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.

 

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

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
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.




posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

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)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



Please Google Santorum, will explain it. He is extremely homophobic, and only feels that the fundamentalists are right.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


I don't know,
did the earth move?



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

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.




Santorum and every damned baptist I've ever known. But the truth is, you might as well ban breathing (to some folks).

Anyway, that "ban" would fly in the face (ew) of every law since written providing no bias or discrimination towards folks that practice that lifestyle.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


This is complete nonsense. Most western militaries do not not maintain prohibitions against homosexuals serving openly and yet function completely fine. If I'm not mistaken, even many members of the American General Staff were saying that, save for technical questions like 'can a Chaplain minister to open homosexuals?', the permission for gays to serve openly will, on the whole, not affect readiness to undertake combat operations.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

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)


I notice no such profound objections to the pornography industry, or the right to proclaim yourself as a proud heterosexual in the military. They are two sides of the same coin. Anyone who says 'keep it in the bedroom' is obviously living in a fantasy-world where everyone purports to be asexual virgins.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


The military has a "don't ask, don't care" policy on sexual peferences.

And the porn industry?
Really?



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by detachedindividual
 



We have to remember that these religious extremists are pretty messed up in the .. 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 .? How messed up in the . 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!!


It is peculiar, because you are saying you don't mean what you are saying. If you don't care about what people's sexual preference is, why would you ever care whether it is in the context of sexual activity or in their public lives? If a woman has sex with another woman, why is it morally objectionable for her to say, in response to perhaps a question at work saying 'what did you do last night, Jane?', that 'I hung out with my girlfriend'?

I really don't get the whole 'I don't care what you do in the bedroom, but don't bring it into public!' because that is honestly the same thing as saying 'yes, I actually do care what you do in your bedroom'. If you don't care about someone's sexual preference, why in God's name would you care about it anymore if mentioned in passing conversation than you would if it was kept in secret and private? It does not follow.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
My wife and I have participated in the "lifestyle" for a couple of years, lots of folks there claiming they are believing Christians. Some even taught Sunday school. Good Christians committing adultery every Saturday night, and according to there posts good Republicans, somebody please explain this to me. The wife and I are both Pagans, sexual acts have always been part of our celebrations, please explain to me the Christian participation.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

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.


your constant reference to the supposed sneakiness of Communists and the similarities between Communists and Democrats make you sound like a McCarthyite mentalist



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I am not so much worried about the ban as the hypocracy of it.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by seabag
 


The Constitution is not outdated as it's a living and breathing document!


Completely true. If only people would see it as embodying dynamic rules, laws, and separations of power that transcend time rather than trying to rule in the mindset of somebody in the late 18th century.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

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?


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?

And yep - if people are so upset by homosexuals having sex in public, why aren't they more upset by what is arguably the greatest perverter of morality in the world, the pornographic industry? If a man sleeps with a woman on film for money and then sells this to others for money so that they can then masturbate to this ,that is fine - but if a man and a man or a woman and a woman are in a loving and endearing relationship and wish to cohabit in the same household and receive the same legal rights as long-term heterosexual couples cohabiting?

For me personally, I find the homosexual act(s) very unpalatable - the idea of a man and a man sleeping with each other or a woman and a woman doing so is not something I find particularly attractive. Nevertheless, I realize that these people feel love and attraction just as much as we heterosexuals do, and although I think it is the right of anyone to disagree with it as much as they like from a religious or other perspective, I do not think it is the appropriate function of government to say that a man and a man or a woman and a woman loving each other is and should be a legally invalid relationship. Let's not take this argument ad absurdum as probably just as many gays as heteros would agree that polygamy, paedophilia, and bestiality are not good for society and are morally objectionable, but let us realize that there is nothing inherent fallacious or absurd about applying equal rights equally.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

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.


cohabiting homosexuals? forgive me if I am mistaken, but they do not receive the same rights as married couples in many states, no? Is a 'cohabiting' relationship even recognized here? I'm not sure (I live here in the US now but trained as a lawyer in the UK prior to moving here, so I apologize for my ignorance of the law).



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by beezzer
 


I am not so much worried about the ban as the hypocracy of it.


Hypocracy is rife in our society.
Just look at any politician.

You feel the need to point out hypocracy, then great. But don't cherry-pick. To just isolate republicans appears partisan in nature and the "hypocracy" label (caveat) might fit on you as well.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

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.



Texas has made illegal fleshlights haven't they? I just don't get it, when one considers all the other smut that is apparently morally and legally acceptable in the stores!



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

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?



I wrote that tongue in cheek.

DADT was repealed.

Last year.




new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join