GOP Rep Declares No One Except Those Procreating Should Have Sex...

[babylonsister]

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. Here’s 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 we’re all for it. It’s a good bill. It will remove the insane and insensitive stigmatization and criminalization of one’s 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 doesn’t, 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/

[Rex]

1. Ugh.

[TheMastersNemesis]

2. Who Would Want To Screw That Ugly Bastard?

[smirkymonkey]

8. Ugh. Exactly. It's always the ones who should never procreate

that think they should. Namely, Republicans.

[elleng]

3. Thought so;

this is where they've been going for YEARS.

[panader0]

4. All the other times he was just trying to procreate.

[PDJane]

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]

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]

7. Absolutely not going to take that bet.

[smirkymonkey]

9. I'd bet anything on it.

Typical GOP pig.

[Lunacee_2013]

10. Why are some republicans so obsessed with

everyone else's junk?

[southernyankeebelle]

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