Sen. Rick Santorum

[Art]

Kurp,

I'm sorry, but, did you actually read the sentence you provided? I have no idea the context the words were spoken in. But, my first read of what you wrote I thought he was saying, in the first sentence that his discussion, in general, was about the Supreme Court privacy case and how some acts impact the American family. In the second sentence, he appears to say that though that was the conversation he's been having, he does feel that all are equally protected under the Constitution.

So, what this boils down to is you took that statement and you added, after the word all, an interpreted "families". I read that statement and added no words at all after the word all and simply assumed he meant all.

Given that, let me say, "So, again, liberals on this board and elsewhere have to falsely attribute a statement that doesn't exist in order to have a point. Can you have a point simply by being correct? Let's put it this way, if anyone, anywhere, had spoken about the traditional family as a part of the Constitution, you'd have a powerful point as to how dumb that person is. As no one has said that, and you've still asked the question, that reflects badly on you."

Again, you may well be precisely correct and the context of the statement you've provided may have the unspoken, inherent "family" after all which would certainly indicate he associates the word family as being in the Constitution. But, again, it seems in order for you to have a point you've had to ADD a word to the statement to make it mean something else. Once again I'll ask you to simply stick to the words themselves so we can communicate based on what a person says, and not what you'd like to connect the dots to mean a person has said.

I will say that if Santorum attempted to say the family is a protected entity under the Constitution he's high and that would be very incorrect and more tragic a thing for him to have said than any of the rest of it. I'll just maintain my belief that it's acceptable practice to actually address a person's words and not spend a lot of time addressing the English to Kurp dictionary translation .

[TheKurp]

All right Art, up until now I've had the time only to stand on the perimeter of this discussion and throw the occasional grenade. Clearly you've been quite adept at jumping out of the way.

Now I'll join in the fray.

The entire issue, at least from where I stand, centers on the following statement from Santorum, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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."

Now that statement might not be an affront to your intellectuality, and clearly by your defense of Santorum it isn't, but it's an insulting assumption on his part that I'd be so bereft of any reasoning as to accept his logic as valid.

Make no mistake, despite Santorum's spinning words like a top gone amok, by his statement he's given equal footing to the act of consensual gay sex with the acts of bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery, and "anything". His words, not mine.

Answer me this. Where's the victim in consensual gay sex in the privacy of one's home? Now try if you will, to convince me that there are no victims in bigamy, polygamy, adultery, and incest.

Now let's address his assertion that if you allow consensual gay sex to exist under the Constitutional protection of privacy, then you'll have to allow bigamy, polygamy, incest, and "anything" else. Hmmmm..... what's the word I'm seaching for....... let's see....HOGWASH.... yeah, that's it. Does Santorum take the public for idiots? Wait, that's a rhetorical question, of course he does. By his logic the Supreme Court had no other choice but to allow the act of cross-burning to be legal under the Constitutional protection of free speech. In other words, the Supreme Court justices are simply performing their functions in a robotic fashion and have neither the ability nor the leeway to interpret the Constitution and its Ammendments in a manner that protects Americans from being victims at the hand of others.

Santorum's agenda is painfully clear. He wants to legislate morality and have Americans behave in a manner acceptable to the Catholic Church. When there are no victims to said behavior he's not allowed to pontificate his views without being called out and challenged, which is exactly what people on all sides of the political spectrum have done.

Santorum refuses to apologize. This will cost him both politically within the Republican party as well as personally as a Senator. At the very least he should apologize by saying that if anyone has interpreted his words as being indicative of gay intolerance, then he's sorry. Of course I would know that he'd be telling a lie.

[Art]

Kurp,

It must be stated that I haven't avoided any grenades at all. You entered this thread with a created affront. I don't have to dodge when you are desperately seeking offense where none exists. You responded by further expanding the statements to fit your views. Once again, that you had to falsely categorize what was said means I didn't have to avoid anything. You were essentially flinging air at me and I didn't bother stepping out of the way.

For the first time in this thread you have stepped to the plate and actually decided to address what Santorum actually said. And in the process, you have exposed YOUR agenda. You are right that Santorum has an agenda. You are right that Santorum would want to legislate morality. Personally I don't feel that's necessary. But, it is certainly the right of any state government to legislate morality of they see fit. It is the democratic process that should overturn such legislation. Not judicial fiat.

But, what about your agenda?

You are also attempting to legislate morality. You have decided in your view that consensual homosexual behavior is harmless. You've decided that consensual homosexual behavior is no different than consensual relationships among people of the opposite sex. You are outraged that anyone would see or think or want to express an opposing view. This is why you had to twice falsely categorize what Santorum said, and then in a niggling, huffy, stamping of one's foot manner, you threw in another Santorum quote that you had to AGAIN expand to fit your point of view in response to what seemed to be anger at me.

Bad form brother. But, I digress.

Back to your agenda. You've asked me what harm is there in a consensual gay relationship. What harm is there in a consensual marriage of one man to two or more wives? If all are open and willing and desire the experience as consenting adults, where is the harm? Where is the harm if a mother and her adult son love each other in more than a maternal way and want, as consenting adults, to enjoy a carnal relationship? Where is the harm in adultery, which is an act between consenting adults?

See, I don't have to convince you that there is harm to those activities between consenting adults. You know there is harm to those activities which is why you are so outraged that a gay relationship would be linked even in a tangential way that it was here. You want him to apologize if his words can be taken as gay intolerance by anyone? The word you sought fits here. Hogwash.

A person shouldn't have to apologize everytime someone says their panties are in a bunch. You should NEVER say sorry to a person if you didn't say anything wrong. Santorum didn't here. All that's been done here is to expose YOU and those like you who want to legislate that ONE deviant behavior is ok while you gloss by whether you think others are.

To be honest, of the list Santorum provided, the only one I think should be legally outlawed in all states and perhaps even Federally, is adultery. In each other case, if the actions involves willing, open, consenting adults, the government should probably not interfere if that behavior is conducted behind closed doors. In my view adultery should be punishable because despite the willingness of the parties involved, another party is likely to be harmed by the action. If I were in a position of authority I would push for a bill that would make it a crime to be caught cheating on your spouse, because adultery can lead to greater crimes once discovered, which endanger society as a whole. Otherwise, the government should, in my view, kind of stay out of people's personal lives.

But, that doesn't mean I'm a hypocrit like you are here. You openly want one agenda of consensual behavior to be acceptable while not wanting others. Personally, I don't like gay people as a whole, though I may like and get along with a great many individually. Though, I'm not a fan of the gay movement less because of what they do, which I really don't care so much about, and more because they are so desperate to make their deviant behavior "normal" they need to be "born" that way.

I'm a straight male and I know enough to know sex is a primal instinct. You aren't born gay. You aren't born straight. You are born willing to hump a soccer ball if you think it could give you satisfaction. You chose to suppress that urge perhaps, or you don't. And trust me, it doesn't give any satisfaction at all . Aside from my personal intolerance for the gay movement and lifestyle, I'm honest enough to say, "I really don't care what two, or MORE, people do to get themselves off." I do agree with Santorum that a created Right to Privacy argument could open the door to other deviant behavior that the government, many would say, rightfully has some control over.

It's hard to say that's not true. And, as you've shown, it's IMPOSSIBLE to say that's not true unless you create meaning, add inferences to a statement and demand apologies if anyone could POSSIBLY be offended. You've created a situation where every statement by every politician is wrong. While I thought Tom Daschle was an idiot for speaking as he did, I didn't understand why he was asked to apologize for his comments about the coming war. Unlike you, I don't find it as a sign of strength for a person to apologize everytime someone says boo about something he says. I think it's a sign of a calculating political liar. You seem to want that sort to lead you. I'd rather have people who have convictions lead me.

Late edit:

Just to add to this. Your agenda is far more dangerous and harmful than Santorum's agenda. Santorum believes a state should have the ability to make various activities illegal within that state if the public and lawmakers wish it so. There are 49 other chances in Santorum's worlds for other states to do it differently. In your world there's the ever changing Supreme Court to federalize laws YOU don't happen to want the citizens of Texas to have the right to authorize.

I'd rather live in Santorum's world where states have a right to make laws that speak to the will of the majority without singling out the minority for unequal treatment than your world where whatever pet group you decide to adopt should receive special protection above and beyond that which they already have simply by making a decision, conscious or otherwise, to be gay.

[Tarhog]

I can only speak for myself, but theres nothing like the shiny vinyl coolness of a tight soccer ball as it rolls ...languidly....off the foot...

[Art]

I take back my statement about the soccer ball being unsatisfying .

