GOP Rep Declares No One Except Those Procreating Should Have Sex, Especially Not Gays

Author: April 10, 2013 2:33 pm
Rep. Dave Hagstrom (R-MT); @CapWiz

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 was 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, sent 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.

As the states wrangle with the issues of marriage equality and the decriminalization of human behavior as related to consensual, adult sex, the voices of the frightened, the backward, the narrow-minded and the bigots come forward, if not louder, in some cases, crazier. They are, thankfully, becoming outnumbered by those who realize the cultural tide has turned, that despite the hysteria of GOP Christian fundamentalists like Rick Santorum (seen raging here about the suicide of Republicans if they choose to side with marriage equality) or Rep. Hagstrom, America-at-large is slowly becoming weary of this battle, ready to embrace the biology of it all; ready to put aside religious myopia and intolerance to simply accept others as they are, without judgment and certainly without legal intervention, and get on with other issue of importance. Hagstrom and Santorum, quite frankly, are very much on the wrong side of history.

Which brings us to our opening question: why are human beings so afraid of sex?

Well, let’s get really honest here about, at least, Rep. Hagstrom’s presumed fears. In looking at his photo, my guess is he and his wife are past their child-bearing years. Which, by his own logic, would mean they have no reason to have sex. Which would be a bummer for Cindy Hagstrom unless she shares her husband’s desire for post-menopausal celibacy. But I’m going to go out on a limb and say I’ll bet a big bunch of Montana greenbacks that it ain’t all sex Hagstrom’s afraid of; it’s other people’s sex, particularly if those other people are gay.

Someone grab the man a toddy and get him to bed… it’s going to be a bumpy 21st century.


LDW_AI

 

Follow Lorraine Devon Wilke on Twitter, Facebook and Rock+Paper+Music; for her archive at Addicting info click here; details and links to her other work: www.lorrainedevonwilke.com.

Help us get the word out!
Share on Google+Share on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

facebook comments:

2 Comments

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

x
Click "Like" to get the latest updates