Rep. Dave Hagstrom (R-MT); @CapWiz
Why are human beings so afraid of sex?
Don't go all gobsmacked on me and point out the proliferation of porn, the blatant and heightened sexuality of our young, the wild, wanton behavior of a hedonistic 21st century. Truth is, while all that sex, love, and rock & roll has been going on (and believe me, it was going on BEFORE the sexual revolution, they were just quieter about it… ever watch Mad Men?!), those coddled in cultural myopia – or wrapped in theocratic denial – are out there waving the "Sex Is Bad" flag and, lately, getting some traction (see the 8 billion articles written on rescinding women's sexual rights and the fight against "the gays.")
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.
But back to sex.
rest at http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/10/gop-rep-declares-no-one-except-those-procreating-should-have-sex-especially-not-gays/
No comments:
Post a Comment