Sen. Rick Santorum

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Sure he does. That's also not the outrage about the comments.

 

The guy practically compared homosexual sex to fucking a dog.

[Guest Cerebus]

This is really an unenforcable law...the point is the symbolism that such a law entails.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I'm FROM PA and let me say this: I may not always agree with Arlen Spector, but at least the man has EARNED his spot and did a good job as Attorney General of PA.

 

Santorum is a spoiled rich kid. I don't have time for anyoen who feels that they have the right to dictate morality in goverment. Especially someone who's been at the heart of scandal before like Santorum.

[Guest Kelly]

The way I read the comments:

 

If the Supreme Court has ruled that consensual sex is legal between consenting adults, this is not limited to homosexual acts, and also applies to incest, polygamy etc.

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions

So, if someone is gay, they shouldn't ever have sexual relations?

 

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality.

Is he saying gay people aren't mongamous?

 

Santorum almost makes me embarrassed to be a Pennsylvanian.

[Guest DrTom]

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.

I think he's running the Olympic mile with something there. Consensual sex between two adults doesn't really cover the other cases, since they're already defined as either illegal or extreme societal taboos. Basically, he doesn't want gays having sex, and he's trying to compare it to disreputable forms of sex to get people opposed to them to agree with him. I doubt it will work, and I really hope it blows up in his face. What business is it of anyone's what two people do in their own bedroom?

 

You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution...

Well, he's right that "privacy" isn't guaranteed in the Constitution (I don't think it's even mentioned by name, in fact). Still, there are well-established privacy laws in this country, and it's a good thing. Without them, jackasses like Santorum might be kicking people's doors in and finding out precisely in whom they stick their johnsons. And that's just none of his business.

[Guest NoCalMike]

If he was simply speaking out against the PRIVACY issue, then why did the "homosexual" talk even get in there? He threw it in to jab something he doesn't like. There was no need to even bring up homosexuals if you are going to to also bring up incest/bigamy/polygamy, since one has nothing to do with the other. He could have simply said, he had an issue with the "privacy" issue and not said a word about homosexuality.

[Guest Powerplay]

Well, he's right that "privacy" isn't guaranteed in the Constitution (I don't think it's even mentioned by name, in fact). Still, there are well-established privacy laws in this country, and it's a good thing. Without them, jackasses like Santorum might be kicking people's doors in and finding out precisely in whom they stick their johnsons. And that's just none of his business.

Yeah, any right to privacy is never mentioned in the Constitution, but it was really created in Griswold vs. Connecticut Supreme Court case in which Justice Douglas says that there is a right to privacy by cutting and pasting parts of the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments together. I don't really agree to the decision fully, but I'm still learning about it so I'll reserve full judgement 'til later. Then again, I have to say Douglas is more or less a hypocrit by saying that they took Griswold because he said it wasn't really a political case, but then did nothing to stop Roe vs. Wade from coming to the courts (Which, when you really look at it, is a purely political matter and has no right to be decided in the courts).

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

This guy is a Fucknaut of the first degree.

 

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family.

 

Maybe they do. Maybe they don't.

 

The government shouldn't care

 

 

Seriously. It is not an objective of our Government to try and preserve the lifestyle of the american nuclear family. Whether it's one mommy, one daddy; one mommy, two daddies; two mommies; or several mommies/daddies IT DOES NOT MATTER. The Government should not be sticking it's nose into this business. It was not created nor was intended to monitor and regulate people's sex lives.

 

This man may just be expressing his opinion, but he is dead WRONG when he says the government has a job to keep everyone living a healthy and moral lifestyle. We are allowed to live our life as we see fit (and when we aren't, we ought to) as long as we are not breaking laws that infringe on anyone's rights (such as beating/killing someone, or stealing another's posessions.)

 

The government is supposed to continue it's job regardless.

[Guest Powerplay]

Was that directed at me? I'm not arguing with you, but I was just talking about the true origins of the 'Right to Privacy'. Sorry if I seem eager, but I'm right in the middle of learning about it in my Civil Rights and Civil Liberties class, and it's cool to be able to use this stuff in discussion .

