I’m So Confused…
...by the new sexual orthodoxy. I mean, isn’t this what it’s supposed to be all about:
A Minnesota state lawmaker who authorities say admitted having a liaison with a 17-year-old boy at a rest stop faced calls from party leaders on Monday to give up his re-election bid.
Rep. Kerry Gauthier, 56, hasn’t been charged in the July incident, and authorities said he wouldn’t be because the boy was older than 16, the legal age of consent, and no money was exchanged. Police say the teenager responded to the lawmaker’s Craigslist ad for “no strings attached” sex.
Gauthier admitted to the liaison, according to police reports made public late last week. The teen told police the two had oral sex, according to the reports.
Gauthier was elected in 2010 with 73 percent of the vote. He is not married.
So what we have here is what is referred to in sophisticated circles as “consensual sex.” No adultery, both persons of legal age, no coercion, no money changed hands. But the Democratic Party in Minnesota is, as our president might say, all wee-wee’d up about it? But isn’t it political liberals who have been telling us that this kind of thing is perfectly OK, and that society shouldn’t care about what consenting adults do with their spare time? I mean, geez, if Minnesota were the Episcopal Church, these two could get married and they’d make him governor. Instead, you’ve got the Democrats going all homophobic on us.
I just don’t understand the new rules.
(Via Hot Air.)
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- Sam Allberry - Is God Anti-Gay? [video]
- TEC Minnesota gives local option for same sex marriage
- More from the IX Commandment beat
- Gay Marriage is to Govt. as is Study Hall to Academics
- Andrew Wilson and Rob Bell on Unbelievable
- Don’t Sign the Letter
- Hey Anglicans, hearing the Benghazi testimony, how ‘bout that IX Commandment?
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
8 comments
Rules? There are rules for the “new morality?” I thought the whole point was no rules.
Keep up, Fischler.
[1] Posted by Jackie on 8-21-2012 at 09:45 AM · [top]
It is not the consensual sexual activity - it was the place, a rest stop, and the fact that it was non-relational. He is guilty of poor taste; these things are supposed to be within a long-term relationship, and safely out of sight in the bedroom.
[2] Posted by AnglicanXn on 8-21-2012 at 11:32 AM · [top]
AnglicanXn - How dare you show such hatred against gays by asking them to stop using bath houses and restrooms for sex. They have been doing that for decades. Gay men and boys have the right to sex anywhere, anytime. I know because the education czar said so, NEA endorses it, and schools teach it. Take your bigoted drivel elsewhere.
Of course all of this is satire - but everything I referred too is true.
[3] Posted by iamaworm on 8-21-2012 at 11:50 AM · [top]
We have to talk about this in a proper contextual manner. The bedroom remains the sanctioned place for such an activity all because of the repressive Victorian heritage still afflicting today’s men and boys. I am sure that these shackles will be removed eventually if we keep electing liberal minded lawmakers.
Speaking of context, for the ancients, it was perfectly acceptable to skinny dip. C.S. Lewis himself would not be caught dead in swim trunks. Today, due to the resurgence of puritanical prohibitions in America (undoubtedly all because of Bush and “family values”), even an innocent naked dip in the Sea of Galilee is considered taboo.
[4] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 8-21-2012 at 12:24 PM · [top]
Why are they so hetero-sexist in Minnesota? Why do they impose hetero-sexual values on gay men? What bigots!!!!!!! Any democrats too!!!!!
[5] Posted by Bill2 on 8-21-2012 at 02:35 PM · [top]
Why would most people in his district vote for him in the first place? Is this what they can most closely relate to? Do they think someone like this can be trusted to represent their interests and vote according to what they consider moral? If he tried to lower the age of consent, reduce penalties for child abuse, or tried to force Minnesota schools to have a pro-homosexual history curriculum like California, would they consider that he is acting for the flourishing of the community, or that he’s a sociopathic, self absorbed sleaze who is acting to destroy it?
Kevin Jennings holds office, but that is only because he was appointed.
Why would a community willfully bring this on themselves?
[6] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 8-21-2012 at 03:18 PM · [top]
New morality laws: (come on, guys, get with the plan) the two were not married; and neither were transgendered.
And it was tacky.
I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about the new morality laws as of August, 2012.
Wait another month, and I’m sure we’ll be able to post an update.
That, or the democrats are letting a little morality slip show out from under their transgendered-approved outfit.
[7] Posted by JuliaMarks on 8-21-2012 at 07:23 PM · [top]
or the democrats realise that, whatever they may have made lawful, voters will not be impressed…
[8] Posted by MichaelA on 8-22-2012 at 03:47 AM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.