Sen. Rick Santorum

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

'I have a problem with homosexual acts'

 

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

 

That's the best thing I've read all week. Excerpts of Senator Rick Santorum's interview with the AP wherein he declared that he has a problem with "homosexual acts" are available at CNN, and they make for a fascinatingly retarded read. Being vague about how you hate gay people is one thing; comparing homosexual sex to BANGING A DOG is another. The White House hasn't issued an official statement on this yet, and if they don't soon, they're going to give all the democratic candidates for 2004--probably John Kerry in particular--a faceload of ammunition to use during the Presidential campaign.

 

My kudos go out to the AP reporter who seems to have just rolled with the punches and gaped at Santorum while he dug his own grave. That's fine journalism. Thoughts?

[Guest Some Guy]

I think he could have worded what he said better but there is nothing wrong with what he said. He doesn't have a problem with gays as people, he does have a problem with gay sex. I don't see what the big deal is. He simply wants issues regarding sexual relations, abortion, etc.. to be in the hands of the voters, not 9 judges. That is a valid arguement, one that I would support. The whole "Right to Privacy" deal is not in the Constitution, neither is anything that would justify or eliminate abortion. The Justices have essentially made stuff up and put it into law. Read Roe v. Wade, read Griswald v. Conn. and watch as the invent new Constitutional law where it shouldn't have been invented. Griswald v. Conn was about the right to contraceptives, which were illegal in Conn. Teh Supreme Court ruled that everyone had a right to use contraceptives. Where in the Constitution does it say anything like that? What the SC should have done was refuse the case and let the state put it to a vote. Then the people would have decided. I would have voted to overturn teh law and I would vote to keep abortion, I would vote to legalize sodomy. The Senator wouldn't it would seem but what his essential point is that it should be up to the people to decide. He is saying that allowing gay sex could lead to it being socailly acceptable which could lead to other deviant behaviors becoming socially acceptable like man on dog or whatever. I don't agre with him but what he said isn't really that bad unless you pull random phrases out of sentences and proclaim him to be Hitler, like the Dems are about to.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well he basically said, if you allow Homoesexual sex, it is like allowing incest, adultery, bigamy, polygamy.....so I'd say those comments aren't "right" He has the right to say what he wants, if those are truly his opinions, but he will no doubt, suffer the wrath pretty soon.

[Guest Some Guy]

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. 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, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion.

 

He said "consensual sex" not homosexual sex. As i said, he is argueing that this "Right to Privacy" does not exist in the Constittuion and as such the Supreme Court has no right to rule on it. He is wonderign where the limit is on "the Right to Privacy." Read what he said, not what you wanted him to say.

[Guest NoCalMike]

The quote you have is his rebuttle to his original statement though. He said homosexual acts need to be regulated. Gay sex is not illegal. Incest/bigamy/polygamy are not privacy issues, they are clearly against the law. So why is he even comparing gay sex to those other acts? It is another attempt to backdoor his way into taking a jab at homosexuals.

[Guest Some Guy]

Here's the previous statement:

 

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality.

I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

 

What's the problem?

 

He doesn't like non-tradional sexual relations. So what? If he feels that people should only have missionary sex during marriage for the sole purpose of procreation then so what?

 

EDIT: Furthermore gay sex is illegal in many states. Unless it's been changed very recently Mass still has Sodomy (oral and anal sex) laws. they don't enforce tehm unless it's in public and even then they usually just charge the people with indecent exposure.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The White House hasn't issued an official statement on this yet, and if they don't soon, they're going to give all the democratic candidates for 2004--probably John Kerry in particular--a faceload of ammunition to use during the Presidential campaign.

 

My kudos go out to the AP reporter who seems to have just rolled with the punches and gaped at Santorum while he dug his own grave. That's fine journalism. Thoughts?

Why does the White Hose have to issue any statment. These where Santorum's comment's not the White House's.

 

As for Democrats using this against Bush? Aren't most gays and lesbians democrats to begin with? I don't know how much of an affect it will have on the election.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Aren't most gays and lesbians democrats to begin with?

Uhh... Marney, for starters.

 

"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. 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. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does....Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."

 

The problem is that he's arguing homosexual acts (and thus, homosexual people, unless homosexuals are required to remain celibate) are the bane of Western civilization, and that they're wrecking American family life. The "homosexuality leads to bigamy, polygamy, incest, fucking sheep up the ass, masturbating with crosses, blah blah blah" is about as valid as the oft-mentioned (invalid) claim that most child molesters are homosexuals.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I said most. Not all of them.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

The White House hasn't issued an official statement on this yet, and if they don't soon, they're going to give all the democratic candidates for 2004--probably John Kerry in particular--a faceload of ammunition to use during the Presidential campaign.

 

My kudos go out to the AP reporter who seems to have just rolled with the punches and gaped at Santorum while he dug his own grave. That's fine journalism.  Thoughts?

Why does the White Hose have to issue any statment. These where Santorum's comment's not the White House's.

Because letting someone with outdated views like this speak without a condemnation or a slap on the wrist from the administration is, in the public eye, to condone it. If you have an administration that indirectly supports these notions of homosexual sex as evil, it's certainly something for Democrats to speak out against. It's usually not good when a political party lives up to its stereotypes.

 

And re-reading the original article--not this transcript, but the article about it--I noticed that Kerry has already made a statement. Self-serving, sure, but there you go.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

He doesn't have a problem with gays as people, he does have a problem with gay sex. I don't see what the big deal is.