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Nope. That wasn't directed at any specific person. I hadn't really read past the first few replies yet, and the "well he was just stating his opinion!" apologists were starting to get to me already.

[Guest Powerplay]

Ah, okay. I was all "Wtf, is he talking to me about that?" when I saw your post.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I don't agree with what he said, but I'm glad I'm moving back to PA -- he's going to need all the help he can muster when running for re-election...

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Going to support someone you don't agree with going back in power?

 

Man, and to think some people scratch their heads when I say this board can be really black & white on the party lines sometimes.

 

 

EDIT: By the way, is Marney here? I'd really like to see her explain away this one. Can anyone? Was he extremely drunk or poisoned by elite Liberal drug-ninjas, distorting his sense of reality? Why the fuck would anyone say anything like that?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yes, I'm here. Explain what away, precisely?

[Guest Some Guy]

So are you arguing that Seperation of Church and State is bad?

 

::loads his gun::

No, he's just saying it's not actually in the Constitution. Jefferson expressed it 14 years later in his letter to the Danbury Baptists the theory of a "strict wall of seperation between church and state". Though that is the view I personally take on it. And Tyler, there was about 4 pages on it and 26 pages of flamebaiting, name-calling, and idiotic responses.

 

Now, I agree that Eric MM's analysis is correct: All he's saying is that there is nothing in the Constitution that says you are guarenteed nor denied the right to a homosexual relation. He takes the view that since it isn't there, it should be left up to the legislatures voted in by the people, which I somewhat support. I very much dislike political matters (Abortion for one, which was an utterly horrid decision either way you cut it) because you get your simple superlegislature of 9 men and women who are controlled by no-one and may be totally out of touch with the current public. Besides, a law against sodomy is practically unenforcable without the so-called 'jack-booted police' that Douglas referred to in Griswold vs. Connecticut (Another decision I disagree with somewhat) literally barging in the door and checking in on you. If you think the police are giong to spend time doing that all day rather than catching real criminals, I don't think you can be helped.

Exactly. ANd Tyler's commetns are a perfect indication of what everyone here is doing. They are inferring what they want to infer, hearing what they want to hear and ignoring what the guy actually said.

 

NoCal, how do you know that he hates gays? You don't, you just made it up. He said at least twice that he has no problem with gay people, he just dislikes that sexual acts in which they participate. And he thinks that the Supreme Court has no right to decide on sex laws because they are not mentioned in the Constitution, he thinks it's a state rights issue. If the peolple of PA want gay sex to be legal then they should be able to vote on it. If they do, they will most likely vote for it to be legal. What Santorum is sayign is exactly the opposite of what the abortion people say, they are scared that if there is a vote on that they might lose, so they go the Supreme Court to vote 7-2 and make up new Constitutional law. It's typcial of activists.

 

I disagree with Santorum in his beliefs, but agree with his opinion about state rights. That's what he said. he did not compare gay sex to fucking a dog. Mentioning something in teh same paragraph as something else is not comparing it.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Yes, I'm here. Explain what away, precisely?

Why the hell anyone would say something like that heading into election? Particularly someone with stroke in the GOP.

 

I hear that the guy who's taking over in Trent Lott's position is a cool guy, but the rest of the Republican leadership deserves to be shot in the face.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

No, he's just saying it's not actually in the Constitution. Jefferson expressed it 14 years later in his letter to the Danbury Baptists the theory of a "strict wall of seperation between church and state". Though that is the view I personally take on it. And Tyler, there was about 4 pages on it and 26 pages of flamebaiting, name-calling, and idiotic responses.

 

Now, I agree that Eric MM's analysis is correct: All he's saying is that there is nothing in the Constitution that says you are guarenteed nor denied the right to a homosexual relation. He takes the view that since it isn't there, it should be left up to the legislatures voted in by the people, which I somewhat support. I very much dislike political matters (Abortion for one, which was an utterly horrid decision either way you cut it) because you get your simple superlegislature of 9 men and women who are controlled by no-one and may be totally out of touch with the current public. Besides, a law against sodomy is practically unenforcable without the so-called 'jack-booted police' that Douglas referred to in Griswold vs. Connecticut (Another decision I disagree with somewhat) literally barging in the door and checking in on you. If you think the police are giong to spend time doing that all day rather than catching real criminals, I don't think you can be helped.

