The W
Views: 98952079
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.9.14 2238
The W - Current Events & Politics - Rick "The Dick" Santorum
This thread has 116 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Next(2068 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (78 total)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on
Certainly you've heard this story by now. Discuss.



Promote this thread!
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 524 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Unedited Interview (sfgate.com)

You know I have more of a problem when the reporter (and wife of John Kerry campaign manager) adds words to his quote.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 162 days
Last activity: 162 days
#3 Posted on
Where was the added part?

-Jag



From the mouth of my uncle Jim, the Republican banker:
"I regret voting for Bush."
"We need to vote him out of office."

I am in Shock. I am in Awe.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2997 days
Last activity: 211 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
And I would say that the unedited interview buries Santorum FAR more effectively than the edited quote did.

"I have no problem with homosexuals. I have a problem with homosexual acts" is an absolutely asinine statement to make. Think about what this implies: he has no problem with homosexuals unless they touch each other, and claims that when they do (with complete consent and behind closed doors), it "undermines the fabric of our society."

I am imagining Rick Santorum in his home tonight, curled up in a fetal position, shuddering with revulsion at the notion that somewhere, right at that moment, SOMEBODY in Pennsylvania is penetrating his male partner -- society is being undermined! -- and there's _nothing Santorum can do about it_. Thoughts like that keep me warm at night.

More significant is that, to Santorum, this _isn't_ specifically an anti-gay issue; he has no problem with restricting heterosexual sexual activity, either, if he considers it to be what he calls "acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships." This is a man who truly believes that the state's interest in enforcing a "traditional" sexual moral code SUPERCEDES any right to individual privacy. He wards off the boogeyman of "moral relativism" -- because HE knows that HIS morals are good enough for everyone else to live by, right?

The Daily Show absolutely _slew_ Santorum last night. The .MP3 is on bartcop.com.

(And the "man-on-dog" line will haunt him for YEARS.)




"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Iím going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on
You refer, I'm assuming to the (gay) in this quote: "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,", right?

Let's take a look at the quote in context:

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

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

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.


Now, Santorum is asked a question about consentual homosexual sex, why do you assume that's not what he's refering to when he answers the question?

It's a typical journalistic exercise to add words in paranthetically to express points that aren't clear in the individual quote. If someone was quoting some random Internet jackass saying "HHH really pisses me off. He's always holding Chris Jericho down.", the quote "(HHH)'s always holding Chris Jericho down" would be perfectly acceptable. (Well, it would be trite, annoying and constantly brayed about ad nauseum, but...)
So, are you saying he wasn't talking about gay sex? Because, if he wasn't, and he obviously was, Santorum would be calling for all consentual sex to be illegal, and that's even fucking crazier.

EDIT: A bunch of people beat me to it, but I'm keeping my post. I hope this doesn't turn into another thread about semantics.


(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 24.4.03 1752)

Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#6 Posted on
First off, that original interview puts him in a far worse light than the CNN article.

"I have no problem with homosexuals. I have a problem with homosexual acts" is an absolutely asinine statement to make. Think about what this implies: he has no problem with homosexuals unless they touch each other, and claims that when they do (with complete consent and behind closed doors), it "undermines the fabric of our society."

At the risk of sounding like I am defending his ridiculous comments, it is possible to feel that practicing homosexuality would be wrong, even though the temptation or desire to practice it is normal for some people. Same with sexóno one argues against sexuality or that the sexual Ďurgeí is neither biological nor natural (at least no one with a shred of credibility). However, some do make the argument that sex outside of marriage is immoral. Given that the homosexual act occurs outside of marriage, it stands to reason that the act itself could be considered immoral even though the urge is natural. So, being homosexual is not wrong but acting on it is.
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 509 days
Last activity: 376 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on
I am one who finds sex outside the marriage immoral, but I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry, and have moral sex within the marriage.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3796 days
Last activity: 2862 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
I support gay rights, but Santorum's statements reflect traditional Catholic doctrine, and he is a Catholic. About 50% of Americans (according to Gallup) think homosexuality is sinful, so does that disqualify 50% of Americans from a possible position in Congress?

