JackC Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Does he represent your views? Maybe we should go into his bedroom and see exaclty what's he's doing with his wife! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2962-2003Apr21.html I wonder which part of the constitution harms family values? This guy is a nutjob. Can someone defend this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Can someone defend this? hmm....freedom of speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I understand exactly what he is saying.......it is an argument that if sodomy is acceptable as private sexual behaviour, then any form of intercourse has to be accepted so long as it is private. He may or may not be right. But I understand that he was making a logical point about the consequences of accepting a point-of-view. I personally don't care what people do in the privacy of their homes. I do care about folks like you Jack who don't see the argument for what it is, but employ precisely the politically correct thought processes that have been in play for the last 30 years by describing him as a nutjob. And this is why I will never agree to anything you support, why myself and others will fight to the nth degree anything you advocate, why we will work to undermine everything you espouse. the time will come, as part of the poltical cycle, when your preferred set of values and political leaders achieve power. and you will be out there pandering how we all need to unite and work together for the common good. it has already been demonstrated, however, that Presidents and political parties can be undermined, they can be fought, they can be diminished. what an oddity - you will have to employ the very mechanisms of power you likely detest to prevent this from happening. good luck! power to the people....right????? and the constitution, of course, has nothing to say directly or indirectly about sexual relations. no doubt the founding fathers spent weeks/months considering the finer points of anal intercourse and Clintonesque BJs. this is another lie.........JackC have you no shame? to borrow a phrase you and the lefties so enjoy when they want to belittle someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Typical left. Let's try to infer what he might have meant without looking at context. The same people were silent when Jim Moran makes openly anti-semitic remarks. What he said was right on the mark in the context it was said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 From reading the article, I think the context is perfectly clear. I think he misses a huge point. Gays are two consenting adults. A BJ is between two consenting aduts, but it's sex that doesn't promote the family. Should these be ilegal too? Even if the participants are married? Gay sex is not the same as molestation or beastiality. Niether of those is a consented to action between adults. I can't help but hope the Right argues this in the next election. I just hope they add on no BJ, no birth control, ect... I'm sure that would go over very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 gbear....while reaffirming that...within wide bounds...I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes (as a practical matter it would be impossible to enforce such proscriptions anyway)...there are problems with what you advocate as well....you have moved the focus over to consenting actions.......so if two consenting adults agree to mutilation during intercourse...this is acceptable to you? if they argree to anal intercourse in front of minors....say 6 year olds...this is acceptable to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 He didnt say they were the same. The left is INFERRING that he meant that. What he is saying is that if the court is going to create a "no holds barred" rule for the bedroom, then there is a slippery slope that will follow. I dont agree with him, but his thinking and reasoning is sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Jack, I hope you're kidding and you are being stupid for effect and not because of merit. But, the AP writer said that Santorum said parts of the Constitution can harm the American family. Santorum, himself, said, a part that doesn't exist in the Constitution, a court created right to privacy, can be harmful to the American family. As for his comments here, they are not a direct correlation between a gay lifestyle and any of the other items he listed. He's simply saying that if a right to privacy can be invoked to support a gay lifestyle, than it can be used to support any other number of perversities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 I understand exactly what he is saying.......it is an argument that if sodomy is acceptable as private sexual behaviour, then any form of intercourse has to be accepted so long as it is private. He may or may not be right. But I understand that he was making a logical point about the consequences of accepting a point-of-view. If we're talking about consenting adults, what kind of sex do you want the government to make illegal? By making these things illegal the next logical step is enforcement. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of acts which I would call preverted, but I don't want the government involved in the bedroom activities of consenting adults. Where am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by Art Jack, I hope you're kidding and you are being stupid for effect and not because of merit. But, the AP writer said that Santorum said parts of the Constitution can harm the American family. Santorum, himself, said, a part that doesn't exist in the Constitution, a court created right to privacy, can be harmful to the American family. As for his comments here, they are not a direct correlation between a gay lifestyle and any of the other items he listed. He's simply saying that if a right to privacy can be invoked to support a gay lifestyle, than it can be used to support any other number of perversities. Art, I hope you're kidding or trying to be stupid for effect too. This really is not just about gay sex. It's the Texas state government thinking it has the right to decide what two consenting adults can do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. You can't be serious if you think the government has any business say how two consenting adults can have sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 JackC...while in the main I agree with you....I'm not prepared to write the blank check you are so anxious to sign.....there are limits....see my response to gbear.......just what are the groundrules?........... and I realize that you have to pursue your line of thinking (privacy & consent) because it applies to a great many other activities (so you would have us believe) than just sexual behaviour......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 faan since 62, mutilations...you mean like pearcings? In my book it's their bodies, and so long as everyone consents...Just don't ask me to pay for medical expenses. In front of minor...that's making them a part of the act. They aren't consenting adults, so no that's not cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 gbear......the question was a practical one..........tehre obviosly have to be some limits on what "consent" means....what are they? and if tehre are limits, then the implication is that the law/policy is more complicated (i.e., the conditionals are more complex).... as an example...I recall some news last year about bizarre sexual cases in which consenting adults agreed to sexual interaction that included cannibalism as part of the sexual act...