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

Kurp,

It must be stated that I haven't avoided any grenades at all. You entered this thread with a created affront. I don't have to dodge when you are desperately seeking offense where none exists. You responded by further expanding the statements to fit your views. Once again, that you had to falsely categorize what was said means I didn't have to avoid anything. You were essentially flinging air at me and I didn't bother stepping out of the way.

I've expanded nothing Art. In one fell swoop Santorum linked incest, bigamy, polygamy, adultery, and "ANYTHING", with consensual gay sex. His did so without taking a breath, figuratively speaking, in making his statements. His intention was to elicit outrage from those other than the Christian right-wingers by equating crimes of greater magnitude with that of gay sex. He did so foolishly. Now you and the right are busy deflecting the resulting backlash and accusing people of misinterpretation. Art, need I remind you that effective communication relies on the absence of ambiguity? Santorum has a history of gay intolerance so he, you, and others should stop addressing his statements as though they were created and stated in a vacuum.

For the first time in this thread you have stepped to the plate and actually decided to address what Santorum actually said. And in the process, you have exposed YOUR agenda.

If by my agenda you mean tolerance of actions that have no victims, then you are WRONG! While that indeed is my agenda, it cannot be exposed here because I've always been extremely open and verbal about the need for tolerance.

You are right that Santorum has an agenda. You are right that Santorum would want to legislate morality. Personally I don't feel that's necessary. But, it is certainly the right of any state government to legislate morality of they see fit. It is the democratic process that should overturn such legislation. Not judicial fiat.

Then am I to assume that our goal to keep the majority [read democratic process] in Iraq from establishing a strict Islamic form of governement is misguided, and wrong? If the Shiite majority want to force Kurds, Sunnis, and Christians to adhere to Islamic-based laws then they have every right to do so? I mean if over 60% of the population vote in support of that form of government, who are we [meaning the U.S.] to tell them otherwise? In other words, persecution of the minority is okay as long as the majority support it, right?

But, what about your agenda?

You are also attempting to legislate morality. You have decided in your view that consensual homosexual behavior is harmless. You've decided that consensual homosexual behavior is no different than consensual relationships among people of the opposite sex. You are outraged that anyone would see or think or want to express an opposing view. This is why you had to twice falsely categorize what Santorum said, and then in a niggling, huffy, stamping of one's foot manner, you threw in another Santorum quote that you had to AGAIN expand to fit your point of view in response to what seemed to be anger at me.

Bad form brother. But, I digress.

No, you don't digress. Let's go with my agenda. If what gays or lesbians do consensually and sexually behind closed doors is harmful, tell me how and why. Tell me why you disagree with my agenda of tolerance. By definition, gays and lesbians can't have children. So using YOUR definition of a traditional family, how can their actions be counter to that tradition. Are you saying that we should force lesbians to have children with men? And coerce gays to bear children with women? Should we have a federal ban on gay and lesbian couple adoptions? Are we saying that given the choice, a child would be better off spending their pre-adult lives in orphanages then to let emotionally and mentally stable people, who happen to be gay, give them a home where they are loved? Are we saying that Bush is misguided for appointingj openly gay people to positions in his administration because they are obviously deviant?

Back to your agenda. You've asked me what harm is there in a consensual gay relationship. What harm is there in a consensual marriage of one man to two or more wives?

The harm lies in reducing women to second-class citizens. Why am I even wasting key strokes telling you this?

If all are open and willing and desire the experience as consenting adults, where is the harm? Where is the harm if a mother and her adult son love each other in more than a maternal way and want, as consenting adults, to enjoy a carnal relationship? Where is the harm in adultery, which is an act between consenting adults?

Again I find myself wasting key-strokes. What is the likelihood of mental retardation and physical deformity in children born from an incestual relationship? They are the victims.

See, I don't have to convince you that there is harm to those activities between consenting adults. You know there is harm to those activities which is why you are so outraged that a gay relationship would be linked even in a tangential way that it was here. You want him to apologize if his words can be taken as gay intolerance by anyone? The word you sought fits here. Hogwash.

A person shouldn't have to apologize everytime someone says their panties are in a bunch. You should NEVER say sorry to a person if you didn't say anything wrong. Santorum didn't here. All that's been done here is to expose YOU and those like you who want to legislate that ONE deviant behavior is ok while you gloss by whether you think others are.

Again Art I feel the need to remind you what makes communication effectve. Santorum's choice of words makes his statements open to interpretation. This is not a case of a few people taking offense to his statements. If he wishes to ignore the outrage, fine. Then I and others will continue to challenge him. You and others will just have to live with it.

To be honest, of the list Santorum provided, the only one I think should be legally outlawed in all states and perhaps even Federally, is adultery. In each other case, if the actions involves willing, open, consenting adults, the government should probably not interfere if that behavior is conducted behind closed doors. In my view adultery should be punishable because despite the willingness of the parties involved, another party is likely to be harmed by the action. If I were in a position of authority I would push for a bill that would make it a crime to be caught cheating on your spouse, because adultery can lead to greater crimes once discovered, which endanger society as a whole. Otherwise, the government should, in my view, kind of stay out of people's personal lives.

Then states are going to have to make divorce easier to obtain and more equitable, meaning, non-specific to gender.

But, that doesn't mean I'm a hypocrit like you are here. You openly want one agenda of consensual behavior to be acceptable while not wanting others. Personally, I don't like gay people as a whole, though I may like and get along with a great many individually. Though, I'm not a fan of the gay movement less because of what they do, which I really don't care so much about, and more because they are so desperate to make their deviant behavior "normal" they need to be "born" that way.

So now one must be a hypocrit if they find varying degrees of harm in people's actions? Your argument is based on absolutes and it's a moot point. If I were to succumb to your way of thinking then I would find myself unable to distinguish between the morality of flag-burning verses cross-burning. I mean they're both forms of free-speech, no?

I'm a straight male and I know enough to know sex is a primal instinct. You aren't born gay. You aren't born straight.

While one is taught to never prefix his/her words with "I believe" or "I think" in debate class, it bears mentioning here that this is simply your belief. You don't know this for a fact because it has yet to be proven beyond all doubt. Scientific studies by Simon LeVay, Bailey and Pillard, and Dean Hamer are enough to cast doubt on whether sexuality is genetic or environmental, or a combination of both.

Thus we're back to my agenda. Tolerance. Until we know that gays and lesbians don't suffer from mental disorders that make their behavior deviant, we shouldn't pass laws criminalizing what they do behind closed doors.

Late edit:

Just to add to this. Your agenda is far more dangerous and harmful than Santorum's agenda. Santorum believes a state should have the ability to make various activities illegal within that state if the public and lawmakers wish it so. There are 49 other chances in Santorum's worlds for other states to do it differently. In your world there's the ever changing Supreme Court to federalize laws YOU don't happen to want the citizens of Texas to have the right to authorize.

I'd rather live in Santorum's world where states have a right to make laws that speak to the will of the majority without singling out the minority for unequal treatment than your world where whatever pet group you decide to adopt should receive special protection above and beyond that which they already have simply by making a decision, conscious or otherwise, to be gay.

This is double-speak Art. Sexual actions between man and woman, or man and man, or woman and woman, are essentially the same. Simply put, the actions are meant to release sexual tensions and hopefully, obtain gratification. Now you want states to have the right to legislate who can perform those actions solely based on who the partner is and without regard to whether or not a person is victimized by those actions.

[fansince62]

Art....this is a distraction and not worth the effort.........let Santorum face the music.....the imore important battle remains: fighting all the democratic, America-hating, genocide loving candidates like Kerry/Dean et al.......these are the real enemies......these are the people who will parade themselves as noble Americans while sacrificing you, me and our families on the anvil of international comity and good will....the same surface *ull*hit atmospherics the dems have been pushing for decades while Americans die by the thousands..........have your plots picked out (if there is anything left of you and your family)....if these "true Americans" are elected........ooops forgot....you won't have any money left if they are elected to purchase a plot!!!!

[JackC]

Originally posted by jbooma

The law is the law, doesn't mean it is right or not, but the law is stated as so.

Here in VA you know everyone could be arrested for having sex in a car, oral sex, or even having the women on top. These are laws that still exist that no one has tried to change or get rid of.

Maybe in a different way Santorum was trying to bring something like this in the public's thoughts so then they can go about and finding these laws and updating them. I just love how everyone tries to jump on someone's littlest slip up, or mispoken word. It seems we are losing our freedom of speech since we get attacked now for what we say, even if it isn't right, and even if it is taken out of context.

Any law is OK in Virginia. The rest of the nation has come to expect crazy stuff from VA!

For the record I'm still waiting for Art to take that position against something(anything) done by a republican. I thought this was going to be the one! Oh well I'll wait for the next one!

