Do republicans want to outlaw adultry and pre marital sex?

Its no secret the right wing adopts hardcore religious views when it comes to sex. With people like Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney etc, is this a sign that republicans would like to outlaw what they consider "immoral?" Would Santorum support prison terms for those who cheat on their husband or wife? Would he support prison terms for those who meet a woman for a one night stand? Is this what America has become? A nation so repressed both sexually and culturally that we still punish for personal choices?

 

Republican's love big Government!!

 

I hope not. I don't want my friend or myself to goto jail just because we have sex every now and then. Certainly another friend of mine nor his girl should be jailed being that they have sex outside of marriage and have done so for about a decade being that they have been together for that long yet don't feel the need to formalize things in such a fashion.

 

Republicans certainly do not hold those religious views. Some may but its a small minority. I know I certainly don't and anyone that's a republican but not heavily involved in church doesn't either.

 

I have to say that I have a hard time finding republicans who are not heavily involved with the church. Infact my dad is the only person I know and I'm not sure why he is a republican at this point. I'll have to ask him next time we hang out. In all seriousness though the party has completely left behind anyone who is not a social conservative at this point. That's why people like Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum are still around. Romney is only around because he's the same as Obama, and will likely be the nominee.

 

I don't think they could make it happen if they wanted to. How would they, on what grounds could they possibly do such a thing?

Some food for thought for you both, in case either one of you should support statism or similar views:

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...lican-president-does-finally-take-office.html

 

I'm sorry that your circle of friends is so small but that's irrelevant. I will come back and say that out of my whole University about half are republicans and I don't know of any that go to church. The republicans I do know that go to church certainly don't have any desire to legislate morality.

 

Why are they republicans then being that legislating morality is a major tenet of the party at this point? If they believe in republican talking points such as small government and liberty then they need to join a party that promotes such things such as the Libertarian party. The republicans chased me out some time ago being that I believe such things.

 

It is not a major tenet of the republican party. You can't judge the whole group by what a few kooks running for President are saying. Why do you think we are having a hard time getting behind a candidate. Its because they believe in crap like this.

The republican party, even with its faults, is still more in line with conservative views than the libertarians are. Gotta roll with the choices you got though they aren't always perfect.

 

That depends on what you believe Conservatism to truly be.

This:

http://conservapedia.com/Neoconservatism

Or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

I choose option number two.

 

Both parties love big govt. I am not sure how anybody with a straight face can argue otherwise....

We have the openly big govt party followed closely by the closet big govt party....

Its either option A or option A1. There is no difference. That is why nothing changes.

Maybe its time to try something new?

 

The only person not running on those lines is Ron Paul, and the Republicans hate him.

 

We don't hate him we just don't agree with many of his views. I personally won't vote for him because he voted against the Amber Alert Bill which to date has saved over 500 children's lives.

If it was up to Paul they would be dead.

 

Hmm, haven't heard that. I'd be curious as to why he did. Personally I think Amber Alerts are a good idea. My guess is there was something more than the alerts themselves in that bill, but I honestly don't know. I also have to say I don't believe you represent most republicans. I say this from looking at the candidates as well as right wing radio, the little bit of Fox news I pick up, and this forum. If the republicans were as you seem to say they are I'd be much less harsh a critic of them.

 

He voted no because he believed it was up to the States and not the Federal Government to do it. He didn't care that the States were not actually doing anything until the DOJ organized and helped fund it.

 

Ah, yeah I'd have to disagree with him there. I feel I have to say though that for the most part I agree with him (broad strokes).

 

I would agree, but what happens if you have one of those crazy nut Repus in office trying to pass those laws?

 

Conservatism is the first option. The second is Liberalism. The names of that are clear.

I am really getting tired of the neolingua of the Americans.

Libertarian = Liberal - Classical liberal
Liberal = Progressist?
Conservative = Sometimes Libertarian-classical liberal

Always recreating meanings for words. And one arrives to don't know which meaning of the word you are using.

 

Liberalism in N.America has become something different than classical liberalism. The most noted difference is in their stance concerning the role of government. Limited government, free markets, constitutionalism, and individual liberty (meaning more sovereignty from government) are all very conservative stances... these stances are the root of classical liberalism. American Liberals are quite different from classical liberals in that they (for the most part) believe in furthering entitlements/welfare, expanding government in general with greater centralization, and tight regulation of the market. Classical liberals and liberals even differ socially in that liberals are more about government enforced civil rights as opposed to classical liberals who believe in individual liberty... which is to say less government social enforcement. This is also an area that sets neo-cons and classical liberals apart. Neo-cons are also willing (for the most part) to use government to regulate things like marriage and such.

 

I would not outlaw or illegalize either.

But I see nothing wrong with the govt. trying to discourage certain kinds of personal behavior the same way it discourages smoking.

 

It would be more likely that the liberals would outlaw this, and everything else. They're the compulsive controllers. Raw milk anyone?

 

I'm not sure where you are getting this. We had too terms of Bush and I don't recall any federal laws passed to criminalize adultery.

Relax, even under a Republican President, you can still cheat!

 

Ridiculous question. Been a Christian all my life. Never. Met. A. Single. Person. Who. Wanted. To. Do. This.

 

It would be more likely that Democrats would outlaw adultery and pre-marital sex.......for the good of the Country.

 

Just as most (not all) politicians do/say... those on the Right tend to promote ideas or policies which are convenient to them being elected or making money.

Ultimately, it is up to the PEOPLE to filter out the scam artists.