but Baptists (Southern Convention) Democrats want to exploit illegal aliens for votes, Republicans want to exploit them for money...Democrats exploit LEGAL immigrants and citizens for money, they need NON taxpayers to vote for them.

Democrats want minimum wage, workers comp, health insurance, OSHA, Family and Medical leave...but only for white people. Otherwise do not check anyone's ID so they can be denied these things by business. Repub;licans just want all compensation to be minimal and profits maximized.

Repubicans are "pro-life" unless your "life" happens to be homosexual, Muslim (or other religion besides Baptist). Democrats are "Pro-choice" unless you want to choose what car you drive, school your kids you didn't abort go to, whether you want to own a gun, or listen to Rush Limbaugh.

They are all phoney-baloney politicians out for whatever they can get and speak to whoever is most likely to give it to them.

In Montana, that means making homosexuals criminals to get contributions. When we all stop paying for this nonsense, it will go away.

[evli1966 88]

I sense a theme. Republican bad, Democrat good.

####### for Tat

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.

Are you saying only the GOP is representing Bigots?

If so yo need to look back in history to see what party really represented Bigots ad still does.

Depends. If a grizzly bear has sex with a 5 year old human child, the human is likely the prey.

If an adult human had sex with a squirrel yes I'd agree the squirrel is the prey. However, if Danno were to have sex with a Neanderthal (not human) transported to our time via a time machine, I'd say that would be about even and possibly consensual.

I like the analogy.

I used the time machine bit and got laughed at.

There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats except which portion of our lives they want to have absolute control over. Democrats want to control what happens in your refrigerator, garage, doctors office (except your reproductive organs). Republicans want to control what happens in your bedroom, your reproductive organs (but otherwise they have no interest in medical care) They BOTH want to restrict your freedom of speech and Religion. Democrats would gladly stamp out Christianity while Republicans would stamp out everything but Baptists (Southern Convention) Democrats want to exploit illegal aliens for votes, Republicans want to exploit them for money...Democrats exploit LEGAL immigrants and citizens for money, they need NON taxpayers to vote for them.

Democrats want minimum wage, workers comp, health insurance, OSHA, Family and Medical leave...but only for white people. Otherwise do not check anyone's ID so they can be denied these things by business. Repub;licans just want all compensation to be minimal and profits maximized.

Repubicans are "pro-life" unless your "life" happens to be homosexual, Muslim (or other religion besides Baptist). Democrats are "Pro-choice" unless you want to choose what car you drive, school your kids you didn't abort go to, whether you want to own a gun, or listen to Rush Limbaugh.

They are all phoney-baloney politicians out for whatever they can get and speak to whoever is most likely to give it to them.

In Montana, that means making homosexuals criminals to get contributions. When we all stop paying for this nonsense, it will go away.

Gary you really have it out for the Baptist.

I stopped striking out you tirade.

Look I agree the Politicians have the same agenda to control us to do what they want. The differences in Demo and Repub is very slight.

Repubs like to take advantage of the chnages that the Dems do so much of the tme the only show face when before backing off an issue. The elite Dems are not nitwits they are very much Capitalists as well want nothin but profit with as little payout as possible.

I understand Danno's point about the consent laws where some are refusing to open their eyes to.

Montana trying to making Homosexual acts illegal is taking a huge step backwards in this society.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It's not about "slippery slopes" at all, that is a whole other conversation, no we are talking about making laws based on social morality.

You want to hide behind legal terms such as "consent", when in fact many of these laws... based on community morals have nothing in the world to do with consent.

Why do you think we have laws prohibiting sexual relations between family member or sex in public or even public nudity?

Our fundamental point of disagreement here is:

I acknowledge people in this country have always set parameters on sexual relations, some have changed over the years and some still are in place.

You on the other hand believe the Government makes no moral judgments in making these laws, yet you still have not explained why a woman and her willing K-9 can not enjoy the privacy of their bedroom or why an adult father and son cannot do likewise.

