Knock Knock. Who's there? A Republican (Pt. 1)

A Republican Who?

A Republican who...believes that the only reason for having sex is for procreation. 

Thank you, Montana, for giving us Representative Dave Hagstrom.  Because without him, there might be some confusion about the valid reasons for having sex.

 Official photo

 This subject came up during discussion on a bill being considered by the Montana state legislature that would change the law which currently defines deviate sexual relations a "sexual contact or sexual intercourse between two persons of the same sex or any form of sexual intercourse with an animal."  The bill, if passed and signed, would strike the same-sex reference but leave the animal reference intact.

Hagstrom actually knows some gay people. Or so he says.

I have a whole lot of love and respect for a whole number of homosexual friends. So there is no homophobic issues going on here at all with me...

Well, maybe he knows some gays, or maybe not -- after all, zero is a whole number.

Here's Hagstrom's analogy about primary and secondary purposes of objects.

I kinda likened it to this pen. This pen has two purposes.  The first purpose of course is to write. The second purpose is to retract so that it doesn't leave a stain on your shirt or your purse.  So that's two purposes.

For a second there, I was afraid he was going to say something about a stain on a dress... but I digress. Back to purposes:

But one is primary, the other is secondary. To me sex is primarily purposed to produce people, that's why we're all here... sex that doesn't produce people is deviant. That doesn't mean that it is a problem. It just means it's not doing its primary purpose.  

So...'non-productive' sex is deviant. Which means that, in addition to gays, any heterosexual people out there who are having sex with no intention of producing an heir are deviants.

This would include both the young and the restless and the moldy oldies.

Those who are married or single, shacking up or hooking up.

Politicians and pawnbrokers. Preachers and teachers. Jokers, smokers, and midnight tokers.

Hagstrom 'clarified' his remarks when questioned, stating that the video did not include the second part of his statement, that the secondary purpose of sexual activity was for pleasure, and he included both heterosexual and homosexual pleasure. He wanted to be on the record on that -- and the fact that his 'no' vote didn't matter.  

I'd strike out the whole section which created a felony for any kind of deviate sexual behavior, because it's archaic and ridiculous. And the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional so it's a moot point.  Obviously it's not criminal. Not in the least bit is it criminal. But that's a moot point. Nobody's ever been tried and convicted under that. It's been killed by our Supreme Court.

Which is why, I guess, he and 33 other Republicans, who "affirm the unalienable right to  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all individuals" voted against the bill. 

Seems they, too, might have primary and secondary purposes?

Knock knock.