codeorama Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I agree with Redman's sentiment... No one should be silenced. To be honest, it's actually good that politicans come out and say what they really think, it gives the voter a better guage in which to make a decision when voting... (unless you vote the party line regardless... in that case, you suck anyway... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 The media is pushing this hard. I think this is different from the Trent Lott situation, the conservative media actually kept that story alive. The mainstream media and the left is running this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by redman 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? Redman, I never tried to silence the man. In fact in an earliar post I said I don't think he should step down at all. I was attempting to debate whether anyone thought the government belongs in our bedrooms (consenting adults of course). So if the the "straw man" you are attempting to knock down is that I think he doesn't have to the right to be wrong, it's just not valid in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Jack, the problem is that Santorum did not say anything that you are attributing to him. You are taking something he said in a very specific context and morphing into something else. I would agree with you if he did/said what you are inferring. I did with Lott. But he did not. 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, the problem is that Santorum did not say anything that you are attributing to him. You are taking something he said in a very specific context and morphing into something else. I would agree with you if he did/said what you are inferring. I did with Lott. But he did not. Kilmer, What did I attribute to him that he didn't say? He said there is no constitutional right that stops the government from charging a women with a crime for giving her husband a BJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awgustlab Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Show us where he said he wasn't for gay rights. An exact quote please. I didn't see an exact quote, either. However what I could tell from that interview was that Hey, I'm all for gays being gay - just that they should not be allowed to have sex because it is not good for the family . Maybe I am wrong and did not understand correctly. Who is he to dertermine what is good for the family or that we should even choose to have a family i.e. children. This dude seems like a complete *** and I would not want him near me with his closed minded views. People like him scare me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Jack, I may be guilty of the very thing I am accusing you of doing. Did you not say that Santorum wants to outlaw homosexual sex? He does not. His statements were very specific and contextual to the case before the courts. Awgustlab. Thats the wrong interpretation of what he said. If that was true, I would be on your side as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Why does this turn into a political issue e.g. the left vs. the right? His political orientation isn't even relevant as there are liberals who agree with what he said and there are conservative who disagree. He's backed up his point over view and his rational is pragmatic. Only thing you may be able to say about it is that it is just an opinion and it will be WRONG to everyone who disagrees with it. He has, at least, thought about the issue and he clearly cares about his country and about Americans; this is all we can hope for out of our politicians. And the way he presented his thoughts was not "you're either with us or you're against us" (like the standard 9/11 us vs. them thing that too many people are doing). His comments spurred some introspection by some and a knee jerk reaction from others; ironically, it's always the same people thinking and the same people reacting REGARDLESS of their political view. Most people either hate gays or have no opinion. Santorum doesn't hate them, but he has some concern about how their actions are the manifest desire to eliminate the family, or to degrade the importance of what the family unit means to Bush's America. He may be on to something. Any sexual action that CANNOT result in procreation will, in a very sensationalistic way, result in the elimination of family and therefore family values. Not because they are gay actions but because they are actions that do not result in offspring. Maybe it's just the two party system working that way it always does. Us vs. them, regardless of content or context. It's easier this way, it beats thinking. 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, I may be guilty of the very thing I am accusing you of doing. Did you not say that Santorum wants to outlaw homosexual sex? He does not. His statements were very specific and contextual to the case before the courts. Awgustlab. Thats the wrong interpretation of what he said. If that was true, I would be on your side as well. I said that he supports the law in Texas that allows all sodomy between anyone. The context was the current supreme court case where some are trying to strike the law down. He also made the following statement. After reading his attempt to compare these things I labeled him a nutjob. You have to admit this statement isn't any where near accurate. "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." He said a lot of unwise things during his interview that make me question his sobriety level at the time. Who is he, John Rocker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 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 -- Kilmer, I could make a case that he believes states have the right to ban any sex act outside marriage. He went to the man and dog very quickly. These are the words of a nutjob in my opinion. Maybe he doesn't understand that the law in Texas allows the police to arrest a married coupled for have oral sex. I want to know if he was drinking. As for shutting him up, I say no way! Put him on national TV baby! Coast to coast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I see it for what he actually said, not from what can be inferred by it. If SCOTUS strikes down the Texas law, they will do so by not allowing judgement behind bedroom doors. Thats a slippery slope. And that's ALL he was saying. If the SCOTUS says we cant arrest people for one crime in the bedroom (whether it's a crime or not is a different issue) then ANY crime would become protected as long as it was done in private. The case in front of SCOTUS is NOT addressing the legality of homosexuality. It is addressing the rights of Govt (the police specifically) to arrest someone inside the privacy of their own bedroom. Do you see the difference? And for the states rights. His argument is that the states do have the right to enact laws. He cites the examples of NY and abortion. BUt that's a comparison between state vs federal law NOT a decision on WHAT should be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 Why is it a slippery slope? Does this mean that a state has the right to enact a law forbidding hetrosexual sex if it wants? I guess I don't see the slope the Senator sees. 