The adding of the word "homosexual" was not correct, because his argument, as wrong as it is in my opinion, is that disallowing states to regulate private affairs could lead to a slippery slope.

On a side note, I think sodomy laws are absurd, and I hope the supreme court decides to strike the law down. In doing so, it sets up a precedent for a challenge against the federal war on drugs.
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 509 days
Last activity: 376 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on
This is an interesting discussion actually. Should attacks on sodomy laws and drug laws be done locally or at the national level? It's harder to do anything nationally, but I'm not sure, at least in the case of drugs, whether local laws would hold up.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2997 days
Last activity: 211 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Corajudo
    However, some do make the argument that sex outside of marriage is immoral. Given that the homosexual act occurs outside of marriage, it stands to reason that the act itself could be considered immoral even though the urge is natural. So, being homosexual is not wrong but acting on it is.



So what?

Let me phrase this carefully. I'm not taking a shot at you specifically by asking that; I don't mean it in a personal way. Corajudo is not my target here; I'm preaching to the choir here, to an extent. But as a logical argument, SO WHAT if it's "immoral" to some people? There's a huge difference between believing that something is immoral -- disapproval on a personal level -- and believing that it should be ILLEGAL. Santorum, when asked if homosexual sexual acts should be illegal, comes right out and says "Sodomy laws are there for a reason."

Worse yet, he builds his arguments around the tired strawman of "protecting the healthy, stable, traditional family." Well, who the fuck is Rick Santorum -- or anyone else -- to tell me that MY family has to be based around his "traditional" moral values to be healthy and stable, much less LEGAL?

It all starts with a basic premise: can sex be separated from marriage? This isn't as cut-and-dried as it sounds; a few states still have fornication statutes on the books, where unmarried couples literally CANNOT have sex legally. (Hell, Alabama's Attorney General still wants to ban vibrators; they don't necessarily even involve a PARTNER.)

But that's the first premise, right there. Should sex outside of the confines of marriage be legally prohibited (and if so, on what grounds)? The majority of America has said "no, premarital sex is tolerable" to that question for quite some time now.

That, in and of itself, dismantles Santorum's bigamy and polygamy arguments. The mere fact that a couple (or a couple plus one or more) are having sex does not in and of itself create a lifelong commitment, or entitle them to the status of legal marriage. Requirements for marriage (gender-based or otherwise) are an entirely different matter for states to decide, and that's fodder for another thread.

He brings up adultery (which is, again, legal in most states). If he defines adultery as I do -- a sexual act between a married person and someone other than his/her spouse -- again, the argument fails. If all parties involved (including both spouses) consent to the activity, where is the harm to the institution of marriage? Some relationships are more open than others, turn a blind eye to partners' dalliances, welcome outsiders into the marital bed or simply don't give a damn. Yet the marriage, in and of itself, does not change.

If a spouse DOESN'T approve of adulterous behavior, that's a different matter -- and one for civil courts, not criminal courts. Divorce lawyers already have a field day with adultery as it is. No one's saying that states should formally embrace adultery, or make the first Friday in March Adultery Day across the nation. But lots of things are legal that are widely disapproved of.

And then there's incest. This concerns only consensual adult incest, of course -- incest with minors is covered under rape laws, which should be strengthened in such cases. But what of adult siblings that wanna get it on? Unlike the above cases, or with consensual sex between non-relatives, incest carries with it a clear and prevalent public health concern -- birth defects and deformities. The argument can be made that the state thus has a valid interest in prohibiting that behavior, where it doesn't have that health interest with "normal" extramarital sex. (If there's one group of people guaranteed never to have deformed kids from incestuous relationships, it's homosexuals.)

Santorum's arguments would run dry at this point, which suggests (as does the article) that he rejects that basic premise, and feels that the state _should_ be able to prohibit extramarital sex (and other acts involving heterosexual spouses as well). He feels that it _is_ in the state's best interest to force everyone to adhere to a specific set of moral standards, even in their own private bedrooms. I'd like to see him put THAT in his TV commercials and try for reelection.

SANTORUM: The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.

