Why are Republicans so concerned about what goes on in my bedroom?

No one cares what anyone does in their own bedroom.
They won't come get you for having a sex swing. lol

reply to post by BubbaJoe


What, specifically, have Republicans done to restrict, spy-on, or otherwise involve themselves in what goes on in your bedroom?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

DADT is about the military not the bedroom. It's for a reason, that being the distraction that can cause us to lose wars.

If that were the case, how come so many armed forces allow men and women on the front line? Both scenarios are about gender equality, something some folks have a problem with...hence the thread, eh?

Mind you, I'm of the opinion that an undue fascination with what others are doing with their naughty bits is kinda untoward, anyway.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


I'm a Republican, for lack of a better party affiliation, but I can tell you why others are so interested in your bedroom. It is because theirs is boring. Seriously.

People have repressed their sexual urges to the point of becoming unhealthy, and they have put unrealistic expectations on themselves and others. The John Edwards scandal is a perfect example. As long as they keep pretending to be perfect, and keep repressing their own feelings and urges, they will stay enamored with the intimacies of everyone else. Hopefully one day, people will start seeing sex as something fun and not something sinful and evil. God didn't give us all these urges, and creativity just to see us torture ourselves, but the Religious folks have ruined it for now.

Well the democrats control the land you own the water you drink and the air you breath and now they control your body and your wallets tell me what a gun can look like how many rounds it can hold and how many rounds it can fire and where i can fire it..

Worried about your bedroom BIG DEAL why do the Democrats try to kill god to become one is my question.

Edit that might "confuse " people but the clean air act, the care act and green legislation and other stupidity because gosh darn Americans are just too damn stupid to think for themselves

Anti-Libertarians want to tell you what to do. And they wont leave you alone. Right-wingers tell you what to do with your sex, left-wingers tell you what to do with your money. Libertarians let you live the way you want as long as it does not impose on others.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

DADT is about the military not the bedroom. It's for a reason, that being the distraction that can cause us to lose wars.

If that were the case, how come so many armed forces allow men and women on the front line? Both scenarios are about gender equality, something some folks have a problem with...hence the thread, eh?

Mind you, I'm of the opinion that an undue fascination with what others are doing with their naughty bits is kinda untoward, anyway.

Ok if you are going to bring up women, then it is out of the range of "the bedroom", since gay rights seems to be the primary issue, not women's rights. So if you want to talk about women in the military, let's go back to the ERA which radical feminists wanted. This amendment would have taken away the protection women and mothers have to not be forced to the battle front. The ERA would have made it so pregnant women and mothers would have to serve on the front and that is a lack of protection of the family. Since we are still a family oriented society Congress themselves voted it down. I would point out that it was a communist plan to force women into the military and out on the battle front as a means of destroying the family unit, as Karl Marx who wrote the Communist Manifest intended to eliminate the bourgeois family.
That of course is not the only attack on the family and family values in the US, but I think you can get the drift here.
So Hollywood set about changing mores so that women in the military would be more acceptable, hence, GI Jane. But ERA still has anot been passed and for the sake of home and family I hope it never does, but the OWS crowd have recently begun resurrecting a dead amendment because they felt it could serve their other gender issues. Again, since Soros is an Intl Socialist, the OWS agenda reflects his desire to implement changes to promote World Socialism.

Here is the implication of one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
And I almost forgot...The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

laissez-fairerepublic.com...


So you see, while they are promoting "women's rights", they are simultaneously breaking down the family and taking away protections affording pregnant women and mothers.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I have to mention this because it's the same when somebody goes off on some child-labor tangent.

Allowing a woman to the front is not the same as forcing her to the front.

If some pregnant woman wants to play bullet shield and she meets the super stringent requirements of a pulse and mobility then let her.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ok if you are going to bring up women, then it is out of the range of "the bedroom", since gay rights seems to be the primary issue, not women's rights.

OK, you cited the following:

DADT is about the military not the bedroom. It's for a reason, that being the distraction that can cause us to lose wars. If you think that is not directly related to national defense you are sadly mistaken.

I took that to imply that men who potentially had intimate relationships with each other were a liability in combat.

I'm saying no more so than men and women serving together. If there are laws to forbid 'fraternisation' in or between the ranks, then they apply to everybody, right?

And let's face it...it's not women's rights or gay rights we're talking about, it's human rights. Fair and equitable. And bottom line is that no government or religion or political party has any business as to my sexual relationships...again, just so long as I'm not scaring the horses.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I have to mention this because it's the same when somebody goes off on some child-labor tangent.

Allowing a woman to the front is not the same as forcing her to the front.

If some pregnant woman wants to play bullet shield and she meets the super stringent requirements of a pulse and mobility then let her.

The ERA would have forced women to the front. This is a very old argument and I am surprised anyone is still promoting the idea. Congress voted it down for this very reason, it would have forced women into the draft. I know you want to believe it was all for the good, but this is a simple fact.