[Art]

Kurp, I'm entertaining this evening for a while so I won't be able to reply to you for a bit, but, rest assured, I will.

Jack. Be very careful. You know full well the number of times I've spoken about being in disagreement with something done by a Republican. I realize you are prone to rhetoric, but, save that for people you aren't speaking directly to, because, if you ever say something like this again -- as you've said it before -- I'll assume you are willfully lying, and that's not a good place to be with me .

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Art

I'd rather live in Santorum's world where states have a right to make laws that speak to the will of the majority without singling out the minority for unequal treatment than your world where whatever pet group you decide to adopt should receive special protection above and beyond that which they already have simply by making a decision, conscious or otherwise, to be gay.

This "special protection" argument is one of the most shameful balonoey arguments ever made. "The law is neutral between gays and straights because if a gay person has gay sex, he or she goes to jail, and if a straight person has gay sex, he or she goes to jail." Bwahahaha! If you really think that laws like this don't single out the gay minority for unequal treatment, then you have managed to delude yourself as much as the nuts who are marching around saying the Iraqis were better off before we booted out Saddam. Your agenda has overwhelmed any ability to be objective on any individual issue.

[Art]

Man, I'm glad I was just gliding by for you Predicto.

I'm not sure I said, anywhere, that laws of this nature didn't single out the gay minority for unequal treatment. Much the same as laws against bigamy single out the bigamist minority and laws against the incestial single out the incestial minority and laws against adultery single out the minority that would commit adultery.

I said, rather clearly, that the law doesn't single out the minority for unequal treatement. The minority is not a segment of society that has chosen to be a certain way or that wishes to do a certain thing. The minority is people who are born a specific way. A race, or a handicap, or, hell, even a selected religion garners equal protection under the law and the Texas law is not in violation of that.

The Texas law does say that ALL citizens are precluded from same-sex sodomy just as all citizens are ok if they engage in opposite sex sodomy. Again, the issue is you want gays to be treated with special protection outside of the protection they already receive as citizens. Being gay is not a race. It's not a religion. It's not a new species and it's not a handicap. It's a preference and though you are ok with granting that sexually deviant behavior something of equal standing, it is not outrageous to say that others may hold a different view on that.

Kurp went through a rather elementary listing of problems caused by some of the other consensual adult behavior in Santorum's list. That surprised me and will be focused more on when I reply to him because he glossed by the fact that there is a danger from allowing homosexual sex. There is a greater rate of sexually transmitted disease among homosexuals than there is among straight people. There is a higher rate of HIV among the gay community than there is among the hetrosexual community.

The CDC qualifies homosexual sex as a greater risk for contracting AIDS than hetrosexual sex. In fact, it is pedestrian to speak to this because we all KNOW there is societal danger in the consensual behavior of homosexuals. There is societal danger, as Kurp pointed out in allowing incest and bigamy as well. The difference is you guys don't want to see that as a factor.

There's danger in any number of sexual activities people both straight and gay engage in. You've just decided that you're ok with the gay danger, which, in the end, is FAR greater than that of acts of incest or bigamy because it is more widespread than either of those consensual behaviors. I've stated clearly I don't believe the government should make laws that legislate sexual behavior of adults in any of these cases. The government DOES have that right, however. It's your right to fight that. Not an ever changing Supreme Court's.

[Art]

Kurp, sorry it took a while, but here goes .

Originally posted by TheKurp

I've expanded nothing Art. In one fell swoop Santorum linked incest, bigamy, polygamy, adultery, and "ANYTHING", with consensual gay sex. His did so without taking a breath, figuratively speaking, in making his statements. His intention was to elicit outrage from those other than the Christian right-wingers by equating crimes of greater magnitude with that of gay sex. He did so foolishly. Now you and the right are busy deflecting the resulting backlash and accusing people of misinterpretation. Art, need I remind you that effective communication relies on the absence of ambiguity? Santorum has a history of gay intolerance so he, you, and others should stop addressing his statements as though they were created and stated in a vacuum.

Kurp, simply put, THREE times in this thread you've allowed yourself to add meaning to the statements made here. Now as a defense for yourself you are saying Santorum's statements don't come in a vacuum so you've added that meaning based on a breadth of knowledge regarding what Santorum stands for. That's fine. But, there's no doubting that on THREE occasions in this thread YOU added words to fit what you thought he said. That's bad form. That's a lack of intelligence or information in a debate. That's hysterical liberalism at its finest. Instead of actually attacking the content of the words you have done the worst thing possible. You've added to his meaning on three occasions so you COULD be mad. You've taken the words BEYOND what they said so you could make a point. You've failed to do so because that type of weak position is easily exposed. Now that you have finally decided to address his words I'm surprised to see you still supporting your created words earlier. But I'll let you deal with the problems that brings.

Let me address the statement you made that, "His intention was to elicit outrage from those other than the Christian right-wingers by equating crimes of greater magnitude with that of gay sex." Simply asked, why? Why is bigamy a greater crime? Why is adultery? Why is incest? Why is drug use or prostitution for that matter as they fall into the anything category as things that can be done by consenting, knowing adults? The why is simple. Because you've decided so. That's it. It's no stronger or weaker than that. YOU think gay sex is a lesser crime. That's it. You can't possible refute the dangers gay sex has on society in terms of greater risks of disease and a follow on cost to all of us to treat those diseases. So, like with bigamy and prostitution that demeans women, and like incest that may be more likely to cause retardation, and like drug use that leads to greater crimes, the fact is gay sex IS a public health concern because it is deemed a greater risk factor -- like incest is deemed a greater risk factor for mental retardation and deformities -- for disease. You've just decided that the risk factor involved in gay sex is acceptable. That's great. Personally I've said I don't like the thought of the government making laws that interfere with the private actions of adults on many levels so in at least THAT way I agree with you.

I just think it's clear I have no agenda here except to see the Constitution interpreted somewhat accurately. You actually want public policy to reflect YOUR acceptance of gay sex. One day that will be public policy. But, this is still a Democracy -- or at least a Constitutional Republic -- and the people do get to appoint people who decide on these types of things.

If by my agenda you mean tolerance of actions that have no victims, then you are WRONG! While that indeed is my agenda, it cannot be exposed here because I've always been extremely open and verbal about the need for tolerance.

Again, this is simply tripe. There are victims. Just as there are with bigamy and incest (at least potentially) and drug use and prostitution. I don't really think any of those things ought to be illegal because I think adults should not be protected from their own idiocy if they want to endanger themselves. There are potential victims from scuba diving as well. A whole host of things adults do can bring harm to either themselves or others or involve the rest of society by driving up costs for their care to treat the risks of their behavior. I think we, as a society, have decided that some things simply are not ok while other things are . That's how it goes. One day prostitution will be legal as well as it shouldn't be against the law to sell something it is perfectly legal to give away. You have decided gay sex is ok. That's great.

But, two things bother me about your position. You haven't simply decided the risks of gay sex to society as a hole are acceptable enough to be given protection. You've simply decided that there are no risks at all. This is so far from intelligent or thoughtful or reasonable it is a terrible shock to see this as your position. More on this aspect of things as we move on. The second part of your position that bothers me is you associate your position with demonstrating tolerance.

Sorry, my friend, but you are far more intolerant than I am on this issue. I am openly against the gay movement. Despite that I don't really feel the government should be involved in legislating adult behavior of MOST forms. You, on the other hand, have decided most of the list and what your imagination can come up with for ANYTHING in Santorum's quotation are greater crimes. You've decided there's no place for them. You've decided that gay sex is ok. You've decided that anyone who thinks differently needs to apologize for offending you. What utter lunacy man. You aren't tolerant. You are typically intolerant. You've come to a position and if Santorum doesn't agree, he needs to apologize to you. How about if he demanded YOU apologize to him for not hearing his point of view fairly and without embellishment? How about if he demaned of you an apology for accepting, what in his view, is an unacceptable lifestyle? Santorum actually demonstrates tolerance. You don't. You aren't open to anyone's ideas if they don't mesh with yours on this issue. You've closed your mind to any counter argument. You've simply decided that YOU want gay sex to be ok and if someone else doesn't, they need to apologize for offending you. You are the least tolerant person I know on this conversation, but you are exactly like the intolerant people who are on your side of this conversation.

Then am I to assume that our goal to keep the majority [read democratic process] in Iraq from establishing a strict Islamic form of governement is misguided, and wrong? If the Shiite majority want to force Kurds, Sunnis, and Christians to adhere to Islamic-based laws then they have every right to do so? I mean if over 60% of the population vote in support of that form of government, who are we [meaning the U.S.] to tell them otherwise? In other words, persecution of the minority is okay as long as the majority support it, right?