But who decides which "consequences" cause actual harm, and which merely violate Santorum's own personal set of moral beliefs? "Sins" are not inherent violations of Pennsylvania law. I'd like to keep it that way.

(rant mode == off)




"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Iím going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
Hairy Caray
Bauerwurst








Since: 28.10.02
From: Wrigley Field hot dog stand

Since last post: 3657 days
Last activity: 3654 days
#11 Posted on

    Originally posted by messenoir
    This is an interesting discussion actually. Should attacks on sodomy laws and drug laws be done locally or at the national level? It's harder to do anything nationally, but I'm not sure, at least in the case of drugs, whether local laws would hold up.


You find me the part of the Constitution that gives the power to the federal government and I say let the feds loose. Otherwise, there's that pesky little Tenth Amendment that so many in our government have forgotten in the last 150 years:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


I gathered from the unedited interview that the Senator was opposing three things:

1) The fabricated constitutional right to privacy

"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."

2) Legislating from the bench

AP: "Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?"

SANTORUM: "I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process."


The people deciding as a community what is right and wrong?! Insanity!

3) The seizure of power from the states by the federal government

If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."

This last quote especially makes me feel that he saying that he, personally, feels that certain acts are wrong.

(Burn him!)

Hold on now, liberals! Let's try to tolerate his views for a moment!

However, he feels that neither he, a legislator, the President, nor the Supreme Court have the right to exercise power over these matters. The people, as a state, bear the right to decide.

I'm going to try journalistic editing out for myself:

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the sentiments expressed by Santorum are "out of step with our country's respect for tolerance [for people who share my values]."

In other stupidity:

"If you ask most Americans if they compare gay and lesbian Americans to polygamists and folks who are involved in incest and the other categories he used, I think there are very few folks in the mainstream who would articulate those views," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the [homosexual] group.

Am I the only one who sees the blatant hypocrisy in statements like this? "These people should lose their jobs for saying they think I'm wrong; they compared me to those nasty polygamists!"






Cubs win! Cubs win! Cubs win!
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 712 days
Last activity: 712 days
#12 Posted on
Eh, I think he's gonna get the Trent Lott treatment on this one.

Sometimes people just take a statement someone makes way too far and believe that a certain quote is the be-all and end-all of that person, forgetting all their various and sundry other qualities.

So says a guy who's had problems with journalists quoting him in the past.

Of course, that's just MY opinion. Please don't quote me (unless it's in the spirit of irony).



Fashion Reporter Extraordinare

Wisdom is learning from one's mistakes.
Greater wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others.

I am somewhat disturbed when someone who registered a month ago has more posts than me.
I am less disturbed when I relize it means I actually have more of a life than some people.

PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2793 days
Last activity: 2636 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
Bah, people are making too much of a stink here. To me, he said this:

If we can't regulate sodomy because it occurs in the privacy of one's home, how can we regulate anything else people do in the privacy of their home? And I think he's right. If we're going to be logically consistent, and we allow sodomy, we should allow any sexual practice.

The only difference between me and Santorum is that I don't think that's a bad thing.



"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 509 days
Last activity: 376 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on
And this is where I disagree. We are regulating sodomy right now. We're saying it can't happen. I say we get rid of that law, and he seems to be saying we shouldn't because the act of sodomy is wrong. So he is advocating regulation right there.

Also, homosexuality is not like every other sexual act. With bestiality, for example, the animal does not provide consent. With child sex, the child either does not provide consent or is too young to know the difference. With incest, the act can lead to offspring with severe mental and physical problems. Also, the basic act of all living creatures is too expand the gene pool and not to narrow it.

With homosexuality, none of these things occur. There is no harm caused to any one person, outside of any normal relationship problems. Any problems people have with the relationship are their own issue and creation.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on

    Originally posted by messenoir
    This is an interesting discussion actually. Should attacks on sodomy laws and drug laws be done locally or at the national level? It's harder to do anything nationally, but I'm not sure, at least in the case of drugs, whether local laws would hold up.


