It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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'!
Beezer you and I have crossed paths before, and yeah I agree, this is a fairly paltry issue, but Santorum wants to ban Sodomy, and I have a problem with this. Those who want to make oral sex a crime are my enemy.
edit on 4-1-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by BubbaJoe
Beezer you and I have crossed paths before, and yeah I agree, this is a fairly paltry issue, but Santorum wants to ban Sodomy, and I have a problem with this. Those who want to make oral sex a crime are my enemy.
Originally posted by schuyler
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?edit on 1/4/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)
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)
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by detachedindividual
We have to remember that these religious extremists are pretty messed up in the head. It's primarily about control and the feeling of domination over others. These people are taught that THEY are better than other people, and because they are superior they have the right to control others who live lives that they might not agree with.
You think religious extremists are messed up in the head? How messed up in the head must a man be to allow another man to bend him over?
I really don’t care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home but why the need to impose it on others and try to make it socially acceptable?
Founding father John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." The left in this country are trying their best to impose their immoral activities on the rest us and they attempt to use the constitution to justify it!! Doesn't make much sense to me!!
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Blue Shift
My issue is and has been the social engineering being deliberately foisted upon us by the radicals. It really is such a simple thing if anyone really wants to be honest about it that it has been a deliberate agenda for the purpose of subverting society. I have posted many times the lectures of an ex KGB agent who exposed this deliberate means of the communists encroaching on us to achieve their goals. I'm sorry it's not a popular subject when so many individuals feel it is just a matter of rights, but therein lies the diabolical nature that the goal of communism is cloaked in a so-called defense of rights. The State really sacrifices individual rights and liberties for the good of the common, but they also take advantage of a free society in promoting any and all illicit ideas and practices. They just keep pushing the line. The man-boy love thing is a perfect example of pushing the line of rights till it comes down to perverting the child instead of upholding their purity and dignity. It's a clear example of exploiting the child for selfish ends.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by seabag
The Constitution is not outdated as it's a living and breathing document!
Originally posted by duality90
Originally posted by schuyler
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?edit on 1/4/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)
Seriously, have you even watched a single Republican debate in the past year? A not-insignificant portion is devoted to discussing refusal to accept or normalise homosexual relations. Marriage can be perfectly between a man and a woman whilst allowing cohabiting homosexual couples the ability to draw the same rights as married couples without taking the title 'married couple' (instead using 'civil partnership/civil partners', as in the UK, where the system works well). I would not be willing to extend 'tolerance' so far as to compel churches or other religious institutions to permit homosexual 'marriages' inside their premises, but if gays want to have the same tax benefits as married heterosexuals, I honestly see no problem with that. Replace one member of the relationship in question with someone of the opposite gender and they would qualify for tax benefits easily. There is no good reason to deny cohabiting, long-term homosexual couples the same tax and legal benefits that cohabiting, long-term, heterosexual couples receive.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by duality90
The military has a "don't ask, don't care" policy on sexual peferences.
And the porn industry?
Really?
Originally posted by BubbaJoe
Originally posted by duality90
Originally posted by schuyler
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?edit on 1/4/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)
Seriously, have you even watched a single Republican debate in the past year? A not-insignificant portion is devoted to discussing refusal to accept or normalise homosexual relations. Marriage can be perfectly between a man and a woman whilst allowing cohabiting homosexual couples the ability to draw the same rights as married couples without taking the title 'married couple' (instead using 'civil partnership/civil partners', as in the UK, where the system works well). I would not be willing to extend 'tolerance' so far as to compel churches or other religious institutions to permit homosexual 'marriages' inside their premises, but if gays want to have the same tax benefits as married heterosexuals, I honestly see no problem with that. Replace one member of the relationship in question with someone of the opposite gender and they would qualify for tax benefits easily. There is no good reason to deny cohabiting, long-term homosexual couples the same tax and legal benefits that cohabiting, long-term, heterosexual couples receive.
I do taxes for a living and have clients that fall into this category.
Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by beezzer
I am not so much worried about the ban as the hypocracy of it.
Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by schuyler
Rick Santorum feels that Sodomy should be against the law, there is one state in these 50 where I cannot buy sex toys. This is where I feel my rights are being violated. And for the record, all of you do realize the oral sex is considered sodomy.
Originally posted by duality90
Sorry pal, they have a 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy - i.e. We won't ask you, and you won't tell if you are a homosexual. Don't ask, don't care would be superfluous because, if they were completely indifferent, what would be the pain in asking?