Other than the fact that this is a terrible correlation that is almost not worth a response, I'll just say that there is no evidence that the majority Shiite population wants a strict Islamic theocracy or form of government. We are led to believe that the sort of Muslims who want that are a minority, not a majority, so even though there are a majority of Shiites in the country, that doesn't mean there is a majority that wants strict Islamic rule. But, let's not put too fine a point on it. If this were to demonstrate itself as the case, then yes, the U.S. needs to do what it sees fit to prevent that. It's just unlikely that what you've decided to throw on the wall here is actually on the agenda and it's meaningless to this conversation because, if you didn't recognize it, Iraq is NOT the U.S.

No, you don't digress. Let's go with my agenda. If what gays or lesbians do consensually and sexually behind closed doors is harmful, tell me how and why. Tell me why you disagree with my agenda of tolerance. By definition, gays and lesbians can't have children. So using YOUR definition of a traditional family, how can their actions be counter to that tradition. Are you saying that we should force lesbians to have children with men? And coerce gays to bear children with women? Should we have a federal ban on gay and lesbian couple adoptions? Are we saying that given the choice, a child would be better off spending their pre-adult lives in orphanages then to let emotionally and mentally stable people, who happen to be gay, give them a home where they are loved? Are we saying that Bush is misguided for appointingj openly gay people to positions in his administration because they are obviously deviant?

There are a lot of questions here to answer. Not sure I'll get to them all. But, let's start with the first. You asked, "If what gays or lesbians do consensually and sexually behind closed doors is harmful, tell me how and why." Simple. Even before AIDS the gay community was coping with immense difficulty with sexually transmitted diseases. Each more devestating and dangerous not only to themselves but to this nation and all people. First it was syphilis and gonorrhea. Then came the enteric parasites with hepatitis A and then hepatitis B. Hepatitis B actually mutated from a blood born disease to a venereal disease due to the rise of popularity of anal sex.

Prior to AIDS city venereal disease clinics were treating up to 80 percent homosexual men. The book, "And the Band Played On" outlined that prior to AIDS hitting that 80 percent of San Francisco's 70,000 annual patients at the VD clinic there were gay men who used the clinic for a shot and to pick up dates. We can go on, but, the fact is, NO ONE IS HIS RIGHT MIND would suggest that gay sex is not a greater risk factor for any number of problems. That is a health concern. That is a public concern. Not only do we ultimately have to bear the costs of irresponsible behavior, not only by gay men, but by sluts the country over -- male and female -- but this puts other partners at risk as well.

To pretend there isn't a risk factor with gay sex is pie in the sky liberalism. Now, if you want to weigh the known risk factors against whether public policy should target the behavior, you should do so. I'm just stunned you are pretending this is not evident and clear in this discussion. The rest of your questions are more rhetorical and, oddly, off the mark. If you want them answered, say so in a reply. Otherwise, I'll move on .

Again Art I feel the need to remind you what makes communication effectve. Santorum's choice of words makes his statements open to interpretation. This is not a case of a few people taking offense to his statements. If he wishes to ignore the outrage, fine. Then I and others will continue to challenge him. You and others will just have to live with it.

Sound technique. Start by defending yourself for expanding the man's words and finish up with the same. Not new ground, just a solid hammer technique. I'm all for you challenging him. But, in this conversation you have demonstrated that your challenge is not grounded in facts or reason. It's grounded in the hysteria around the gay movement among the American left that being gay is not abnormal. It is. It's ok to be abnormal. But, the left can't have that. The left must make it NORMAL. This is where you lose the majority of the country. Most people, myself included, don't care what a person needs to do to get himself off. But, we shouldn't be adopting this deviant behavior over others. It's deviant perversion. We all have some of that in us, I'm sure. I'm just not trying to make mine normal. I know they are abnormal indulgences that please me. I don't pretend my lifestyle deserves special protection because I really like it and don't think it's harmful. I may fight against a law that limits my pleasures, but, I wouldn't pretend that everything I may enjoy should be normalized. That's a flaw in you Kurp. You want to normalize the abnormality that is gay sex. And, it's not abnormal based on scripture. It's abnormal because men and women -- for whatever reason -- were created/evolved in such a way as to fit together to continue life. The natural normalcy of procreation gives hetrosexuals a pass for their behavior. I don't suspect you'll dispute that.

Then states are going to have to make divorce easier to obtain and more equitable, meaning, non-specific to gender.

Why on earth would states have to do anything this crazy? Divorce should be hard and it should be painful. One side should have grounds for divorce which means the other side shouldn't get equity out of the situation. Divorce shouldn't be extreme dating Kurp.

So now one must be a hypocrit if they find varying degrees of harm in people's actions? Your argument is based on absolutes and it's a moot point. If I were to succumb to your way of thinking then I would find myself unable to distinguish between the morality of flag-burning verses cross-burning. I mean they're both forms of free-speech, no?

You can still burn a cross, just as you can burn a flag. A Klan member can't plant a cross and burn it on a black person's property, which is what the Supreme Court found. Just as an anti-war protestor can't go to Rumsfeld's property and burn a flag. There are crimes against that type of thing on private property. Again though, as with the Iraq comparison, you seem to think you have latched onto a powerful debating point here and you've repeated this comparison as you did the Iraq one. Perhaps I'm missing it, but, this has absolutely no power to me because I think it's completely off the mark and you are speaking to something I can't figure out. This has nothing to do with the discussion we're having.

"While one is taught to never prefix his/her words with "I believe" or "I think" in debate class, it bears mentioning here that this is simply your belief. You don't know this for a fact because it has yet to be proven beyond all doubt. Scientific studies by Simon LeVay, Bailey and Pillard, and Dean Hamer are enough to cast doubt on whether sexuality is genetic or environmental, or a combination of both."

Ahh. Now the root of it comes clear. You are simply bought and paid for by the Gay Gene . Kurp, it's not my thought or belief that no one is born gay or born straight. Sex is a primal urge. It's instinct. Period. Humans are animals. If you and I were placed in a bubble, only to see and live with each other, by the time we were 13 we'd be humping each other like crazy. That doesn't mean we're gay. It doesn't mean we're straight. It means we all have primal urges. We've debated the Hamer and LeVay studies on this board. They are questionable scientifically and completely ignore "use" in forming an opinion. Go do a search for the basketball gene on this board. That's precisely how easy it is to debunk gay scientists Hamer and Levay. There is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest a person is born favoring sex with the opposite sex or sex with the same sex. It is foolhardy to suggest otherwise.

Thus we're back to my agenda. Tolerance. Until we know that gays and lesbians don't suffer from mental disorders that make their behavior deviant, we shouldn't pass laws criminalizing what they do behind closed doors.

Thus we have demonstrated your agenda is not tolerance. I can't believe you'd even put forth that until we know gays and lesbians don't suffer from mental disorders that make their behavior deviant we shouldn't pass laws criminalizing it. Simply put, you are a dangerous man. I was right to say Santorum's world is a better one than yours. Because, if YOUR belief is that in order to criminalize deviant behavior you must KNOW FOR CERTAIN that there are no mental disorders that cause it, you've essentially made all crime of all sorts completely invalid.

Until we know a murderer isn't genetically tuned to kill we must not criminalize murder. Until we know child molesters aren't genitically tuned to wanting to screw children, we must protect them. Rapists the same. Any crime, even against other people, must, by linkage, fall into your category here. Hell, it must actually receive GREATER protection and concern. Any genetic trait we can't prove doesn't exist could, in your world, exist and such a genetic trait that would lead people to harm others MUST be assumed and we must treat the criminals. You are a dangerous man, Kurp.

For the record, I know, as do you, that there is no chemical or biologic or genetic trait that leads a person toward hetrosexuality or homosexuality. It's primal instinct taught to point a specific direction. In ancient Rome it was deemed that the only true love was between a man and a boy and women were simply for babies. Societal influence conditions one's instincts. We all maintain that instinct. But you're not born any way at all. You've simply swallowed hole gay doctor studies that have been utterly rejected and unable to be reshown with any predictability and used this to defend your stance that gay sex is somehow normal. I feel sorry for you and your intolerance on this view. You can't allow yourself to see clearly. Each of us has a weakness on various issues that makes coherent, thoughtful positions difficult at time. This is clearly a spot where you fall short.

This is double-speak Art. Sexual actions between man and woman, or man and man, or woman and woman, are essentially the same. Simply put, the actions are meant to release sexual tensions and hopefully, obtain gratification. Now you want states to have the right to legislate who can perform those actions solely based on who the partner is and without regard to whether or not a person is victimized by those actions.

No, Kurp, sexual actions between a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman are not even close to being essentially the same. When your wife can stick her d!ck into your p@ssy, then it'll be essentially the same. There is an incredible difference between the sexual activities undertaken by people of the same sex versus people of the opposite sex.