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 He didnt say they were the same. The left is INFERRING that he meant that. What he is saying is that if the court is going to create a "no holds barred" rule for the bedroom, then there is a slippery slope that will follow. I dont agree with him, but his thinking and reasoning is sound. Which "holds" should be "barred" by the government in the bedroom sexually between two consenting adults? Before you get really freaky with the description remember this "law" specifically addresses sodomy between consenting adults. How can any American agree with making this a police matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Just an FYI - Here is an unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum. Words that couldn't be heard clearly on the tape are marked (unintelligible). AP: If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families? SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And that's a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible) percent in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25 percent. The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, Oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them. But it's this whole idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge. AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that? SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it. AP: The right to privacy lifestyle? SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle. AP: What's the alternative? SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it. AP: Well, what would you do? SANTORUM: What would I do with what? AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative? SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe _ AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality? 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. AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex? SANTORUM: 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. 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. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. 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. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _ 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. SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society. AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it? SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 so if two consenting adults agree to mutilation during intercourse...this is acceptable to you? if they argree to anal intercourse in front of minors....say 6 year olds...this is acceptable to you? How many times have I told you to leave my past out of this!!?? That was the 70's, I'm not into that scene anymore. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 That's NOT what he said Jack. I think any "hold" ANYWHERE with a minor should be barred. Once again the left will ignore blatant open anti-semetic remarks from one of their own, and then start a witch hunt trying to say what a GOPer MEANT when he said something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I'm confused as to what he meant. I read this in the Washington Post. Santorum has "no problem" with gays – some of his best friends, etc. – but believes they have no constitutional right to engage in consensual activity, the way that heterosexuals do. If that's what he said or if he compared it to all those other things like Incest...then he needs to apologize and just take his lumps for saying something stupid. If he didn't say that and it was quoted wrong then people need to shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 That's NOT what he said Jack. I think any "hold" ANYWHERE with a minor should be barred. Once again the left will ignore blatant open anti-semetic remarks from one of their own, and then start a witch hunt trying to say what a GOPer MEANT when he said something else. I don't think anyone favors with a minor being OK. The law in question is in Texas where two consenting adults are being charged with a crime for having sex. How can anyone support making this a crime. It's not fair to change the premise by adding minors to the debate. BTW: This also has nothing to do with anti-semetic remarks made by Moran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by The Evil Genius AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it? SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in. [/b] God help us if this guy is ever elected President. Maybe California would pass a law outlawing any sex outside of marriage or Hawaii might outlaw heterosexual sex? This guy is a nutjob IMHO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Jack, It already IS the law. And it has everything to do with Moran. The Dems have 2 sets of standards they like to use. 1 for when their own make stupid statements, and another they use to infer what a GOPer says as being stupid. What he said was not a correlation between gays and incest. It was a contextual statement regarding the actions of the Texas Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Jack, It already IS the law. And it has everything to do with Moran. The Dems have 2 sets of standards they like to use. 1 for when their own make stupid statements, and another they use to infer what a GOPer says as being stupid. What he said was not a correlation between gays and incest. It was a contextual statement regarding the actions of the Texas Court. My point has nothing to do with what the democrats are calling for either. I don't think he should step down from his position because his opinion fits the mainstream of his party. I know it's the "law" in Texas. The law is about to go before the Supreme Court. In Texas it's illegal from my wife to give me a BJ! I believe even this Supreme court will strike down this law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROSTY28 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, we have a president and an attorney general who don't believe in evolution; why should we be surprised that a senator doesn't believe in gay rights? The guy's an idiot. So is Moran. Did he honestly think the media wasn't going to jump all over this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 It's funny, but I hadn't read about Santorum until today, even though I'd seen references to his "scandalous comments" on news pages and heard them on the news. I heard comparisons to Trent Lott's stupid comments, and was expecting far worse. After reading this, I see nothing to defend. I disagree with many of his views, but that's all they are. I'm reading an interesting book by Tammy Bruce called "The New Thought Police", which exposes how the left tries to stifle free speech that is idealogically opposed to their views. This is such an example. Jack and others, if you take issue with his comments, debate them. But don't try to silence him. That's a cop out, and it runs counter to what you free-thinking, open minded, free speech-loving liberals supposedly cherish, right? Ain't America great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 why should we be surprised that a senator doesn't believe in gay rights? I know it's hard for Liberals to follow along, but please try. Show us where he said he wasn't for gay rights. An exact quote please. Like this one from Moran-"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should." The left has to put up straw man arguments to attack the GOP. It's sad, but on full display here on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.