Exactly. ANd Tyler's commetns are a perfect indication of what everyone here is doing. They are inferring what they want to infer, hearing what they want to hear and ignoring what the guy actually said.

 

NoCal, how do you know that he hates gays? You don't, you just made it up. He said at least twice that he has no problem with gay people, he just dislikes that sexual acts in which they participate. And he thinks that the Supreme Court has no right to decide on sex laws because they are not mentioned in the Constitution, he thinks it's a state rights issue. If the peolple of PA want gay sex to be legal then they should be able to vote on it. If they do, they will most likely vote for it to be legal. What Santorum is sayign is exactly the opposite of what the abortion people say, they are scared that if there is a vote on that they might lose, so they go the Supreme Court to vote 7-2 and make up new Constitutional law. It's typcial of activists.

 

I disagree with Santorum in his beliefs, but agree with his opinion about state rights. That's what he said. he did not compare gay sex to fucking a dog. Mentioning something in teh same paragraph as something else is not comparing it.

Again, the entire uproar about this isn't his views on state's rights.

 

It's his utter bigotry against gay people.

[Guest Powerplay]

No, he's just saying it's not actually in the Constitution. Jefferson expressed it 14 years later in his letter to the Danbury Baptists the theory of a "strict wall of seperation between church and state". Though that is the view I personally take on it. And Tyler, there was about 4 pages on it and 26 pages of flamebaiting, name-calling, and idiotic responses.

 

Now, I agree that Eric MM's analysis is correct: All he's saying is that there is nothing in the Constitution that says you are guarenteed nor denied the right to a homosexual relation. He takes the view that since it isn't there, it should be left up to the legislatures voted in by the people, which I somewhat support. I very much dislike political matters (Abortion for one, which was an utterly horrid decision either way you cut it) because you get your simple superlegislature of 9 men and women who are controlled by no-one and may be totally out of touch with the current public. Besides, a law against sodomy is practically unenforcable without the so-called 'jack-booted police' that Douglas referred to in Griswold vs. Connecticut (Another decision I disagree with somewhat) literally barging in the door and checking in on you. If you think the police are giong to spend time doing that all day rather than catching real criminals, I don't think you can be helped.

Exactly. ANd Tyler's commetns are a perfect indication of what everyone here is doing. They are inferring what they want to infer, hearing what they want to hear and ignoring what the guy actually said.

 

NoCal, how do you know that he hates gays? You don't, you just made it up. He said at least twice that he has no problem with gay people, he just dislikes that sexual acts in which they participate. And he thinks that the Supreme Court has no right to decide on sex laws because they are not mentioned in the Constitution, he thinks it's a state rights issue. If the peolple of PA want gay sex to be legal then they should be able to vote on it. If they do, they will most likely vote for it to be legal. What Santorum is sayign is exactly the opposite of what the abortion people say, they are scared that if there is a vote on that they might lose, so they go the Supreme Court to vote 7-2 and make up new Constitutional law. It's typcial of activists.

 

I disagree with Santorum in his beliefs, but agree with his opinion about state rights. That's what he said. he did not compare gay sex to fucking a dog. Mentioning something in teh same paragraph as something else is not comparing it.

Again, the entire uproar about this isn't his views on state's rights.

 

It's his utter bigotry against gay people.