Now, you are right that in all cases the actions are meant to release sexual tensions and obtain gratification. But, the same is the case in incest, bigamy, prostitution and adultery as examples. You have said those are greater crimes. You have ignored the risks of gay sex not only on society but the people themselves. You've decided to express your tolerance by hearing, seeing and speaking no evil against that which you've adopted whole as right and normal. Thanks for being clear at least .

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

Kurp, simply put, THREE times in this thread you've allowed yourself to add meaning to the statements made here. Now as a defense for yourself you are saying Santorum's statements don't come in a vacuum so you've added that meaning based on a breadth of knowledge regarding what Santorum stands for. That's fine. But, there's no doubting that on THREE occasions in this thread YOU added words to fit what you thought he said. That's bad form. That's a lack of intelligence or information in a debate. That's hysterical liberalism at its finest. Instead of actually attacking the content of the words you have done the worst thing possible. You've added to his meaning on three occasions so you COULD be mad. You've taken the words BEYOND what they said so you could make a point. You've failed to do so because that type of weak position is easily exposed. Now that you have finally decided to address his words I'm surprised to see you still supporting your created words earlier. But I'll let you deal with the problems that brings.

I envy you Art. You live in a world that is neatly packaged, wrapped in perceptions that are born from what you obviously believe to be innate knowledge.

In the interest of time I'm going to suggest that you familarize yourself with the concept of communication. Pay special attention to the requirement that there need to be a sender and a receiver for the action to have any relevance. When you're done, re-read Santorum's words and this time refrain from glossing over the fact that he used the word "anything". In using this word Santorum gave me free license to interpret the message he was imparting. He included this word because he wanted his statements to have impact. He wanted people to think beyond bigamy, polygamy, and adultery. Well Art, I've done that. This is why you don't get to accuse me of adding words "to fit" my interpretation of what Santorum said. Furthermore, your characterizing this as "hysterical liberalism" falls pitifully short and is indicative of your never ending attempt to diminish any opinion that differs from yours.

Now, remind me again why I'm demonstrating a lack of intelligence or information in this debate?

Let me address the statement you made that, "His intention was to elicit outrage from those other than the Christian right-wingers by equating crimes of greater magnitude with that of gay sex." Simply asked, why? Why is bigamy a greater crime? Why is adultery? Why is incest? Why is drug use or prostitution for that matter as they fall into the anything category as things that can be done by consenting, knowing adults? The why is simple. Because you've decided so.

Thanks for the compliment Art, but I'm really going to have to gracefully decline the importance you've given me and point out to you that lawmakers, not me, have made these greater crimes, with the noted exception of adultery of course. It does bear mentioning though that adultery is generally viewed as a more severe transgression than sodomy by more than 50% of the population. Will you allow me that or will I have to post a poll here on ExtremeSkins?

That's it. It's no stronger or weaker than that. YOU think gay sex is a lesser crime. That's it.

No Art, the law thinks gay sex is a lessor crime. Texas imposes a $500 fine on same gender sex. I dare say the penalty for bigamy is a bit harsher. I guess it's time I point out that polygamy isn't really against the law unless one tries to legally register more than one marriage.

You can't possible refute the dangers gay sex has on society in terms of greater risks of disease and a follow on cost to all of us to treat those diseases. So, like with bigamy and prostitution that demeans women, and like incest that may be more likely to cause retardation, and like drug use that leads to greater crimes, the fact is gay sex IS a public health concern because it is deemed a greater risk factor -- like incest is deemed a greater risk factor for mental retardation and deformities -- for disease. You've just decided that the risk factor involved in gay sex is acceptable. That's great. Personally I've said I don't like the thought of the government making laws that interfere with the private actions of adults on many levels so in at least THAT way I agree with you.

Is this the point in the debate where I get to accuse you of a lack of intelligence, or at least of having a weak argument?

STDs do not originate from or are caused by gay sex. High-risk sexual practices increase the rate of STD transmission. Do gays as a group have a higher rate of unprotected sex? Certainly. Blacks suffer from hypertension at a far greater rate than whites. This places a burden on the medical health systems, which affects us all. Should we make it illegal for Afro-Americans to patronize fast-food restaurants?

I just think it's clear I have no agenda here except to see the Constitution interpreted somewhat accurately. You actually want public policy to reflect YOUR acceptance of gay sex. One day that will be public policy. But, this is still a Democracy -- or at least a Constitutional Republic -- and the people do get to appoint people who decide on these types of things.

Well that's just fine and dandy. Let's not ignore the system of checks-and-balances though in this debate. Supreme Court justices at the state level are at the mercy of the voters. Like any publicly held office, officials often make decisions based on public opinion, which of course is the democratic process. However in the matter of laws and the Constitution, what the public wants sometimes flies in the face of the Bill of Rights. You cannot deny that there are times when state Supreme Courts justices will hand down a decision knowing that it will unlikely be upheld at a higher court. But they make the decision none-the-less for political reasons, and to hold on to their judicial seats. That's where the system of checks-and-balances comes in. U.S. Supreme Court justices cannot be removed from office, so they are free to accurately interpret the Constitution without the fear of public retribution.

Again, this is simply tripe. There are victims. Just as there are with bigamy and incest (at least potentially) and drug use and prostitution. I don't really think any of those things ought to be illegal because I think adults should not be protected from their own idiocy if they want to endanger themselves. There are potential victims from scuba diving as well. A whole host of things adults do can bring harm to either themselves or others or involve the rest of society by driving up costs for their care to treat the risks of their behavior. I think we, as a society, have decided that some things simply are not ok while other things are . That's how it goes. One day prostitution will be legal as well as it shouldn't be against the law to sell something it is perfectly legal to give away. You have decided gay sex is ok. That's great.

Cause and effect Art, that's where the line gets drawn. Again I'll repeat, gay sex is not the root cause of STDs. Bigamy and incest however do directly have negative impacts on society. Surely even in your world of inherent knowledge that is not a concept that is so subtle as to escape your reasoning.

But, two things bother me about your position. You haven't simply decided the risks of gay sex to society as a hole are acceptable enough to be given protection. You've simply decided that there are no risks at all. This is so far from intelligent or thoughtful or reasonable it is a terrible shock to see this as your position.

Now I did stay up late last night and I do have somewhat of a hangover today, but I could have sworn you earlier took me to task for adding meaning to someone's words. I think it only prudent for me to point out that you appear to be perpetrating the same offense on me. Or is this less of a crime in your world because you're combating "hysterical liberalism"? Cause and effect Art, cause and effect. That's the discerning difference here with regards to risks.

More on this aspect of things as we move on. The second part of your position that bothers me is you associate your position with demonstrating tolerance.

Sorry, my friend, but you are far more intolerant than I am on this issue. I am openly against the gay movement. Despite that I don't really feel the government should be involved in legislating adult behavior of MOST forms. You, on the other hand, have decided most of the list and what your imagination can come up with for ANYTHING in Santorum's quotation are greater crimes. You've decided there's no place for them. You've decided that gay sex is ok. You've decided that anyone who thinks differently needs to apologize for offending you. What utter lunacy man. You aren't tolerant. You are typically intolerant. You've come to a position and if Santorum doesn't agree, he needs to apologize to you. How about if he demanded YOU apologize to him for not hearing his point of view fairly and without embellishment? How about if he demaned of you an apology for accepting, what in his view, is an unacceptable lifestyle? Santorum actually demonstrates tolerance. You don't. You aren't open to anyone's ideas if they don't mesh with yours on this issue. You've closed your mind to any counter argument. You've simply decided that YOU want gay sex to be ok and if someone else doesn't, they need to apologize for offending you. You are the least tolerant person I know on this conversation, but you are exactly like the intolerant people who are on your side of this conversation.

Like I said, I'm suffering a bit of a hangover today so you can imagine my relief at being able to respond to this point with just a few words.

The difference between my brand of intolerance and Santorum's is that I am exercising my Constitutional right of free speech without imposing on someone else's rights. Santorum on the other hand wants to deprive people of their rights by criminalizing their victimless behavior (remember, cause and effect).

Now I ask you, which form of intolerance do you find more objectionable?

There are a lot of questions here to answer. Not sure I'll get to them all. But, let's start with the first. You asked, "If what gays or lesbians do consensually and sexually behind closed doors is harmful, tell me how and why." Simple. Even before AIDS the gay community was coping with immense difficulty with sexually transmitted diseases. Each more devestating and dangerous not only to themselves but to this nation and all people. First it was syphilis and gonorrhea. Then came the enteric parasites with hepatitis A and then hepatitis B. Hepatitis B actually mutated from a blood born disease to a venereal disease due to the rise of popularity of anal sex.