 

See, I don't understand that as a justification. How can Santorum divorce the two? People have sex. Gay people are people. Gay people have sex. He's basically saying that they can have some rights as people, but not all of them, and that I do think that falls into conflict with the general principles that govern our nation.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Why does the White Hose have to issue any statment. These where Santorum's comment's not the White House's.

They don't have to persay, but given the strong stance taken by the White House against both Trent Lott and Jim Moran, they would seem pretty inconsistent ignoring this.

[Guest Some Guy]

He doesn't have a problem with gays as people, he does have a problem with gay sex. I don't see what the big deal is.

 

See, I don't understand that as a justification. How can Santorum divorce the two? People have sex. Gay people are people. Gay people have sex. He's basically saying that they can have some rights as people, but not all of them, and that I do think that falls into conflict with the general principles that govern our nation.

"Love the sinner but no the sin" or whatever the line is.

 

You can like drug addicts as people but hate that they are drug addicts. A lot of my friends are trouble makers, to put it nicely. I like my friends but I hate that they do some of the shit they do.

 

He is apparently a religous man and dislikes the fact that people have pre-marital, extra-marital, homosexual, and oral sex. AS I said earlier, I assume that he wishes that all people would only have sex in the confines of marriage and for the sole purpose of procreation. I don't agree with this notion, but he is entitled to his beliefs and his opinion is legitimate and not offensive to me in any way.

[Guest NoCalMike]

He doesn't have a problem with gays as people, he does have a problem with gay sex. I don't see what the big deal is.

 

See, I don't understand that as a justification. How can Santorum divorce the two? People have sex. Gay people are people. Gay people have sex. He's basically saying that they can have some rights as people, but not all of them, and that I do think that falls into conflict with the general principles that govern our nation.

"Love the sinner but no the sin" or whatever the line is.

 

You can like drug addicts as people but hate that they are drug addicts. A lot of my friends are trouble makers, to put it nicely. I like my friends but I hate that they do some of the shit they do.

 

He is apparently a religous man and dislikes the fact that people have pre-marital, extra-marital, homosexual, and oral sex. AS I said earlier, I assume that he wishes that all people would only have sex in the confines of marriage and for the sole purpose of procreation. I don't agree with this notion, but he is entitled to his beliefs and his opinion is legitimate and not offensive to me in any way.

Well if he is going to hide behind religion, then he should know there is a seperation between church and state mandate. So his religious views, need not to be told to everyone.

[Guest Cerebus]

He was acutally quoting a Supereme Court decision made in 86 i believe where a justice was compparing consexual homosexual acts in one's home to consexual polygamy, incest etc.

[Guest Some Guy]

Seapration of chruch and state is another extra-constitutional deal that the Supreme Court put into practice. Read the First Amendment, no national religion and no religious discrimination. Separation of church and state that is not.

[Guest Cerebus]

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

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

 

::loads his gun::

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

He was acutally quoting a Supereme Court decision made in 86 i believe where a justice was compparing consexual homosexual acts in one's home to consexual polygamy, incest etc.

A decision that has been overturned in Santorum's state of Pennsylvania, by the way.

 

I don't think Santorum is insane or anything--he doesn't give up his citizenship and his right to his beliefs when he takes office--but I really feel he should take the comments back or revise them to the point where he doesn't sound hateful and ignorant. I don't think he is; I think he's just a Christian with strong beliefs, but as someone in a position of power, he needs to be more careful about what he says. The obvious thing to say is that the people of Pennsylvania should vote him out of office if they don't like the way he's conducting himself, but I don't think he's up for re-election for a while yet.

 

In other news, an unseparated church and state would be insanely dangerous. I already get nervous when Bush uses overly religious rhetoric in his speeches about war, and I don't want it to get further than that.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Well, we already had a 30 page topic about that, which is why I loaded my shotgun.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

There's no way your gun is a shotgun.

 

It's clearly a nerd gun.

 

NERRRRRRRRRD!

[Guest EQ]

"Not that there's anything wrong with that"

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Go eat a bag of dicks, Edwin.

 

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Twice even!

[Guest EricMM]

As far as I can tell, what this person said wasn't incorrect as far as I can tell. He merely said that there is nothing in the constitution that says anything about sex. So he says it should be a state's rights to outlaw everything or legalize everything.

 

Which is fundamentally true. It's not something I AGREE with, I think it's wrong and stupid, but a lot of people say and do things that I think are wrong and stupid.

 

I certainly wouldn't vote for him, or live in any state that had him as a substantial leader, and I would pity anyone who did live in his state who did not conform to his select Christian ideals. I don't understand how things like Homosexual acts subvert American Culture. Things done in the privacy of one's home between two consenting adults should not be part of the law. I don't mean like smoking crack or nothing, but when it's sex? How could that hurt anyone, as long as it's private?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Don't pay any attention to his half-assed backtrack. He simply used that as justification for his bigotry against homosexuals. The constitution says NOTHING about homosexual relations, for it or against it.

[Guest EricMM]

SO if a state or America itself wants to outlaw it, there's nothing in the constitution saying one can't...

 

I mean I think that's all he's saying. I think he can find enough people that think the way he does that he can get laws passed outlawing man to man relationships, and certainly banning homosexual marriages etc.

 

Again, I don't agree with any of that, far from it.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Read the actual interview, though. It goes much farther than that.

[Guest Powerplay]

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.

[Guest NoCalMike]

It sounds to me like he thought of a way to backdoor his anti-homosexual rhetoric into his interview and when called on it, he tried to revise his statement, but the damage was already done. He hates homosexuals, and wants to rid of them. He just found a "creative" way to say it.