Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGOP Rep Declares No One Except Those Procreating Should Have Sex...
GOP Rep Declares No One Except Those Procreating Should Have Sex, Especially Not Gays
2013/04/10
By Lorraine Devon Wilke
Rep. Dave Hagstrom (R-MT); @CapWiz
snip//
But good ole red state Montana has taken a new page out of the Sex is Bad playbook in service of the anti-marriage equality movement. Heres how the story goes:
The Montana Legislature is currently debating their SB 107, a bill didactically sub-titled Generally revise deviate sexual conduct laws, which, in street vernacular, means the bill put up to take down the criminalization of homosexuality. So were all for it. Its a good bill. It will remove the insane and insensitive stigmatization and criminalization of ones biological sexual orientation and the sexual acts that follow. Welcome to that aforementioned 21st century.
But, of course, there are some in Montana (remember, this is a red state) who are not remotely on board with this proposed change. They see no need for it; in fact, they think the law is just fine. Which, in street vernacular, translates to Gay Sex is Bad, a variation on the more general theme of all sex is bad.
From Montana Street Fighter:
During the debate over SB 107, which decriminalizes homosexuality, Representative [Dave] Hagstrom (R-Billings) asked Representative Bennett, who is openly gay and was the key force behind blasting SB 107 out of committee, why do people have sex? And then proceeded to explain that he would be voting against SB 107 using the all too famous homophobic logic that sole purpose of sex is to produce offspring.
As the writer points out, Hagstrom only has four children; are we to assume if sex is just for procreation that he and his lovely wife Cindy have only had sex four times? If not, damn his wild, wanton, hypocritical ways!
One must remember, if one doesnt, that this is the same man who, as the landlord of an apartment building, wrote to one of his tenants, in a rather lengthy and passive-aggressive letter, a lecture mocking single mothers and hungry children; a letter which was one of others he wrote to tenants, claiming it was because I love them. He is also one of the three (Republican) members of the Montana House who voted against the affordable housing for returning veterans act. In other words, this is a guy whose soul seems to have gotten lost somewhere between religious rhetoric and party pontification.
more...
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/10/gop-rep-declares-no-one-except-those-procreating-should-have-sex-especially-not-gays/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
11 replies, 1429 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
11 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GOP Rep Declares No One Except Those Procreating Should Have Sex... (Original Post)
babylonsister
Apr 2013
OP
Well representative we see how that is working out for the catholic priests, don't we?
southernyankeebelle
Apr 2013
#11
Rex
(65,616 posts)1. Ugh.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)2. Who Would Want To Screw That Ugly Bastard?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)8. Ugh. Exactly. It's always the ones who should never procreate
that think they should. Namely, Republicans.
elleng
(130,732 posts)3. Thought so;
this is where they've been going for YEARS.
panader0
(25,816 posts)4. All the other times he was just trying to procreate.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)5. You should follow the link and read some of his letters to his tenants.
His reasoning is a bit faulty, and his assumption of superior judgment would be totally annoying. If I had to receive those letters I would:
First, never vote for this asshole for anything, and
Second, leave as soon as possible, taking his letters with me as a reminder of the reasons.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)6. How much you want to bet he has a mistress or a boyfriend?
Bet he does. All these GOP sex freaks are hypocrites.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)7. Absolutely not going to take that bet.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)9. I'd bet anything on it.
Typical GOP pig.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)10. Why are some republicans so obsessed with
everyone else's junk?
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)11. Well representative we see how that is working out for the catholic priests, don't we?
How are you going to prevent people from having sex in the privacy of their own homes? Just wondering. You going have the Talaban out there knocking on doors checking to see who is married. I can see all the frustrated people going nuts. LOL