I don't know Danno? Why DO we have laws against sex between family members? Vermont has no law against public nudity and except for skinny-dipping in rather remote mountain streams and the occasional "naked bike riding protest" (which are the equivilent of local stand up comedy)there is no public nudity and not even any strip joints. Go figure. Anyone can carry a gun but there is no crime. Prostitution is virtually a non-crime but there are no prostitutes on the street. Gay marriage is legal and there are no public homosexual sex shows. My marriage has not been affected and the prediction that society would crumble and we would all be struck down by lightning and hurricanes...well, just hasn't happened.

Why DO adults elected and paid to handle the business of our government sit down and debate what someone does in their bedroom? Your reasoning would be a valid argument except that in Alabama it means you can't own a vibrator and use it for masturbation, in other states it means a woman cannot give her husband oral sex (and vice versa) OR in some (and this is almost unbelievable) a woman can ONLY give her husband oral sex...if it is her husband, it is OK, otherwise it is "sodomy" or "deviant sexual intercourse" I mean it is ridiculous to even suggest that a particular act between a woman and man is OK, but between two women or two men the SAME act is a crime. STUPID! Imagine a law that says bank robbery is OK if you are married when you do it. Or if the bank robbers are a man and woman. Laws and restrictions are supposed to PROTECT the many from the few. How am I (or my family or your family) protected by mandating what two other people do in their bedroom? Can someone, ANYONE, tell me that? Walk down a dark street in the bad part of town in Montgomery. Alabama and tell me that what really worries you is if a woman in the nearby apartment building is using a vibrator to masturbate! Last night, Alla and I walked all over downtown Burlington until midnight. Everyone was having a good time, no trouble, no crime, heck you could go around asking people for change for a $100 bill and be perfectly safe...do you think anyone cared if some homosexual men a few blocks away were having sex in their bedroom? What kind of pervert would you have to be to even think of such things?

As for dogs...If you cannot make your point without bringing in completely irrelevent topics...just go away. It is like arguing gun control by suggesting that we should all be allowed to own thermo-nuclear weapons on top of ICBMs. Just stupid. Hollow. Empty.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

####### for Tat

Are you saying only the GOP is representing Bigots?

If so yo need to look back in history to see what party really represented Bigots ad still does.

I like the analogy.

I used the time machine bit and got laughed at.

Gary you really have it out for the Baptist.

I stopped striking out you tirade.

Look I agree the Politicians have the same agenda to control us to do what they want. The differences in Demo and Repub is very slight.

Repubs like to take advantage of the chnages that the Dems do so much of the tme the only show face when before backing off an issue. The elite Dems are not nitwits they are very much Capitalists as well want nothin but profit with as little payout as possible.

I understand Danno's point about the consent laws where some are refusing to open their eyes to.

Montana trying to making Homosexual acts illegal is taking a huge step backwards in this society.

I really couldn't care less about baptists and know nothing of them. I think they like potato salad...yes? The denomination just came to mind, I am from Texas originally and there are bunches of Baptists there as I recall. I am completely un-religious and do not care what someone practices or doesn't practice in religion. The point was not about Baptists (for those on the left that don't understand) it was about parties controlling parts of our lives they have no business in.

[evli1966 88]

I really couldn't care less about baptists and know nothing of them. I think they like potato salad...yes? The denomination just came to mind, I am from Texas originally and there are bunches of Baptists there as I recall. I am completely un-religious and do not care what someone practices or doesn't practice in religion. The point was not about Baptists (for those on the left that don't understand) it was about parties controlling parts of our lives they have no business in.

I understand better now.

I thought you were refering to the ole Baptist comments out to 2 am drinking on Saturday and at Sunday school by 9am on Sunday.

BTW guilty here.

I want a Thermo nuclear Device

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I can't take you seriously Danno, comparing bestiality to homosexuality is just silly.

As far as fictitious slippery slopes go, I can tell you that I would not try to make sex with inanimate objects illegal, just so you know where I stand

So Danno destroys your argument and you can't take him seriously?

