Wednesday, October 17, 2007

No Sex Please, We're Republicans

I have been wondering today... What is the Republican position on who gets to have sex? It's a legitimate question, given how much of the party platform is devoted to sexual issues. Perhaps the best way to reach a conclusion is through deduction -- eliminate all those who should NOT be allowed to have sex and work out from there. We'll know who is allowed by the climax of this post.

TEENAGERS. There is no clearer stop sign than the one this administration puts between a guy and his prom date. Record amounts of government money are being spent to discourage teens from having sex. Not to discourage teen pregnancy - if that were the goal they'd take the easy route and promote birth control. And given the clear opposition to abortions, the position taken to avoid kids having kids is to insist on no kids having sex. And maybe this isn't so bad - sex has consequences and young people don't have the wisdom to handle them.

While I'm at it, I want to point out that since the battle to confirm Jocelyn Elders as Surgeon General, it's pretty obvious that masturbation is out of the question as well. When I'm saying no sex, I'm saying no orgasms.

HOMOSEXUALS. Laws making hate crimes more severe than regular crimes, because it unfairly singles out a group for extra protection, are bad. On the other hand, a constitutional amendment forbidding members of the same sex to marry are good, because while it singles out a group, it preserves marriage. Since you have to assume that Republicans won't suddenly endorse out-of-wedlock sex to make things easier for TEH GAY, we'll have to cross Adam and Steve off the list. Remember, no orgasms either. Ever.

POOR FOLK. The SCHIP debate has been quite an eye-opener. A couple of days ago, Mark Hemingway in the National Review suggested that it was irresponsible for the parents of Bethany Wilkerson to even have a child because they couldn't afford the insurance. Does that mean the Wilkersons shouldn't have had sex? After all they were married heterosexuals. But they shouldn't use birth control, and the only sure way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence.

Since the debate last week about Graeme Frost centered around a family who makes $70k a year, let's put that as the dividing line. If your household makes more than that, and you meet the other requirements, go at it like rabbits.

NICK NOLTE. I'm out on a limb with this one, I know. But the other day popular conservative blogger Madeline's Dad suggested it was irresponsible of a man of 65 to sire a child. Do all Republicans think this? Well, it's a pretty common sense argument; and it has the virtue of preventing further progeny from both Hugh Heffner AND Rupert Murdoch. I'll give the right benefit of the doubt and assume they're with me on this one. So instead let's make it:


At this point you can imagine a hilarious pie chart in which a little over half the population of the US is not supposed to ever have... connubial release. But I can't make that chart because I have no idea how much overlap there is between groups. How many seniors are Homosexuals? How many teens are low-income? It's a great idea for a visual gag but I can't back it up. Fortunately for comedy, there is this graph from Wikipedia:
It breaks down the population by income level. Let's say the cutoff point is $75k which should take care of the overlap. According to Republicans, only 21.6% of Americans should be allowed to have orgasms.

Sounds a little harsh? They're doing you a favor pal. What better motivation could there be to climb income brackets? See? The Republicans are all about giving a hand to the underprivileged, helping people help themselves. Though as with the Jocelyn Elders situation, they really would rather you didn't help yourself in that way.


WAMK said...

Don't forget Tony Randall.

Danielk said...

Point taken - especially Tony Randall.

Skot said...

Finish the equation, dude.

Alright, only 21.6% of Americans should, by the lights of the GOP, be allowed the ol' "happy sneeze." This percentage only takes out po' folks.

For the sake of accuracy, take out rich teenagers and rich old people: This is just a matter of lopping off both ends of the bell curve. This curve is end-weighted, because wealth accumulates with age. Still, 20% off either end will roughly do it. We're down to 17.8%.

Then take out rich homosexuals. Most estimates put homosexuality as occurring in 10% of the general populations. I'm gonna add five percent to our demographic, because of the higher incomes of childless couples put more of them in our bracket. Now we're down to 14.69%.

Finally, I'd like to refer readers to the article on the movie "Idiocracy" in Dan's Box Office Weekly blog to see what REALLY lies in store for us.