Montana GOP: Homosexuality is a crime

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

THe facts of the case are... these laws have always existed and still do today.

If people truly had some Constitutional Right to have sex with anyone they Choose, laws Concerning Adultery and a boat load of others, would have never been on the books at the founding of this Country and Government ( and still today).

You carry on like I am proposing some new change or some new legal concept, I am simply stating what exists now and historically.

If any type of Deviant sex were a Constitutional Right ... we would never have had these laws.

Can you find one instance where one Founder Objected to laws you seem to object to?

Even if you could find one.. that still is no comparison to the Framers as a whole.

Your not serious I hope. If we decided to interpret Law by assuming that all active laws in the states at the time of the constitution are valid, it would mean that all sex positons except missionary are illegal. Having sex with the sun up would be illegal etc. Witchcraft would be illegal etc....

[HannahP 119]

So if the common morals of a state are to ban assualt rifles...that is OK right? Or to allow slavery maybe? Maybe we should allow the common morals to decide what we can read? Watch? Maybe cities can ban handguns if it is the common morals...oops, NO, they can't... but they were able to until just a few weeks ago. Or were they ever? Really? I mean, unless we changed the constitution in that regard, then Chicago's ban on handguns was ALWAYS un-constitutional and they never had any basis to enforce it.

States have the ability to make laws within the restrictions of our rights. They CANNOT make laws that infringe on OUR RIGHTS whether the majority is for it or against it. I contend that the 4th amendment right to privacy would certainly apply to what consenting adults do within their bedroom. You, apparently, do not. You think that the "common morals" of a majority of the legislature of a given state can decide to put your wife in prison if she puts your ####### in her mouth. They can (and do in some states) call it "sodomy" or "deviant sexual intercourse" and state she is guilty of a felony for doing so. That means she can go to prison, have her green card revoked, lose her right to own a gun, etc., because she put her mouth on a part of your body that a majority of the legislature of that state said was "bad". You are OK with that?

Your attempts to derail the facts or muddy the water with arguments about animals or children do not change the fact that YOU think other people should be able to decide what YOU and your wife do in your bedroom.

Holy #######. I just had a heart attack because I actually agreed with what Gary wrote. And actually cheered a bit because of what he wrote.

My real question: is hell freezing over? Are pigs flying?

[Danno 1,228]

Your not serious I hope. If we decided to interpret Law by assuming that all active laws in the states at the time of the constitution are valid, it would mean that all sex positons except missionary are illegal. Having sex with the sun up would be illegal etc. Witchcraft would be illegal etc....

My position is... These type laws existed then... and some exist now.

So evidently pretending the state has no right to make such laws is silly.

Laws come and go as needed and as desired and unless the Supreme court strikes down such laws (which does happen) they are binding. As I said before these laws are almost always used in prosecution of other crimes .. such as Paraphernalia laws are used to further search for drugs or add layers of prosecution to a case.

[Peikko 1,575]

My position is... These type laws existed then... and some exist now.

So evidently pretending the state has no right to make such laws is silly.

Laws come and go as needed and as desired and unless the Supreme court strikes down such laws (which does happen) they are binding. As I said before these laws are almost always used in prosecution of other crimes .. such as Paraphernalia laws are used to further search for drugs or add layers of prosecution to a case.

Yeah, we know, you favour discrimination against homosexuals by the back door, how very apt.

[Danno 1,228]

Yeah, we know, you favour discrimination against homosexuals by the back door, how very apt.

And you are for discriminating against Homosexual Brothers or cousins who sleep together.

At least I discriminate against all deviant acts equally... you pick n choose, then act like you are better than me.

[SuperDuper! 230]

You do understand the concept of consent, right?

Glad that folks don't get condescending here.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Holy #######. I just had a heart attack because I actually agreed with what Gary wrote. And actually cheered a bit because of what he wrote.

My real question: is hell freezing over? Are pigs flying?

The problem is that you won't agree with me when it involves our right to bear arms or our right not to have to pay for your medical care or our right to choose which school we send our kids (and our property tax dollars to)

I am pro choice...on everything, even those things I don't like. I am not a homosexual and have no desire to be, but I will not impose my choices on others BY LAW. Morals can be applied at the personal level, and should be.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

And you are for discriminating against Homosexual Brothers or cousins who sleep together.

At least I discriminate against all deviant acts equally... you pick n choose, then act like you are better than me.

No. I am not against brothers that sleep together. Why would I be? Frankly I never give it any thought and don't want to and certainly don't want my elected officials paid by money confiscated from my earnings to waste their time thinking about it.

And I do not agree with YOUR version of what is deviant, whatever your version is...and therein lies the problem. I WILL NOT agree to allow someone else (anyone else) to decide what I can do in my own bedroom with my own wife. IF you or anyone else can decide what two adult brothers can do together, then you can decide what any other two adult males or females do together or what two adults of any sex do together or what a husband and wife do together. I am not going for it. You are WELCOME to apply whatever inhibitioms, hang-ups, fears, heebee geebees, morals, religious restrictions or cooties to YOUR wife in your bedroom. You want to do it with the lights off and a hole cut in your Jammies (probably a very small hole) then by all means do it. As for us...we will do what we like more than once and anything else at least once.

For the record, there ARE NO deviant acts between consenting adults.

I do not agree to having any of my guns banned because someone else doesn't like them and I do not agree to someone else deciding what I do sexually. It is preposterous to even think anyone should.