The states have the rights to regulate against crimes. It's up to the fed to decide what "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" and all that stuff are. So, is Sodomy a protected right? I don't think we have any right to tell people what they have the right to do or not do when they are naked, over some consenting age that is selected (obviously, there's some disagreement on exactly what that is.. I think the Feds should somehow figure out a way to standardize that) and as long as what they are doing does not pose a serious health risk. But that's why the so-called morality laws get made.

Prostitution: It's against the law primarily because of health issues, nor morality ones, although obviously, that's an issue that figures in.

I lived in SF back in the late 70s. After GRIDS kicked in (It eventually was renamed AIDS), they closed the bathhouses in SF based on the health issues named above. Not on Morality issues at all - because they were all in neighborhoods where no one cared about the morality issues.

Incest is generally illegal because of the Health issues related to close relatives having kids, not the morality ones (although, again, that kicks in). Same for Bigamy and other stuff.

I think the senator was saying, basically, sodomy is generaly a health issue (and you can look it up: The incidence os health issues related to sodomy sexual relations is much, much higher than non-sodomy sexual relations) and so it joins those other things.




We'll be back as soon as order is restored.....
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

This is SO my new sig.

I've always hated Santorum. I think it's just because he looks such like little Mr. Junior Achiever you used to beat up in high school who's now a Senator. Plus he always gave me the Bob Barr/Newt Gingrich/Tim Hutchinson style "talk about family values a lot but get caught doing a Dirty Sanchez with your secretary" vibe.

As far as the interview goes, while I agree it's mostly a philisophical/moral kind of debate, Santy did get a couple of factual things dead wrong.

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.

I hate when a politician (or anyone) does this false slippery slope bullshit. Bigamy has nothing to do with consentual sex acts. It has to do with marrying more than one person in a State-sanctioned marriage. If a Church wants to marry three people, it's perfectly legal, the government just won't recognize it, and will only throw you in jail if you manage to get two marriage certificates for one person. Polygamy: see bigamy. Incest: that's been covered in an earlier post. Adultery: if this is illegal, it's prosecuted even less than sodamy.

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.

Ricky needs a serious history lesson if he thinks "every society in the history of man" has been based on monogamous man/women couplings.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Michael Novotny, A smart guy, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, not racist, a Chihuahua, Data, an Asian Gangster, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, White Chocolate, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Mr. Peabody, Bjork, Spider-Man, Tom Daschle, Boston, a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage, not a Hipster, and a Gringo.
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 509 days
Last activity: 376 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on
Stepping out of from the moral realm and into the scientific realm, homosexuality also has proven genetic benefits. It occurs in many species as a way to keep the population down (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm).

Bigamy and pologomy also occur in nature, but not generally in species that have offspring with a long maturing period, as humans do.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1233 days
Last activity: 1030 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuy
    Eh, I think he's gonna get the Trent Lott treatment on this one.

I don't think that he is for the simple reason that he is saying what half of the population agrees with insofar as that homosexuality is a sin. With Lott, a huge majority of the people thought his perceived views on race were bad news.

That certainly doesn't mean it should be illegal though. The concept of homosexuality disgusts and repulses me. But I'm not going to tell somebody else who has made that decision that they can't. Whne you start doing that, you start making that move towards theocracy and away from responsible law and order.




MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
The concept of homosexuality disgusts and repulses me.

I'm assuming that's just male homosexuality. Because somebody other than me has got to be buying those Girls Gone Wild videos.

Bigamy and pologomy also occur in nature, but not generally in species that have offspring with a long maturing period, as humans do.

Non-monogamy is the "natural" state of almost all mammals, including all primate. Humans are "naturally" a lot more geared toward polygamy than monogamy. This is why every single hetrosexual guy would bone all the chicks he could get his hands on if he had his way. It's society, not nature, that keeps certain societies monogamous. And even then, it generally does a pretty bad job.

Birds, on the other hand, are almost all naturally monogamous. Go figure.



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


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on
In this day and age, satire has become completely obsolete.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 Next
Pages: 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: The Junk Food Wars in England
Next thread: Well, this can't be good
Previous thread: More Stupid PETA Tricks
(2068 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Simply put, we won.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Rick "The Dick" SantorumRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.15 seconds.