He's not bigoted, though. Just because he doesn't think that homosexual sex is something exactly good for the family doesn't mean he's a bigot. I don't agree with the view that it "Underminds the family and society", but until he's saying "Death to all those dirty faggots", he's not a real bigot. People need not enjoy every lifestyle choice out there. Some Guy is correctly pointing out that just because he doesn't enjoy the thought of homosexual sex he's automatically a bigot, which isn't correct. He says that he doesn't hate gay people, and said it twice in the interview. Tyler, you can love the sinner hate the sin, otherwise that thread where you said you don't support the war yet support our troops is utter bull crap. I'm sorry, I really don't enjoy the thought of homosexual sex, but I'm not about to kill everyone who does it. I know homosexuals and I'm still fine with them. Hey, I'm against Affirmative Action as well. Does that make me a Klan member?

 

And to make the point, this is about State's rights. The argument he is making is that there really is no way to challenge this sodomy law under the Constitution because in no way does the Constitution discuss it or even hint at it, which is totally valid and I would argue correct. If it's not there at all, how can the Supreme Court possibly discuss it? This is something that should be decided by state legislatures and not 9 old men and women who aren't put in power by the people and can't be effected by them either, just as Griswold and Roe should have been. Just because the law somehow deals with the homosexual lifestyle doesn't mean he should suddenly recant on his views.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

He's not bigoted, though.

Just because he doesn't think that homosexual sex is something exactly good for the family doesn't mean he's a bigot.

 

Bigamy and polygamy aren't sex acts. Incest is generally a form of statutory rape. What's his point except to show what a bigot he is?

 

It isn't a factual statement. It isn't an all-or-nothing thing. The government can just as easily say any type of monogomous marriage between consenting adults is legal without legalizing bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, etc. It's an ignorant statement. (this does not think that I think they SHOULD have to power to say what kinds of people can get together, but that they can)

 

People need not enjoy every lifestyle choice out there.

 

People need not to make friends with every race out there either, but people who hate based on race are shunned and outcast.

 

This guy is the new Trent Lott. He's talking shit about people who can't help who they are.

 

Some Guy is correctly pointing out that just because he doesn't enjoy the thought of homosexual sex he's automatically a bigot, which isn't correct. He says that he doesn't hate gay people, and said it twice in the interview.

 

Basically what he said was "It's okay to be gay, just don't be all faggoty about it."

 

I mean.. WTF?

 

You suck, man. A lot.

 

All opinions are not created equal, and I don't intend to shut up and be silent (oh, I mean, respect his different worldview) when some raving dickhead in the senate spouts off about how gays are immoral. I have about as much patience for this intolerant jackass as I have for Klan members, and I think both are unfit to ever be in a position of political power. PERIOD.

 

Either you agree with him, in which case you're no different from the people who'd desperately tred to cling onto their black-hating in face of the civil rights movement and all evidence to the contrary. Or you're just a worthless apologist who doesn't agree with him, you just want to protect his right to be as bigoted as possible and try to get his 19th century worldview into the lawbooks. In which case you're no different from the college professors who've gotten too far from reality, and claim that it's cultural imperialism to denounce the way women are treated in Iran.

 

 

EDITED so as to not use a racist slur in my comparison to the early civil rights movements.

[Guest Some Guy]

Jobber, what the fuck are you talking about? The guy said that he didn't like gay sex, he said twice that he had no problem with gay people. you have taken taht to mean that he hates gay people, despite that he said twice that he didn't.

He did not compare gay sex to dog fucking or anything else. Listing things is not automatically comparing them. Murder, rape, theft, blueberry muffins, see? What he sees is waht he consideres to be the the downfall of the tradional family unit. he feels that by legalizing gay sex then we area condoning and promoting it. Just as by legalizing murder we would be. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong about that. Furthermore he also said that although he doesn't support the legalization of sodomy, he wishes it was voted on by the people, not 9 old fogies who have been known to invent stuff out of thin air and say it was ion teh Constitution. Whay is this so hard for you to grasp?

 

Oh yeah, to use Tyler's terminology. OMG! DUr......ALL RePublIcaNs ArE EviL!

[Guest Powerplay]

He's not bigoted, though.

Just because he doesn't think that homosexual sex is something exactly good for the family doesn't mean he's a bigot.

 

Bigamy and polygamy aren't sex acts. Incest is generally a form of statutory rape. What's his point except to show what a bigot he is?