In 1971, when feminism first rushed onto the scene in the United States, a little band of women stormed the corridors of Congress and demanded the discharge from committee of the long-dormant Equal Rights Amendment. The House passed ERA on October 12, 1971, after rejecting the Wiggins Amendment which would have exempted women from "compulsory military service" and which also would have preserved other laws "which reasonably promote the health and safety of the people." Only 23 Congressmen voted no, of whom one was the senior female member, Representative Leonor Sullivan (D-MO), who made a strong speech opposing ERA because it would harm the family.

www.eagleforum.org...


Would you mind telling me why radical feminists demanded passage of the ERA WITHOUT the protections to pregnant women ?

Now, women are allowed in the military without the passage of the ERA.

I am trying to explain that some militant feminists are not interested in protecting the family. It is a fact that communists in the early part of the century endeavored to enlist women in their cause because that was the only way they could get their agenda across.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

Why are Republicans so concerned about what goes on in my bedroom?

Because you're naughty and doing naughty things.

Stop it!

Stop it at once!

______________________________________________________________

Okay. Really? This is what you come up with? People don't care about what is done in the bedroom.

But when people bring out, what is done in the bedroom, to the public arena, then it becomes an issue.

Do whatever you want in the bedroom.

Just don't put it on a resume'!

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Which pieces of legislation was it again that Democrats introduced that allows us to be more free and independent of government controls? Please link them below.

Well, just in passing, DADT seems to have been a start.

DADT was just axed. It is no longer in effect. Gays can now serve openly in the military. DADT when in effect essentially said, "We don't want to know what your preferences are. We won't ask you and please don't tell us." Seems to me that's the opposite of interfering in your bedroom. With that provision repealed they are saying, "You can be Gay if you want to and we won't discriminate against you if you are.' That's even less interference. Seems to me Gays are getting more freedom, not less.

Now, exactly what have Republicans done to interfere with what goes on in your bedroom? Is there any evidence of this or is this just a Straw Man argument someone made up so they could vent against it?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ok if you are going to bring up women, then it is out of the range of "the bedroom", since gay rights seems to be the primary issue, not women's rights.

OK, you cited the following:

DADT is about the military not the bedroom. It's for a reason, that being the distraction that can cause us to lose wars. If you think that is not directly related to national defense you are sadly mistaken.

I took that to imply that men who potentially had intimate relationships with each other were a liability in combat.

I'm saying no more so than men and women serving together. If there are laws to forbid 'fraternisation' in or between the ranks, then they apply to everybody, right?

And let's face it...it's not women's rights or gay rights we're talking about, it's human rights. Fair and equitable. And bottom line is that no government or religion or political party has any business as to my sexual relationships...again, just so long as I'm not scaring the horses.

You are the one who brought up women's rights. As per the OWS agenda it's not surprising you lumped gay rights and women's rights together. That seems to be the intent of the new ERA agenda being sported by OWS supporters.

Originally posted by beezzer
People don't care about what is done in the bedroom.
But when people bring out, what is done in the bedroom, to the public arena, then it becomes an issue.
Do whatever you want in the bedroom.
Just don't put it on a resume'!

In my relationship, physical signs of love are common outside of the bedroom...kissing, holding hands...all within the bounds of good taste, eh? I assume it's the same as yours. So those rights are denied gays? Keep it in the bedroom (or closet)?

Sodomy in public, on the other hand, is rarely seen as an expression of good breeding no matter which or how many genders are involved. Behind closed doors...what's it to the GOP?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You are the one who brought up women's rights.

Sorry...you're the one who spoke of your country losing wars if gay soldiers are allowed to 'come out'. It's a complicated statement and I'm just trying to sort it out as best I can. So if it is not a statement about intimacy in the ranks...what is it?

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Which pieces of legislation was it again that Democrats introduced that allows us to be more free and independent of government controls? Please link them below.

Well, just in passing, DADT seems to have been a start.

DADT was just axed. It is no longer in effect.

Yes...sorry to be confusing. I used the acronym to cover the whole discussion when in fact, it really just refers to the act. I did mean the dismissal of DADT.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

Why are Republicans so concerned about what goes on in my bedroom?

Because you're naughty and doing naughty things.

Stop it!

Stop it at once!

______________________________________________________________

Okay. Really? This is what you come up with? People don't care about what is done in the bedroom.

But when people bring out, what is done in the bedroom, to the public arena, then it becomes an issue.

Do whatever you want in the bedroom.