Of course you can't. Of course most fools thought Obama was the next Jesus Christ and look how that's gotten us. :lmao:

[Danno 1,228]

I don't know Danno? Why DO we have laws against sex between family members? Vermont has no law against public nudity and except for skinny-dipping in rather remote mountain streams and the occasional "naked bike riding protest" (which are the equivilent of local stand up comedy)there is no public nudity and not even any strip joints. Go figure. Anyone can carry a gun but there is no crime. Prostitution is virtually a non-crime but there are no prostitutes on the street. Gay marriage is legal and there are no public homosexual sex shows. My marriage has not been affected and the prediction that society would crumble and we would all be struck down by lightning and hurricanes...well, just hasn't happened.

Why DO adults elected and paid to handle the business of our government sit down and debate what someone does in their bedroom? Your reasoning would be a valid argument except that in Alabama it means you can't own a vibrator and use it for masturbation, in other states it means a woman cannot give her husband oral sex (and vice versa) OR in some (and this is almost unbelievable) a woman can ONLY give her husband oral sex...if it is her husband, it is OK, otherwise it is "sodomy" or "deviant sexual intercourse" I mean it is ridiculous to even suggest that a particular act between a woman and man is OK, but between two women or two men the SAME act is a crime. STUPID! Imagine a law that says bank robbery is OK if you are married when you do it. Or if the bank robbers are a man and woman. Laws and restrictions are supposed to PROTECT the many from the few. How am I (or my family or your family) protected by mandating what two other people do in their bedroom? Can someone, ANYONE, tell me that? Walk down a dark street in the bad part of town in Montgomery. Alabama and tell me that what really worries you is if a woman in the nearby apartment building is using a vibrator to masturbate! Last night, Alla and I walked all over downtown Burlington until midnight. Everyone was having a good time, no trouble, no crime, heck you could go around asking people for change for a $100 bill and be perfectly safe...do you think anyone cared if some homosexual men a few blocks away were having sex in their bedroom? What kind of pervert would you have to be to even think of such things?

As for dogs...If you cannot make your point without bringing in completely irrelevent topics...just go away. It is like arguing gun control by suggesting that we should all be allowed to own thermo-nuclear weapons on top of ICBMs. Just stupid. Hollow. Empty.

YOu seem to be debating me... for simply pointing out the way it works.

If you don't like the fact that such things as Adultery incest or even vibrators can be illegal in parts of the US, I suggest you pack-up and Ship out.... it's been this way for a long long time.

[HAL 9000 96]

The Messianic label most people with a hard-on for anything related to hating on the then-candidate for President had to make an entrance in the thread as well.

Some people have a hard time differentiating between monogamous sex, be it hetero or homosexual in origin, and say... bestiality. That is a very slippery slope indeed. Morality is defined by one's (or in this case, a religious code) own preconceptions. Even of things that they do not partake in. Unless... hmmm. Makes you wonder.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not about "slippery slopes" at all, that is a whole other conversation, no we are talking about making laws based on social morality.

You want to hide behind legal terms such as "consent", when in fact many of these laws... based on community morals have nothing in the world to do with consent.

Why do you think we have laws prohibiting sexual relations between family member or sex in public or even public nudity?

Our fundamental point of disagreement here is:

I acknowledge people in this country have always set parameters on sexual relations, some have changed over the years and some still are in place.

You on the other hand believe the Government makes no moral judgments in making these laws, yet you still have not explained why a woman and her willing K-9 can not enjoy the privacy of their bedroom or why an adult father and son cannot do likewise.

You are wrong. I do not believe what you suggest I believe about how laws are made - the difference is that I believe that morality is and should be a man made construct based on basic concepts of equality not something dictated to us by 'god'.

I did explain how and why adults should not have sex with children, such sexual relations are necessarily predatory and all predatory sex is based on a fundamental inequality - a child is not equipped with the skills required to make an informed decision on sex with anyone, let alone an adult. Are you seriously trying to suggest that you have no idea why relationships between adults and children are not and should not be on an equal footing? I find that incredible, particularly with your vehemence as regards discipline, your support of spanking and your abhorrence of adults who treat children as 'friends' rather than keeping them in their proper place.

As to hiding behind the 'it's the way things are done' in the US instead of owning that you would relish punishing homosexuals...