 

It isn't a factual statement. It isn't an all-or-nothing thing. The government can just as easily say any type of monogomous marriage between consenting adults is legal without legalizing bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, etc. It's an ignorant statement. (this does not think that I think they SHOULD have to power to say what kinds of people can get together, but that they can)

Okay, first off, I don't approve of his views on Homosexuality myself. Let's get that clear. I don't find being homosexual as immoral or wrong. Then again, I personally don't like to think about homosexual sex, either. It's not something I really find appealing, but I'm not going to stop someone else from doing it. He believes it's not something that's right for the family, which is what a lot of Christians believe. I actually know a few who believe the same thing, but they aren't all up for lynching 'faggots', either. They just don't think it's the right thing for a good family. It may not be totally right, but it doesn't mean that they are actively hating homosexuals. If a homosexual were to enter their household, they wouldn't shun them, ass hole.

 

The courts can't rule on sexual acts period. They have no jurisdiction to do so. He cited the examples because then people would start bringing those to the courts arguing under the same precedent. Why not bestiality? It's in the privacy of your own home. Same with incestous sex. It's in the privacy of your own home. The sodomy law can't be enforced in anyway. It's harmless as the contraceptive law in Griswold. But to have the court take an offical stance on sex is just as bad on abortion. It's a highly polticized debate and any ruling they handed down would be seen as them acting as a super legislature. Change it through voting.

 

People need not to make friends with every race out there either, but people who hate based on race are shunned and outcast.

 

This guy is the new Trent Lott. He's talking shit about people who can't help who they are.

 

So wait, he's proposed legislation to outlaw homosexuality? He didn't shun anyone. Again, Tyler said he didn't support the war but supported the troops. Same argument here. Tyler doesn't hate soldiers, nor does he hate homosexuals. It's the same argument as hate the sin, not the sinner. And NO, I'm not saying being gay is a sin.

 

Basically what he said was "It's okay to be gay, just don't be all faggoty about it."

 

I mean.. WTF?

 

You suck, man. A lot.

 

And screw you, self-righteous asshole. You are trying to accuse him of something that he denied in the interview twice. He doesn't like their lifestyle choice, but he doesn't hold it against them as people. I know guys who smoke pot. I don't approve of it, but I still like them as people. Does that make me a bigot somehow? No.

 

I'll be back later to get to the rest of the post, but I need to go play at a concert.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Except he isn't saying that...

 

He doesn't hate the person, but he hates who they are.

[Guest Some Guy]

Except he isn't saying that...

 

He doesn't hate the person, but he hates who they are.

So gay people are defined solely by their sexual actions? I'm staright, but I'd like to think of myself as more than just a chick fucking machine. I think of gays as more than just guy fucking machines.

 

Being straight and having sexual relations with my girlfreind is part of who I am, not all of who I am. Same goes for gays.

Furthermore where did he say he hated anything?

 

Tyler, do you realize how stupid you sound?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Except the comments were bigoted. Jesus, open your blind conservative eyes and admit it.

 

The guy basically said, "If we allow homosexuals to act on their orientation, what's next? Man on child? Man on dog?"

 

HOW DOES THAT COMPARE AT ALL?

 

It doesn't. It was a bigoted statement. Admit it.

 

By saying "I support gays, but I don't support the fact that they're allowed to show their love in any way" is retarded. It doesn't compare in the slightest bit to the troops argument, because hoping people don't die and hoping they don't show their love compares on NO LEVEL WHATSOEVER. My statement was that I hope it goes well and I'm supporting our actions, if not the justification for the war. How does that compare in any ounce?

[Guest Some Guy]

Except the comments were bigoted. Jesus, open your blind conservative eyes and admit it.

 

The guy basically said, "If we allow homosexuals to act on their orientation, what's next? Man on child? Man on dog?"

 

HOW DOES THAT COMPARE AT ALL?

 

It doesn't. It was a bigoted statement. Admit it.

Open your blind liberal eyes and read the fucking article.