Just don't put it on a resume'!

edit on 4-1-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Right, and don't sneak it into my kids bookbags either. There was an actual case of books going home in kindergartner's bookbags. This is clearly the intent of POTUS as well, when he insisted on having "age-appropriate sex-ed" for kindergartners, to which Romney intelligently said there is no age appropriate sex ed for kids that age. The agenda is to indoctrinate kids as early as possible.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
Republicans have bashed everyone for restricting their constitutional rights, however they are all for controlling or making unlawful what goes on in my bedroom. I do not understand this, if the sex act is between two consenting adults, where does anyone get off telling me I can't do it. This has got me totally baffled, if I was not trying to be politically correct on here, I would tell you what I truly think. Rick Santorum winning Iowa, and he believes that sodomy and birth control are things that should be outlawed, WTF, he and his wife have never had oral sex, and if that is the freaking case, I feel sorry for both of them. Get the hell out of my GD bedroom, and fix the freaking government of this country. HFS

Of course anal, oral and whatever you do in your bedroom with a grown adult is evil and bad... To pass the governmental standards you'll need a 12 years old kit in there... or two of 6yr... then you'll be up to government standards...

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Anti-Libertarians want to tell you what to do. And they wont leave you alone. Right-wingers tell you what to do with your sex, left-wingers tell you what to do with your money. Libertarians let you live the way you want as long as it does not impose on others.

Bravo!!!

I think you have summarized it beautifully.

And both the left and the right can tell you WHY they MUST tell you what to do. They have very earnest reasons why their way is the best and only true way, and the other side is ______ and just doesn't care about _______, which makes them completely _____________. (Feel free to fill in the blanks with your own political rhetoric.)

Here's a great quiz for all those reading this to see if you might be Libertarian but just don't know it:

www.theadvocates.org...

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by beezzer
People don't care about what is done in the bedroom.
But when people bring out, what is done in the bedroom, to the public arena, then it becomes an issue.
Do whatever you want in the bedroom.
Just don't put it on a resume'!

In my relationship, physical signs of love are common outside of the bedroom...kissing, holding hands...all within the bounds of good taste, eh? I assume it's the same as yours. So those rights are denied gays? Keep it in the bedroom (or closet)?

Sodomy in public, on the other hand, is rarely seen as an expression of good breeding no matter which or how many genders are involved. Behind closed doors...what's it to the GOP?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You are the one who brought up women's rights.

Sorry...you're the one who spoke of your country losing wars if gay soldiers are allowed to 'come out'. It's a complicated statement and I'm just trying to sort it out as best I can. So if it is not a statement about intimacy in the ranks...what is it?

edit on 4-1-2012 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because...ok?

PDA? Who cares? It's not about PDA. It's about a group of individuals that wish to be judged and determined soley by sexual preference.

I could give two hoots as to whom is sleeping with whom.

But their choice in partners should NOT be a factor in social settings.

As a hetersexual male, I don't put my sexual preference on a job application. I don't expect (nor should I ) any preferential treatment.Anyone who does judge based soly on that should be punished. (There are laws)

At the same time, no one should expect preferential treatment based on a sexual bhaviour.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by beezzer
People don't care about what is done in the bedroom.
But when people bring out, what is done in the bedroom, to the public arena, then it becomes an issue.
Do whatever you want in the bedroom.
Just don't put it on a resume'!

In my relationship, physical signs of love are common outside of the bedroom...kissing, holding hands...all within the bounds of good taste, eh? I assume it's the same as yours. So those rights are denied gays? Keep it in the bedroom (or closet)?

Sodomy in public, on the other hand, is rarely seen as an expression of good breeding no matter which or how many genders are involved. Behind closed doors...what's it to the GOP?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You are the one who brought up women's rights.

Sorry...you're the one who spoke of your country losing wars if gay soldiers are allowed to 'come out'. It's a complicated statement and I'm just trying to sort it out as best I can. So if it is not a statement about intimacy in the ranks...what is it?

edit on 4-1-2012 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because...ok?

There is a limit to public expression in case you didn't notice. I understand that in some parks there is a great deal of public display going on.... but you are the one who brought up women's rights and I explained the danger to the family if the ERA was passed. I also pointed out the agenda of communists to use such issues to weaken our military. As for public display, in my view there should be common sense when in the presence of small children playing on a merry go round, don't you think?

reply to post by BubbaJoe



When you ask "Why are Republicans so concerned about what goes on in my bedroom?", I have to assume that you are referring to the same sex marriage I can't think of any other issue that has been so firmly linked with the GOP in relation to 'privacy in the bedroom'. So my reply is based upon this assumption.

My answer as two parts.

First, the most obvious reason why the Republicans are so interested in your bedroom activities is because, frankly, they are pandering to the Religious Right -- the so called, Moral Majority.

The second reason, in my opinion, is just as valid and, most likely, the "real" reason why the Republicans are interested in the nations' bedroom antics. The GOP is, in the case of same-sex marriage, pandering to Big Business: the insurance companies!

Remember, if same-sex marriages were legalized throughout the fifty states, the issue of employee benefits would be necessarily raised. Just as the spouses in traditional marriages receive benefits, these same benefits would have to be extended to the partners of homosexual unions.

Money -- not morality -- is what drives both parties. Everything else is simply lip service to pander to the various special interest groups which are viewed by both parties as potential voting blocks.