Talk about intolerance. Everything you've written above cannot be traced back to originating with gays. The culprit Art is risky behavior and unprotected sex. That is the issue to be dealt with. Your bias here is unquestionably mis-informed and somewhat ignorant.

Prior to AIDS city venereal disease clinics were treating up to 80 percent homosexual men. The book, "And the Band Played On" outlined that prior to AIDS hitting that 80 percent of San Francisco's 70,000 annual patients at the VD clinic there were gay men who used the clinic for a shot and to pick up dates. We can go on, but, the fact is, NO ONE IS HIS RIGHT MIND would suggest that gay sex is not a greater risk factor for any number of problems. That is a health concern. That is a public concern. Not only do we ultimately have to bear the costs of irresponsible behavior, not only by gay men, but by sluts the country over -- male and female -- but this puts other partners at risk as well.

To pretend there isn't a risk factor with gay sex is pie in the sky liberalism. Now, if you want to weigh the known risk factors against whether public policy should target the behavior, you should do so. I'm just stunned you are pretending this is not evident and clear in this discussion. The rest of your questions are more rhetorical and, oddly, off the mark. If you want them answered, say so in a reply. Otherwise, I'll move on .

Whew, this is wearing me out. I'll be brief by restating my analogy.

Blacks and fast-food restaurants.

Sound technique. Start by defending yourself for expanding the man's words and finish up with the same. Not new ground, just a solid hammer technique. I'm all for you challenging him. But, in this conversation you have demonstrated that your challenge is not grounded in facts or reason.

It'll suffice at this point just to say that I beg to differ. I think I've made a rather sound argument and at the same time, exposed fallacies in yours. But I'm under no illusion that this will get any air time in your world.

It's grounded in the hysteria around the gay movement among the American left that being gay is not abnormal. It is. It's ok to be abnormal. But, the left can't have that. The left must make it NORMAL. This is where you lose the majority of the country. Most people, myself included, don't care what a person needs to do to get himself off. But, we shouldn't be adopting this deviant behavior over others. It's deviant perversion. We all have some of that in us, I'm sure. I'm just not trying to make mine normal. I know they are abnormal indulgences that please me. I don't pretend my lifestyle deserves special protection because I really like it and don't think it's harmful. I may fight against a law that limits my pleasures, but, I wouldn't pretend that everything I may enjoy should be normalized. That's a flaw in you Kurp. You want to normalize the abnormality that is gay sex. And, it's not abnormal based on scripture. It's abnormal because men and women -- for whatever reason -- were created/evolved in such a way as to fit together to continue life. The natural normalcy of procreation gives hetrosexuals a pass for their behavior. I don't suspect you'll dispute that.

Using the strict definition of deviant, I cannot argue that gay behavior is not abnormal. Does being abnormal deserve punishment? In the grand scheme of things perhaps a gay segment of the population is a natural check on overpopulation. Same gender sexual behavior is not confined to humans. Nature has built-in controls to provide an ecological balance, or order if you will. When left to its own devices, nature ensures that no one species becomes dominant. The difference with humans of course is that we have the ability to reason and control our actions through thought. This isn't my theory Art. It's a theory put forth by a number scientists. Here's where tolerance comes in. Admitting that one does not have all the answers is not a sign of weakness. It's accepting reality. It's knowing that not everything which we do not have an answer for is bad, just different.

You can still burn a cross, just as you can burn a flag. A Klan member can't plant a cross and burn it on a black person's property, which is what the Supreme Court found. Just as an anti-war protestor can't go to Rumsfeld's property and burn a flag. There are crimes against that type of thing on private property. Again though, as with the Iraq comparison, you seem to think you have latched onto a powerful debating point here and you've repeated this comparison as you did the Iraq one. Perhaps I'm missing it, but, this has absolutely no power to me because I think it's completely off the mark and you are speaking to something I can't figure out. This has nothing to do with the discussion we're having.

Uncle.

"While one is taught to never prefix his/her words with "I believe" or "I think" in debate class, it bears mentioning here that this is simply your belief. You don't know this for a fact because it has yet to be proven beyond all doubt. Scientific studies by Simon LeVay, Bailey and Pillard, and Dean Hamer are enough to cast doubt on whether sexuality is genetic or environmental, or a combination of both."[/quote

Ahh. Now the root of it comes clear. You are simply bought and paid for by the Gay Gene . Kurp, it's not my thought or belief that no one is born gay or born straight. Sex is a primal urge. It's instinct. Period. Humans are animals. If you and I were placed in a bubble, only to see and live with each other, by the time we were 13 we'd be humping each other like crazy. That doesn't mean we're gay. It doesn't mean we're straight. It means we all have primal urges. We've debated the Hamer and LeVay studies on this board. They are questionable scientifically and completely ignore "use" in forming an opinion. Go do a search for the basketball gene on this board. That's precisely how easy it is to debunk gay scientists Hamer and Levay. There is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest a person is born favoring sex with the opposite sex or sex with the same sex. It is foolhardy to suggest otherwise.

Now we're getting somewhere. Art, I can unequivocally assure you that if given the choice between no sex and having sex with a man (or ugly woman), celibacy would come as natural for me as breathing air. Trust me, my friends will tell you that they've never met anyone as selective as I am when it comes to sex.

But you see, this isn't something that you can probably identify with. No more than you can identify with why a man finds another man more attractive than a woman. I can't identify with it either. The difference between you and I is one of tolerance.

Thus we have demonstrated your agenda is not tolerance. I can't believe you'd even put forth that until we know gays and lesbians don't suffer from mental disorders that make their behavior deviant we shouldn't pass laws criminalizing it. Simply put, you are a dangerous man. I was right to say Santorum's world is a better one than yours. Because, if YOUR belief is that in order to criminalize deviant behavior you must KNOW FOR CERTAIN that there are no mental disorders that cause it, you've essentially made all crime of all sorts completely invalid.

I think I've adaquately stated above why your argument here is specious.

Until we know a murderer isn't genetically tuned to kill we must not criminalize murder. Until we know child molesters aren't genitically tuned to wanting to screw children, we must protect them. Rapists the same. Any crime, even against other people, must, by linkage, fall into your category here. Hell, it must actually receive GREATER protection and concern. Any genetic trait we can't prove doesn't exist could, in your world, exist and such a genetic trait that would lead people to harm others MUST be assumed and we must treat the criminals. You are a dangerous man, Kurp.

And you have the gumption to poke holes in my Iraq analogy? Wow Art, your arms surely have to be sore from reaching so far on this.

For the record, I know, as do you, that there is no chemical or biologic or genetic trait that leads a person toward hetrosexuality or homosexuality. It's primal instinct taught to point a specific direction. In ancient Rome it was deemed that the only true love was between a man and a boy and women were simply for babies. Societal influence conditions one's instincts. We all maintain that instinct. But you're not born any way at all. You've simply swallowed hole gay doctor studies that have been utterly rejected and unable to be reshown with any predictability and used this to defend your stance that gay sex is somehow normal. I feel sorry for you and your intolerance on this view. You can't allow yourself to see clearly. Each of us has a weakness on various issues that makes coherent, thoughtful positions difficult at time. This is clearly a spot where you fall short.

No Art, this only plays in your world. I don't profess to know what makes a gay person gay. You'd do yourself a service by acknowledging the same. You can't walk a mile in a gay person's shoes and you never will. Perhaps you should ponder why many gays wish they were straight, that they were normal, that they live in a world without be ostracized by the general public.

No, Kurp, sexual actions between a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman are not even close to being essentially the same. When your wife can stick her d!ck into your p@ssy, then it'll be essentially the same. There is an incredible difference between the sexual activities undertaken by people of the same sex versus people of the opposite sex.

Expand Art, expand. It's your mind I'm referring to. Emotionally speaking there may be very little difference for gays.

Now, you are right that in all cases the actions are meant to release sexual tensions and obtain gratification. But, the same is the case in incest, bigamy, prostitution and adultery as examples. You have said those are greater crimes. You have ignored the risks of gay sex not only on society but the people themselves. You've decided to express your tolerance by hearing, seeing and speaking no evil against that which you've adopted whole as right and normal. Thanks for being clear at least .

Okay, I know you're summarizing here but I'm just not up to the task. I'll simply ask that you refer to everything I've written above in response to your closing arguments.

I'm just plain tuckered out at this point.

[JackC]

Originally posted by Art

Kurp, I'm entertaining this evening for a while so I won't be able to reply to you for a bit, but, rest assured, I will.