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's saying Jack. He's saying that if the courts rule that whatever goes on behind the door is legal, then THAT is the slippery slope. That would open up the door to other things that he DOES disagree with. IE, bestiality, bigamy, incest etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Kilmer et al, Can we change the argument a little. Say Santorum was arguing about the right to own weapons. He would essentially be saying then that if the laws says its ok to own a BB gun, then its ok to own a handgun, a shotgun, an assault rifle, a rocket launcher, a tank, a Maverick Helicopter, etc.. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? We allow people to own guns - but their are some limits to it... Obviously, Santorum is operating on the notion that allowing sodomy (gay or hetero acts) in the house will further society down a more "deviant" pathway. I mean, society is obviously going to think that if its ok to get a blowjob, then its ok to go **** your dog or two marry more than one person at a time, or its ok to lure JOhnny 6 year old into bed... Clearly now, do you think he really means what he said? 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's saying Jack. He's saying that if the courts rule that whatever goes on behind the door is legal, then THAT is the slippery slope. That would open up the door to other things that he DOES disagree with. IE, bestiality, bigamy, incest etc. Kilmer, I just don't see the connection to bestiality and bigamy. I would think bestiality would be dealt with under animal cruelity laws and bigamy could be dealt with under marriage laws. I really do respect your opinion most of the time and I guess we will agree to disagree. Webnarc, All lot of bad things in this world have been caused by men who believed their intentions were good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 TEG, to make it an apples to apples argument you would need to say if we allow BB guns "in the bedroom" we would allow other guns tanks etc " in the bedroom". Thats the whole point. The context of his words were very specific to the court case. Jack, there is no connection other than him saying if the courts allow homosexuality under the reasoning that "in the bedroom" makes it okay, than ANYTHING in the bedroom would then be legal. 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 TEG, to make it an apples to apples argument you would need to say if we allow BB guns "in the bedroom" we would allow other guns tanks etc " in the bedroom". Thats the whole point. The context of his words were very specific to the court case. Jack, there is no connection other than him saying if the courts allow homosexuality under the reasoning that "in the bedroom" makes it okay, than ANYTHING in the bedroom would then be legal. OK But I think he's a nutjob for attempting to make that point. It's not logical. It's more likely that if the court rules a state can make a law with regard to sex between consenting adults than states are open to ban anything in the bedroom. Maybe even sleep! (no more crazy than man and dog!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I disagree with his contention as well. But it's a far cry from labeling a homophobe (not that you or anyone in particular were doing). Instead why aren't the lefties attacking his stance rather than the inferred homophobia? Rmember Jack, they aren't listening to a case to determine whether or not homosexual sex is legal. They are hearing a case about the legality of police arresting people in their private homes. It will apply to EVERYTHING. Realistically though, the court will probably release a narrow decision and limit the scope. Santorums argument was that if they di not limit it, it would create a slippery slope. I disagree with him, but I can understand what he is saying, and it's not homophobic. 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 I disagree with his contention as well. But it's a far cry from labeling a homophobe (not that you or anyone in particular were doing). Instead why aren't the lefties attacking his stance rather than the inferred homophobia? Rmember Jack, they aren't listening to a case to determine whether or not homosexual sex is legal. They are hearing a case about the legality of police arresting people in their private homes. It will apply to EVERYTHING. Realistically though, the court will probably release a narrow decision and limit the scope. Santorums argument was that if they di not limit it, it would create a slippery slope. I disagree with him, but I can understand what he is saying, and it's not homophobic. You would have to be inside his heart to know for sure. I personally don't care if he's a homophobe. "It will apply to EVERYTHING" is what scares me my friend. Tell the government to stay the h*** out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. Let them seal our borders and find OBL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 "It will apply to EVERYTHING" is what scares me my friend. or Tell the government to stay the h*** out of the bedrooms of consenting adults Somewhere between the two extremes lies the happy medium. I dont think 2 consenting adults have the right to cook meth in the bedroom. But I also dont think the Govt should care who someones sleeping with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I wish I can tell the government to stay the hell out of the market Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Four pages on this topic and I can't believe not ONE PERSON has broached Santorum's assertion that religion should have a greater role in government. What the f*ck? Isn't this the very thing that the Bush Administration is trying to prevent in Iraq? Despite encompassing 60% of the population, the U.S. does NOT want the Shiites to control the country for fear that they'll impose a strict Islamic form of government. Perhaps this is what Santorum means when he says part of the Constitution is harmful to family values? You know, the whole part about separation of Church and State? I agree, this guy is a nutjob! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Simply put, there are two very slippery slopes that are touched on here and they are unavoidable. First, if a right to privacy in your home exists, then that right can be a blanket right. There isn't a right to privacy in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has crafted one. If the Supreme Court continues to use this as grounds, then, Santorum is right. By logical extension pretty much any other perversion you can think of COULD be argued that if done within the home is allowable. Afterall, there either IS a right to privacy or there is not a right to privacy. This case though goes a little deeper. The Supreme Court can probably craft a very narrow opening here to keep this from being a very dangerous case. The other option is the one I'm more concerned with. The Supreme Court has been said to be able to rule this law unconstitutional on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. I've actually seen people say since the Texas law forbids sodomy for gays but not for hetrosexual couples, that the Court could strike it simply by citing the 14th Amendment. This, to me, is a far more dangerous thing to consider. Essentially you'd be immediately making gay people a race. I don't think that's going to happen here. But, that's my biggest fear. As it is gay and straight people can engage in sodomy all they want. So can whites and blacks and hispanics and the rest. They just have to find someone of an opposite sex to do it with. The government has LONG legislated sexual activity. There have LONG been laws on the books to cover various sexual behavior. These laws are still on the books. You rarely see them prosecuted, but, from the beginnings of our country we have attempted to legislate sexual behavior. I presume we always will. Awgustlab here wrote, "Who is he to dertermine what is good for the family or that we should even choose to have a family i.e. children. This dude seems like a complete *** and I would not want him near me with his closed minded views. People like him scare me." Who are you to determine what is good for the family, Awgustlab? Can you please explain to me how two men or two women having sex and having sex is good for the family? A family should first be thought of as two parents, a mother and a father, and their children. Gay relationships are not good for the American family. By definition. Neither is divorce good for the American family, so don't get me wrong about what I may wish to legislate a ban for and what I may wish people to be able to chose as they wish. But, it's outrageous for you people to deny the truth behind the statement that homosexuality is NOT good for the American family as the American family leaps up and appears to you. You can wish to extend the word family to communes and cults too. But, a family, at the root of it all, is a mom and a dad and their kids. By some definitions my wife and I, who have not had kids, aren't a true American family. Depends on how you look at it and some could say, clearly, that my wife and I without having children aren't good for the American family either. That'd be ok. As a conservative male I do not approve of homosexual behavior. But, unless two guys are humping on my front lawn, I'm not a guy who's in position to provide much of a vision to that disapproval. Ultimately, though, as a conservative male, I generally don't support laws specifically crafted to limit any sexual behavior between consenting adults. Personally I don't believe the government should make laws against gay sex or against S&M or against golden showers or against scat or against any number of perversions that people find arousing. My sole concern here is the two reasons the Supreme Court could use to knock this law down. Neither, in my view, is correct, and both are potentially dangerous. Gays are not a race of people so you can't use the Equal Protection argument. The Right to Privacy doesn't exist in the Constitution despite Supreme Court creation of such a right in a series of legislative rulings. If narrowly crafted, this law could be struck down on these grounds, but, in the end, it's not really the Court's job to strike down a law that is not in violation of the Constitution in any way. It is the job of the legislature in Texas. It is their job to define the laws of Texas. If people don't like the laws they can vote people out of office and change them. The Supreme Court shouldn't even be hearing such a nonsensical case. The best possible ruling, and one that will be met with scorn from many here and much of the media, is the one in which it returns a verdict that they have no right to change Texas law as it is not directly in violation of any Constitutional protection. There isn't, Jack, a right to get a blowjob from your wife in the Constitution. If a state wants to say I can't, it can do that. If you, as a resident of that state, don't like it, you can move to a state more in step with your beliefs, or you can work to change the law through the political process. Too often Americans have forgotten what it is to be an American. The Supreme Court shouldn't become the Texas legislature here. It can't say that any segment of the Texas population has rights that any other segment doesn't have, since every Texas citizen can engage in opposite sex sodomy all night and all day. At the root of it all, there is that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Kurp, The only mention to expanding relgion and the government is made by the writer in the second paragraph. There's not a hint of a mention or a quote by Santorum to describe what, if anything, was stated to allow the writer to draw that conclusion. But, if you want to address the writer's unsupported attribution that Santorum wants a greater role for religion in the government, let's do that. If Santorum wants children to be able to say the Pledge, or the kids at Columbine to put religious messages like, "God will always love you," on a permanent reminder of the events there, or of he wants to allow religious charities to play a role in government supported charity, or, any number of things of this sort, I can see nothing wrong with it and I find it tortured and painful to see you attempt to draw some correlation to these types of things and an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq. Now, we don't know if these are the types of things Santorum was talking about because the writer didn't bother to expand. As an agnostic person and one who refused to say God during the Pledge when I was in school, I am not really for a great deal of forced religion being put on people. Of course, you are a wise and intelligent man who knows there is no mention of a separation betwenn Church and State in the Constitution. You've simply parroted bad liberal rhetoric in your role as advocate for the devil . Santorum also didn't say any part of the Constitution was harmful to the family. The WRITER said he said that, but the quote supplied by Santorum says something entirely different. The quote by Santorum says a right to privacy, which does not exist, much like your separation, in the Constitution, can be a harmful thing against the American family. While we are both reasonable enough to understand the language of the Constitution can be twisted into anything a politically motivated Supreme Court may wish to create of it. But, please don't fall into the trap of attributing a separation of Church and State to the Constitution. It's not there. Please don't fall into the trap of saying Santorum said the two things you addressed in your thread. It's not there. The AP writer may say one thing. Reality is often a different thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Art, I'm not sure where you got that the XIV only refers to race. Here's the amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If the law outlaws an action for one person but not for another, how does this not violate "equal protection of the laws?" I don't see anything in this about Race, so I don't see how this makes homosexuals a race. As I read this amendment, it says nobody is above the law, and everybody is to be bound by the same set of rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.