 

What he said was that if the Supreme Court rules that Sodomy is Constitutionally protected, which it is clearly not, neither is any type of sexual relations, then what's next? They could rule that anything that goes on in the privacy of one's home is legal. It sets a dangerous precident. Just like you guys said about America acting without the consent of the UN.

 

By saying "I support gays, but I don't support the fact that they're allowed to show their love in any way" is retarded. It doesn't compare in the slightest bit to the troops argument, because hoping people don't die and hoping they don't show their love compares on NO LEVEL WHATSOEVER. My statement was that I hope it goes well and I'm supporting our actions, if not the justification for the war. How does that compare in any ounce?

 

Did he say in any way? No. READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!! Believe it or not theri are other ways to express your love for someone other than fucking them. I love my girlfriend all the time and tell her that, I kiss her, I hug her, but I don't always have my dick in her.

 

Tyler, I assume you have a few conservative friends. I assume that you can wrap your head around the concept of having no problem with the person but having a problem with their politics.

I am not anti-gay people, but I don't really like the thought of two men fucking eachother in the ass. Does that make me a bigot? No. If sodomy laws came on a ballot then I would vote for it to be legal, because I don't think it's my business if two gusy want to fuck. This guy does, but have I demonized him because I disagree with him like you have? No.

 

I love the supposedly open-minded, diversity loving and tolerant left, too bad you guys are the least tolerant, open-minded, or diversity loving people in the country except for the Klan and the Black Panthers.

 

You can absolutely not accept that someone disagrees with you. If they do they're not only wrong or mistaken they're evil and muct be demonized and run out of office and might as well ruin theri reputation and life while you're at it. It's pathetic. Especially whent eh guy said nothing offensive to any open-minded person. He did not compare gay sex to sodomy, he did not call gays evil, he did nothing that you claim he did and you have the gall to tell me to open my eyes? Grow the fuck up.

[Guest The next Poster is ghey]

My question is, if he has a problem with homosexual relations (IE BUTT Sex), why does he have this problem?

 

Are gay men jumping into his window at night and raping him in the ass?

 

Are gay men fucking each other in the streets, in the subways, in the auditoriums, etc? No.

 

Then why does he feel the need to make a statement against such acts? They aren't affecting him personally..

[Guest Powerplay]

My question is, if he has a problem with homosexual relations (IE BUTT Sex), why does he have this problem?

 

Are gay men jumping into his window at night and raping him in the ass?

 

Are gay men fucking each other in the streets, in the subways, in the auditoriums, etc? No.

 

Then why does he feel the need to make a statement against such acts? They aren't affecting him personally..

Well, canibalizism isn't affecting me personally, but I still have a wee problem with it. This is just an example, not a comparision. You can have problems with things that don't affect you personally. Abortion is another, and a far more valid one I would say.

[Guest DrTom]

What he said was that if the Supreme Court rules that Sodomy is Constitutionally protected, which it is clearly not, neither is any type of sexual relations, then what's next?

That's the thing: NOTHING has to be next, even if the Court rules that sodomy is all good in the hood. Basically, Santorum is bringing up things like polygamy, bestiality, and incest -- all of which have VERY negative connotations in American society -- and making a comparison to homosexual sex. He's clearly trying to demonize the behavior of homosexuals. I don't care what he claims in the article: it's apparent Santorum hates gays. He's a politican, so he's quite used to lying, and this is just one more example of it. The man is clearly a bigot.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Jobber, what the fuck are you talking about? The guy said that he didn't like gay sex,

Which, to many people, is very offensive. Sure, a lot of people also agree with him but think if he had said something like 'I have no problem with Muslims, but I don't believe that facing mecca and bowing in prayer is a moral form of behavior.'

 

This is just another type of bigotry and I think that those of us who find it outrageous are justified.

 

What he sees is waht he consideres to be the the downfall of the tradional family unit.  he feels that by legalizing gay sex then we area condoning and promoting it.  Just as by legalizing murder we would be.

 

Legalizing murder infringes on someone else's rights (that is, their right to live.) What two consenting adults do in their out of the public infringes on nobody else.