One of your favorite organizations, the NRA, recently challenged and WON a case at the appeals court level, a law that banned the video display of animal cruelty like women stomping on mice with high heels. Why? Because the way the law was written would, or could, make someone a FELON for video taping and showing a hunting video. They won on the grounds it was an infringement of the freedom of speech. While I do not support animal cruelty or stepping on small animals with high heels, I fully appreciate the fact that the law could have interfered with free speech and should be struck down. I am also a memebr of the NRA and I am glad they did this. I do not know how someone can support a concept as unpopular in some areas as the ownership of assault rifles, yet toss another group of people, homosexuals, under the bus so casually. One right is firmly defended and NO infringement tolerated..and another is just ignored. Makes no sense.

You do not have to like homosexuals, you do not have to think about them or what they do. Just live your life, let someone else live theirs. They won't come to get you.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I am not a homosexual and have no desire to be,

Are you sure??

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

My position is... These type laws existed then... and some exist now.

So evidently pretending the state has no right to make such laws is silly.

Laws come and go as needed and as desired and unless the Supreme court strikes down such laws (which does happen) they are binding. As I said before these laws are almost always used in prosecution of other crimes .. such as Paraphernalia laws are used to further search for drugs or add layers of prosecution to a case.

Lets see...

Laws allowing slavery existed then and ...hmmm, they do not exist now. Laws allowing states and cities to ban the ownership of fireamrs existed then and ...oops, they don't exist now.

Actually there have been rulings by the supreme court, that state we have no obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. The trick is deciding which are unconstitutional, I will concede. But using the argument that something WAS or HAS BEEN legal before and therefore is legal now is simply not true.

We are supposed to be a FREE country with rights protected FROM the government, not granted BY the government. How or why would anyone that cherishes FREEDOM want to control what people do in their bedrooms? it makes NO SENSE.

Try this...drive down a street, any street. Look at a house, any house. Now ask yourself "Are the people there homosexuals?" Do you know? Do you care? How would it affect you if they are? How would it affect you if they are not? Are they having sex now? This morning? This afternoon? Do you know? Do you care?

Then, go on about your business. Go shooting, go fishing, go do something with your kids or your wife. get that stuff outta your mind and you will be very much happier.

Are you sure??

Not the issue actually. Doesn't matter if I am or not, or even if I am sure. You are free to decide for yourself.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I don't care if they are homosexuals. To each their own.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

THe facts of the case are... these laws have always existed and still do today.

If people truly had some Constitutional Right to have sex with anyone they Choose, laws Concerning Adultery and a boat load of others, would have never been on the books at the founding of this Country and Government ( and still today).

You carry on like I am proposing some new change or some new legal concept, I am simply stating what exists now and historically.

If any type of Deviant sex were a Constitutional Right ... we would never have had these laws.

Can you find one instance where one Founder Objected to laws you seem to object to?

Even if you could find one.. that still is no comparison to the Framers as a whole.

Danno, you have to go so far off the resrevation to make apoint. The framers never mentioned TV, radio, pornography, internet, assault rifles, automobiles, or telephones...therefore the government can read your email and tap your telephone, censor TV and radio, search your car and ban your guns...right? The framers never mentioned any of those things.

PRIVACY is a constitutional right. You have a right to be secure in your person, papers and affects...except from Danno and inhibited religious freaks who would decide for you what you can do in your own bed, right?. Who would put you in jail for allowing a part of YOUR body (choose a part) to touch a part of your wife's body (choose a part) Can you not see how utterly stupid this is? And you would argue that because our founders did not sit around and deliniate which parts you can touch on your wife with which parts of your body IN THE CONSTITUTION (are you serious?) then someone else can decide to put you in prison for that?

As either of our wives would say "Voooooooooooooowhat????!!!!!!!!"

I know you are not suggesting something new. I AM! I am suggesting you stay the hell out of my bedroom! I am suggesting you apply what you say to Democratic issues..."Keep government out of our business!" Small government, so small there is no one to check up on what we do in the bedroom.

The constitution is most applicable to the things which are not popular. The definition of what is "privacy" has changed and will change. It has to or the first amendment would not apply to anything but newspapers and town criers.

[Danno 1,228]

I know you are not suggesting something new. I AM! I am suggesting you stay the hell out of my bedroom! I am suggesting you apply what you say to Democratic issues..."Keep government out of our business!" Small government, so small there is no one to check up on what we do in the bedroom.

The constitution is most applicable to the things which are not popular. The definition of what is "privacy" has changed and will change. It has to or the first amendment would not apply to anything but newspapers and town criers.

I think you are finally getting the point.

YOU are suggesting something new not me.

Now tell me, when are you going to stop banging away on the Keyboard and set out to Change things?

CHange Drug laws

Change Bestiality laws

Change laws against Adultery

Strike down laws which make Pornography illegal

Abolish "Blue Laws"

Over turn laws prohibiting even the sale of Alcohol?

If you are really going to turn this country into your vision of what it should be... you'd best get busy my friend.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think you are finally getting the point.

YOU are suggesting something new not me.

Now tell me, when are you going to stop banging away on the Keyboard and set out to Change things?

CHange Drug laws

Change Bestiality laws

Change laws against Adultery

Strike down laws which make Pornography illegal

Abolish "Blue Laws"

Over turn laws prohibiting even the sale of Alcohol?

If you are really going to turn this country into your vision of what it should be... you'd best get busy my friend.

Its nearly his vision already. Other than drug laws most of the above laws are no more with the exception of drug laws.

There are only a few states and counties still in the Middle Ages.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Sousuke

[SuperDuper! 230]

Its nearly his vision already. Other than drug laws most of the above laws are no more with the exception of drug laws.

There are only a few states and counties still in the Middle Ages.

"Not that there is anything wrong with that!"