Jack. Be very careful. You know full well the number of times I've spoken about being in disagreement with something done by a Republican. I realize you are prone to rhetoric, but, save that for people you aren't speaking directly to, because, if you ever say something like this again -- as you've said it before -- I'll assume you are willfully lying, and that's not a good place to be with me .

Art,

Maybe I have a bad memory, but I wasn't lying.

[Art]

Jack,

Don't have a bad memory a third time. Easy enough.

Kurp,

In the interest of keeping you from tiring let me do broad strokes.

First, again, three times in this thread you have had to mischaracterize what Santorum said. You've had to add words to fit YOUR interpretation and that's YOUR flaw. Surely you're not denying that three times in this thread you've specified words Santorum didn't say and attributed them to him. In your last post you explained this behavior by saying his history allows it. In this post you are saying the word anything allows it. It seems you need to understand that communication requires you to have a consistent message and when caught doing something you ought not be doing you shouldn't flop around like a fish out of water trying to explain yourself. You should have simply said, "Fair enough. Let's just take the content of the statement and debate it." You couldn't do that. You had to make the content more damning. You had to add words. You had to create a false impression to carry your beliefs. It is hysterical liberalism for you to THREE times state words Santorum didn't say and then twice defend yourself with differing reasons as to why that's ok. Just admit you had to nudge the rhetoric up to support your point and move on. What you're doing now just seems awfully sad.

Second, you certainly aren't saying in this reply, I hope, that homosexual behavior isn't classified as risk behavior and that there aren't dramatically higher rates of the problems pointed out among this community as compared to the the rest of our society are you? Your comparison to blacks and hypertension is interesting, but it's off the mark. Being gay is not a race. That you would even DARE compare gay people and their sexual lifestyle with the genetic traits of a race of people shows the depths by which you will go to defend the deviant behavior of gays.

Gays take on a risk factor by willfully engaging in risk behavior. Blacks may have a higher risk of hypertension that is genetic. If you don't see the difference between being born and chosing then you are not someone who's nearly as tolerant as you like to grant yourself. Being gay does not have to be the root cause of certain STDs, though, gay sex was the reason blood born scourges like hepetitis B became STDs, so, even here you are completely accurate.

At one point in your reply you cited me for putting words into your mouth. You wrote, after I said that you've decided that gay sex has no risks at all to society or the individuals that you never indicated such. Unfortunately for you in the quote that preceeded my words, you were quoted with, "If by my agenda you mean tolerance of actions that have no victims, then you are WRONG!"

You clearly stated that you don't believe there are any victims at all to the actions we're discussing. Now you take me to task for pointing out that I think it's lunacy for you to think there are no victims. Again, this is a classic loser's position in a debate. I quoted each thing you said and replied. If you have a problem with the reply, refer YOUR quotes. Then explain how I misunderstood what you said in my reply so I can say sorry. Don't simply say you didn't say something you did say, especially when I've bothered to quote it all pretty and stuff.

Anyway, more broad strokes .

Here's a big problem and this represents another time you've had to add to Santorum's comments to fit your position. You wrote, "The difference between my brand of intolerance and Santorum's is that I am exercising my Constitutional right of free speech without imposing on someone else's rights. Santorum on the other hand wants to deprive people of their rights by criminalizing their victimless behavior (remember, cause and effect)."

In fact, Santorum at no point said he wants to deprive people of their rights by criminalizing their victimless behavior. Interestingly, you again state there are no victims here while taking me to task for wondering how you can so openly say there are no victims here, as we both know there are, but, Santorum said if the Supreme Court uses a created Right to Privacy to defend actions by consenting adults, then that right can extend to any number of actions by consenting adults. He didn't say he wanted to criminalize this behavior. He may want to. But, his words were that the rationale for decriminalizing this behavior is such that it could, easily, extend to other activities by consenting adults the government has criminalized. And, Santorum used his First Amendment right to free speech to say this is a dangerous path the Court may take. Why must the left overstate what the man's position is, time and again?

You are absolutely right later where you point out that risky behavior is at issue with some of the public health concerns I pointed out. I have no problem with that type of behavior, in all forms, gay or straight, being addressed if a state deems it necessary to do so. But, gay sex is a risk factor for these problems. My mother was a nurse who cared for gay men. She was the greatest liberal in the world. She is now a born-again Christian and right-winger because, as she puts it, "I couldn't believe the destructive behavior of these men." My mother tells story after story of gay men with multiple STDs, including AIDS, asking for, and GETTING Viagra perscriptions. My mother tells story after story of gay men saying to her, that as a woman, she can understand what they think. She asked how so and they say when she was impregnated, the man gave her a special gift they could both share. For gay men that special gift is their disease. They try to give it to each other so they can share this special gift together.

The psychosis of this behavior is incredible. But, again, my mother was so overwhelmed by this type of story, told day after day, multiple times, by people receiving treatment on the public dole, that she just left one day and said this couldn't be ok to people. Gay sex and relationships, can, absolutely, be loving, and safe, and enduring, just as straight relationships can. The difference is that the incredibly high rate of infection among gay men makes their chosen sexual activity a risk not only to themselves, but to society as a whole.

If you don't see this you're just doing the hear, see and speak no evil routine. If you do see this, say so, and then say that the balance of the risk is not so great that you think it should be criminalized as consensual incest, bigamy, adultry, drug use and prostitution can be or are.

Your decision is that gay sex isn't a risky sexual behavior and this is where you are in trouble in this conversation. What frightens me about your entire position is just how casually you'll deny there's any societal or individual risk to gay sexual behavior that is inherently greater than that of the rest of society (determined by your repeated stance that this is victimless) as well as your repeated inability to recognize that sex is primal. You are a smart person Kurp. You can't reasonably think sexual instinct is tied to a specific sex. It's instinct. It's what makes you horny baby. Sure, there's the natural, normal, understandable draw of straight sex based on the procreative ability it allows. But, to pretend because two gay doctors did a linkage study of gay men that gays men are born genetically tuned to same-sex partners is scary.

You've bought the line. You've swallowed it whole. And now you are wondering at others who've spit the bit back out a little more readily. I find you to be very intolerant on this issue, Kurp, because you have simply adopted this cause as your very own and don't even see the repeatedly bad thrusts you have to make to prop it up.

I often find you a compelling debate. Here, it's just been painful. I suggest we go back to politics .

[TheKurp]

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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."

Okay Art, I've explained why I'm allowed to expand on Santorum's words based on the last sentence, "You have the right to anything."

Perhaps it's your turn to explain why you've seen fit to ignore that last sentence.

Secondly, I now see you've changed course and have framed gay sex as risky behavior. Then will you agree that STDs didn't originate with and aren't caused by gay sex? Now, think about bigamy, adultery, incest (since incest is "anything") and ponder what social ills might be caused by those actions. Has the lightbulb illuminated your world yet?

You've twisted my argument into stating that I believe that gay sex isn't risky behavior. In fact I said no such thing. I said that gay sex between consulting adults is victimless. Straight sex between consulting adults is also victimless. However the result might be the spreading of the flu or SARS. Apparently this to you is semantics. To me it is a crucial and valid distinction.

Thirdly, in addressing my analogy on blacks and their disproportionately higher rate of hypertension, you've made an assumption that the correlation is genetic. That's pretty convenient to suit your argument, but no more accurate than your assertion that genes play no role in sexual behaviors.

Art, the real difference between you and I is that you claim to know that which isn't known. I don't claim to possess any innate knowledge of something that has yet to be proven one way or the other. Despite your insistence to the contrary, I haven't bought into anything on what makes gay people gay. I've simply said I don't understand it. And I'm willing to be tolerant of that which I do not understand. You on the other hand practice intolerance by having negative opinions based on premises that have no basis in fact.

And you think I'm scary?

[JackC]

Originally posted by Art

Jack,

Don't have a bad memory a third time. Easy enough.

Huh?

Can you jogged it?

[Art]

Kurp,

Two things come to mind here. First, have you ever heard of a figure of speech? You have a right to this. You have a right to that. You have a right to the other thing. You have a right to anything. Second, anything is what you make of it. You've decided to make it criminal acts by adults against children. That's not similar to the list Santorum provided. He provided consensual gay sex. Consensual multiple marriage. Consensual incest. Consensual adultery. By extension, if anything is in line, it might mean consensual drug use. It might mean consensual prostitution. It might mean consensual scat. You understand the key to those last thoughts were "it might" don't you?

Communication is sometimes understanding that you don't have to add words to make meaning clear. You did that in this thread when you misunderstood all to mean all familes when you thought you had a point. Clearly you have a bias and intolerance for this man largely based upon your position that anyone who thinks gay sex isn't acceptable is unacceptable, so, you've had to exaggerate your points, using words NOT spoken by Santorum to prove it. Essentially the point here is if you have to use your imagination to make something horrible it's probably not that horrible and you should quit using your imagination.

