Using the phrase "only to reproduce" does not allow for any other purpose. Although I do accept your secondary claim that you intended to not say what you said.
Regarding gay sex, it's all moot since The SCOTUS settled the issue in 2003 and even the Montana legislature, despite Hagstrom's objections, symbolically rescinded their own anti-gay sex laws.
Now food is quite another issue. There seems to be a growing liberal support for government outlawing or regulating secondary food purpose and usage. Unlike moot or symbolic gestures, New York City continues to venture where no gay sex laws dares. Do you think The SCOTUS may eventually need to step in?
...It's only to reproduce, so if you're just having sex for fun or using birth control, you are "deviate."
and he just got his ass handed to him, legally speaking of course. Under Virginia state law, you're not allowed to have sex at all unless it's with 1) your wife, 2) it's in the missionary position and 3) it's for the purpose of reproduction.
And the dumbfuck actually wanted to defend that shit.
There are 50 states, all with different laws, tax levels, social views, etc. I see it as competition. I live in California, a very blue state run by the Democrats. We are one of the highest tax states, and yet we are still fucked up. Plus some of the laws on the California books are ridiculous. We have Prop 8 passed in a state dominated by liberals. Go figure!
But I have options. Next door is Nevada, no state income tax, 24 gambling, legal prostitution, and if I so desire, I can marry a toothless crack whore at 5:00AM. It's called competition. How about someone living in NY? If you don't like Nanny Bloomberg or Cuomo with their ridiculous laws, you can move to Florida.
I have no idea why guys on the left get your little liberal panties in a wad on issues that will never be passed or enforced, and especially when you have choices.
so I guess bigpapascum can marry laffy
St. Croix I thought you like toothless crystal meth whores when boils and sores on here body
resembling the biblical plague discussed in the story of Moses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS8XY4GMnJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iW_fsb3Dqw
http://www.communityservicemedia.com/images/I'm%20Crystal%20Meth%20BW.jpg
http://rookery9.aviary.com.s3.amazonaws.com/14994500/14994985_cab5_1024x2000.jpg
-- Modified on 4/11/2013 6:43:45 PM
-- Modified on 4/11/2013 6:44:29 PM
What business is it of the state's to tell me how I'm allowed to fuck? I mean fuck, if it's with an adult, and it's consentual, then it's no one else's business. The Supreme Court decided this when they struck down a sodomy law in Texas some years back, so all these blue laws are supposed to be gone anyway. But for some reason our idiot attorney general thought that it would be a good idea to try to keep blowjobs illegal.
Keep in mind, the only reason this is happening is because this guy is a fucking Jesus Freak. I have to hang my head in shame as a Virginian because this damn idiot wants to tell me what hole I'm allowed to fuck. Well, I don't tell this fuckwad what church he can attend.
hey blowjobs are a form of SODOMY & WE KNOW YOU GOOD CHRISTIAN PEOPLE AVOID SODOMY
but at least you have options, 50 of them.
Today Obama released his budget. He wants to limit how much money you can save in a tax deferred retirement account. The amount is $3M. What pissed me off more than anything was his comment. Obama said, "that's more than enough to retire comfortably". To me he's an arrogant SOB for saying that. The federal govt will eventually get their money no matter how much you put in a tax deferred. Obama should just be honest and say, I need the money now, not tomorrow.
I realize you're not going to see my side with respect to this issue, but the difference is between a potential federal law vs state. With the latter at least you've got choices.
But don't worry willy, I don't envision the "how to fuck" law, or the "tax deferred cap" law will be passed anytime soon.
That the nice thing about having states is that it allows people to pick and choose what legal structure they'd prefer to live under. And that choice is eliminated when you fuck with shit at the federal level. Trust me, I get that.
To some degree, I can sympathize about the 3 million limit on a retirement account. 3 million is plenty of money if you want to retire in Panama, but it won't get you very far in Manhattan.
On the other hand, from what little I know of this shit, these retirement accounts were a creation of the state to begin with, weren't they? And isn't the purpose of these accounts just to avoid paying taxes?
I can understand wanting to avoid double taxation, but it also sounds like this was being abused to keep rich people from paying any taxes at all.
...shove vaginal probes up women and check to see if you're using a condom or getting a BJ.
St. C:
Please provide proof that Cali is the "highest tax states". I'd like to see that. I'd bet that we are no where near "highest". And by the way- we (Cali) pay the federal government much more than we get back, unlike a lot of other states that pay far less than what tehy get back.... most of them being RED states.
But why should someone have to move if they love their state and yet hate the laws? Because, well, the answer is not necessarily to move to participate and make a change.
The reason there's no income tax in Nevada is because only cooks would live there. If you would rather live in NV than Cali because there's no state tax- go for it. It's such a tiny number.... it would probably cost you more to run the a/c in Nevada than you paid to the state in taxes. Just saying.
But I have options. Next door is Nevada, no state income tax, 24 gambling, legal prostitution, and if I so desire, I can marry a toothless crack whore at 5:00AM. It's called competition. How about someone living in NY? If you don't like Nanny Bloomberg or Cuomo with their ridiculous laws, you can move to Florida.
I have no idea why guys on the left get your little liberal panties in a wad on issues that will never be passed or enforced, and especially when you have choices.
You must be one of the people that don't pay taxes at all if you think the state only takes a "tiny" amount.
Now I will concede that few people make enough money to fall into the highest bracket of 10.30%, but even people less than $50K must pay 9.30%,
I was born and raised in California and there are many great things about the state, but until they get their fiscal house in order there is no way in hell I'd ever consider moving back there. I am doing just fine in Texas, another state with no state income tax.
epublican Family Values
It seems popular around here to misquote people in order to make ones argument seem stronger. I watched and listened to the actual video. He clearly stated that sex for procreation was the PRIMARY purpose of sex and that he considered the SECONDARY purpose to be deviant. (Also, I believe I heard him use the proper noun form of the word not the inaccurate verb that Huffington used. I could be wrong. My PC audio was a little faint.)
Anyway, I’m not agreeing with him that the secondary use for sex should be (or remain in MT) outlawed but as long as that is the apparent topic, let me ask a related question, "What is the primary purpose of eating food?" I think a reasonable answer could be, "to maintain an optimum level of health."
Do we know of any politicians (that could maybe be labeled as non-conservatives) who consider the secondary purpose of food (to enjoy oneself) to be (at least from time to time) deviant? And therefore unlikely to be useful regarding the primary purpose? So unlikely at times that certain secondary uses should be banned by law or limited by regulation? Is it possible this is happening anywhere?
...the terms "primary" and "secondary."
He may have said "deviant" first but immediately thereafter said "deviate" twice and also said it later.
Your food analogy reminded me of a French movie where there was indeed a deviant use of food. Some guys decided to hire some prostitutes and fuck and eat until they died. What a way to go...
Using the phrase "only to reproduce" does not allow for any other purpose. Although I do accept your secondary claim that you intended to not say what you said.
Regarding gay sex, it's all moot since The SCOTUS settled the issue in 2003 and even the Montana legislature, despite Hagstrom's objections, symbolically rescinded their own anti-gay sex laws.
Now food is quite another issue. There seems to be a growing liberal support for government outlawing or regulating secondary food purpose and usage. Unlike moot or symbolic gestures, New York City continues to venture where no gay sex laws dares. Do you think The SCOTUS may eventually need to step in?