Next is your thought that I've altered my argument. In fact, I haven't. I wrote that gay sex is risky behavior and I explained how it was in answer to you a couple of posts ago. That I repeated the same sentiment and you just caught on doesn't mean I've changed my tact. It means you just weren't as hung over and you noticed it this time .

You then asked, "Then will you agree that STDs didn't originate with and aren't caused by gay sex?" Well, uh, no. Gay sex is attributed to the turn of hepetitis B from a blood transmission to an STD classification due to anal sex. But, even if that, and gay bowel syndrome and other medical issues weren't caused by and originated with gay sex, let me just say to you that EVERY single STD a gay person has was caused, directly, by gay sex. Are various STDs only capable of transmission among gays? No. Obviously not. The rate of transmission is far greater. The lifestyle decisions are far more risky. And that's not just to the individual, but to society as a whole who bears the costs of such behavior.

Again, I don't believe the government should make laws to inhibit what consenting adults do. Including bigamy, incest, prostitution and drug use for the most part. I'd want certain registrations required to avoid public health concerns, but, otherwise, if you want to do it, I'm all for it. But, if the government feels a specific type of behavior is overly risky and that endangers individuals and the public, it has a right and even an obligation to address those concerns.

Kurp, the real difference between you and I is we both know absolutely what sexual instinct is. We both know it's primal and part of all animals. We both know there's no genetic link toward arousal from same-sex partners, anymore than there is a genetic link toward sex with children, or rape, or consensual strangulation during intercourse, or, here's a word you'll like, anything .

If you seriously believe that sexual desire is genetic, then you have to believe it is the same for the rapist who is genetically predisposed to violently forcing himself upon women or a child molester who just can't help himself that he's so turned on by children. And while those are crimes against another person, you still can't discount that if you believe sexual instinct is more than the primal, animal lust we both know it is, and it is more directed, and genetic, that people who commit sexual crimes of the sort I've brought up may well have this sort of behavior genetically part of them.

I'm pretty certain you don't believe that. If you do, at least you'll be consistent, though consistently wrong .

[NavyDave]

All of this is about a court case involving two butt pirates, a lib reporter asked him about the potential of the case going before the US Supreme court.

He then brought up a similar case back in 86 and the verdict.

He was correct in saying how the result can open the door for other morally corrupt activities to be challenged.

A slippery slope we dont want to travel and with the amount of fools in this country trying to sue Big Mac and KFC because they are fat nothing is impossible.

We are already doing what he is saying in the military when it comes to gays its call dont ask dont tell.

Victimless sex??

Yeah right

We have a Sexual transmitted disease with civil rights status.

Aids is still prevalent in that community as well as the flesh eating disease that was also originally in Asia but found among gays (They were told to become very hygienic to prevent the spread (CNN) since it was apparently in YMCAs)

[TheKurp]

Art,

Clearly this debate has run its course. In the end I suppose that I'll have to find solace in your belief that the government shouldn't make laws to inhibit what consulting adults do.

You do seem to find it incomprehensible that I don't have to believe one way or the other, or take a stance on what factors determine sexual orientation. You keep stating that I have this knowledge, but I assure you that I'm ignorant. Don't mistake my genetic arguments for beliefs or certainty. I'm simply providing an alternative possibility to your belief that one consciously chooses which sex to be attracted to. Here's where I'll give Santorum more credit for open-mindness than I'll give you. At least Santorum doesn't try to assert that the lifestyle is wrong, he just thinks gays should refrain from having sex.

Originally posted by Art

I'd want certain registrations required to avoid public health concerns, but, otherwise, if you want to do it, I'm all for it. But, if the government feels a specific type of behavior is overly risky and that endangers individuals and the public, it has a right and even an obligation to address those concerns.

Would it surprise you to know that far more many people die of the flu each year than AIDS?

Do you think the government should mandate flu shots for every American with criminal penalties for non-compliance?

What about the small pox vaccine? Should everyone be forced to receive one in the event of a breakout?

[Art]

Kurp,

I didn't say sexual orientation was a conscious choice. It may be, or it may, as seems indicative of society, kind of a societal, subliminal choice. Again, the natural factor, if genes were to take part, would point to men and women coupling due to the procreative reasons and the natural "fit". I think it's not so much though a conscious choice in most people so much as the obvious one. You don't have to decide to be straight because that's just what is taught from one's earliest images. You do, therefore, consciously have to decide to be gay, rejecting enviornment, but, the URGE to be gay is likely not a choice at all, anymore than my preference for hitting my wife from behind or yours may be for missionary.

What gets a person off, from the body type, to the actions themselves are a combination of factors. I tend to prefer brunettes, though I'm not genetically predisposed toward that, and I haven't chosen, consciously, to prefer them. Hell, I married a blonde. We're animals. As you pointed out, we can just reason, and that's why we're smarter than animals sometimes .

But, the point is, there is nothing genetic in any of us that says you like girls with pouty lips, while Jack Nicholoson likes skinny broads. What you like is what you like and that brings me to the next point. I didn't say the gay lifestyle is wrong. Santorum, as a religious man, does believe it's wrong. I understand how you could call it wrong with those grounds, but, I'm secular and what I find wrong is the normalization of this sexual deviancy at the exclusion of others. That's what I've said.

But, really, if you stick to what I've said and what Santorum has said you wouldn't be so confused. I agree with you that we're starting to get a bit circular here, so, continue, or don't. Up to you .

[NavyDave]

God in every religion says the lifestyle is wrong, Mother Nature say the lifestyle is wrong and every sane person knows the lifestyle is wrong.

When the time comes in the distant future when we need to save the population and there is one seat left who do you think is gonna have priority?

The Interior decorator hair dresser named Serge or Biff the college jock?

[codeorama]

I just want to add that I totally believe that in SOME cases, homosexuality has to be a trait that some one is born with. The reason I say this is that I know of 2 people that set off "gaydar" when they were young children, well before they developed their sexual identities. They had very feminine traits and were easily mistaken as girls at 7-8 years old. I am NOT saying that it is not a conscienious choice in many cases (why someone would choose this I cannot understand), but I have no doubt what so ever that somepeople are born gay.

Also, I am not an expert on this, but I watched a History Channel show a year ago about the Bible and things that were misunderstood. From what I remember, the part of the Bible that everyone claims is proof that God is against Homosexuality is during the story of Soddam and Gamorah (spelling?). The Histroy Channel had people on that said the Bible is taken out of context in regards to homosexuality and twisted to suit the means of those who are against it. The passage they used as an example was regarding (forgive me, I can't remember the names) one person that had angles sent to him. The corrupt people of S&G wanted to commit butt piracy on the angels who were just looked at as guests. The guy would not allow the guests to be victimized and offered his daugher instead. God stepped in I believe. The butt piracy was just a brutal prison life type of mentality used to show someone who is the boss.(damn, I can think of much better ways myself..) (if anyone wants to correct me, please do)

Anyway, the whole point I'm trying to make is that if God is against homosexuals, why does he create them? I believe in some cases he does as per my reasons above, and I also believe that the History chanel made a good case about the scriptures being taken out of context... we know that happens often.

I work with a gay guy and he is deeply religious. I don'thave any problems with him.

[Art]

My good friend up here in Minnesota has a six-year old who displays some gay tendencies. He's a shy, nice, sensitive kid. When he was two or three his grandmother dressed him as a girl and put makeup on him and everyone told him he was so cute. The grandmother at the time was watching five other young, ages eight and younger, girls in the family.

Jack seemed to identify with this. He liked the attention. He was around the girls all the time and took on their traits. My friend likes when I'm around Jack though as he and I are battling the damage done by the grandmother . Jack thinks it's ok to play tag by slapping my butt. I've told him no, that's not ok. You don't touch a man's butt, unless he just scored a touchdown for your team. Now, if he can convince girls to play tag with the butt spanking, he's onto something, and see if he can get Mrs. Mills to play with Uncle Art.

He likes to hug when he says goodbye. I shake his hand. In three years I'm happy to say we may have rescued this boy. He still has a stuffed animal, but, the last time they were over he was pouting because I was watching the NCAA tournament and he didn't want to, so his mom said he could go shopping with Mrs. Mills and mom then. He looked at me and his dad and said, "I think shopping sucks." I smiled. One saved from the dark side .

[codeorama]

Art... That's a good one...

I totally believe it too.. people's situations and surroundings would obviously tend to affect them as well. And some people are just deviant and want attention... I guess I don't pay it much mind as long as it doesn't affect me. But you know, I don't want to see gays kissing in public, but I also don't want to see normal couples swapping spit in public, but I will admit, it's no where near as gross..