The W
Views: 100020752
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 0138
The W - Current Events & Politics - Rick "The Dick" Santorum (Page 3)
This thread has 116 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(2071 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (78 total)
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3477 days
Last activity: 3471 days
#41 Posted on
Trying to duck and dodge issues and rhetoric that may not need to be answered, including ad hominem attacks, I have come up with the following:

"Actually, the answer to that is no. According to the New Kinsey study (as opposed to the 1948 one), less than half of all homosexuals engage in anal sex on a regular basis. (Even the 1948 study determined that only 59 percent of homosexuals did.)"

How exactly is this supposed to mean that male homosexual sex does not in a general way involve anal sex as a main characteristic? Just because half may not enjoy it "on a regular basis" does not seem to mean much, and I wouldn't be surprised if many gay men completely abstain from the practice (due to all that it entails). That still does not make what they are doing the natural and normal thing to do. Again, just because something *occurs in nature* is not enough to demonstrate that it is in accordance with the *laws* of nature in a very real sense.

"A homosexual marriage rite existed within the Catholic Church until the early 1500s."

Please cite your source for this (and try to make it someone other than John Boswell if you can).

"What do lesbians do exactly that makes them unnatural, by your (extremely stupid and erratic) definition?"

Are they not also set in a relationship with forces them to use their body in unnatural ways, including the basic fact that their actions leave them with the inability to procreate? I don't believe sex is only for procreation, but gays and lesbians both go about this in ways that human nature was just not designed for. It shouldn't be a surprise then that those actions are extraordinarily unhealthy.

If there was something else you wanted me to reply to, let me know because I think I lost it somewhere. And realize that I may not be able to get back to this thread before Monday.

DMC

(edited by DMC on 26.4.03 1343)


"Sex would be extremely difficult in a DeLorean, though. You'd have to be a real acrobat."

- Playboy May 1981
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2546 days
Last activity: 649 days
#42 Posted on

    Originally posted by DMC

    "What do lesbians do exactly that makes them unnatural, by your (extremely stupid and erratic) definition?"

    Are they not also set in a relationship with forces them to use their body in unnatural ways, including the basic fact that their actions leave them with the inability to procreate? I don't believe sex is only for procreation, but gays and lesbians both go about this in ways that human nature was just not designed for. It shouldn't be a surprise then that those actions are extraordinarily unhealthy.

    DMC

    (edited by DMC on 26.4.03 1343)



Being a lesbian forces one to use their body in unnatural ways? Huh? Could you elaborate on that? 'cause I don't know what you could be thinking of.

AND, how is lesbian sex unhealthy? You haven't said, in amongst the sweeping statements on "Human Nature" and "Laws of Nature".

Basing your argument upon "Human Nature" and "Laws of Nature" like they are agreed upon, immutable things is a neat (and old) rhetorical trick, but doesn't provide any insight as to what specifically you mean. The only laws of nature I know about don't have anything to do w/ human sexual behaviour at all. This "argument" is the secular equivalent of saying "Because God says so". It makes any further discussion impossible, because we end up arguing about what is "natural" and not the issue at hand.

"Natural" does not necessarily have anything at all to do with what policies government and society should adopt and follow. One can argue that anything is "natural" or "unnatural", depending on what result one wants.



-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3477 days
Last activity: 3471 days
#43 Posted on
"Being a lesbian forces one to use their body in unnatural ways? Huh? Could you elaborate on that? 'cause I don't know what you could be thinking of.

AND, how is lesbian sex unhealthy? You haven't said, in amongst the sweeping statements on "Human Nature" and "Laws of Nature"."

I didn't mean to say lesbian sex was physically unhealthy--I apologize for forgetting to qualify that in my last post. (I believe I mentioned that previously.)

On lesbian sex being unnatural, well, you tell me: Are they having sex in the way that their bodies were designed to function?

"Basing your argument upon "Human Nature" and "Laws of Nature" like they are agreed upon, immutable things is a neat (and old) rhetorical trick, but doesn't provide any insight as to what specifically you mean. The only laws of nature I know about don't have anything to do w/ human sexual behaviour at all."

This is an important issue and I'm glad you brought it up. The fact is that many people *can* see intuitively how there are "natural laws" governing sexual behavior. As I've been trying to point out, I don't think it takes a whole lot to see that there are these laws (particularly when you examine the violations of it). But yes, we are kind of assuming here that there is such a thing as natural law. While debating that issue may take this thread far off course, and while it is an important philosophical issue to consider, on the face of it it doesn't necessarily involve any particular religion. Yes, it may ultimately involve some type of "religious" framework, as the Founders realized by claiming that our human rights are "God (or "Creator") given", but I don't think you have to be a Bible thumper to accept the notion of natural law either.

DMC



"Sex would be extremely difficult in a DeLorean, though. You'd have to be a real acrobat."

- Playboy May 1981
Cerebus
Scrapple








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#44 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74
Ok, so the penis on a man is positioned just so that it has access to the vagina on a female. If you turn her around, isn't the anal opening in approxamately the same spot? Why would this be against said 'natural laws'?

Would this make Clinton out to FINALLY be the bad guy in that he got a hummer from Monica Lewinsky, and since, if you follow these 'natural laws', oral sex is bad?



Cerebus: Barbarian, Prime Minister, Pope, Perfect House Guest.

"Graft is as necessary as throwing up when you drink too much."
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
What may surprise some people is that I do. Why? Because same-sex long term couples should have the same responsibilities opposite sex couples do in terms of seperation(property, kids, etc.)

This doesn't surprise me at all. You (like most of the righties on this board) are much more of a Libertarian than your typical righty. Gay marriage for you just means that there's that many more people you can get to complain about paying too much in taxes because they're married. (Joke! If you want to talk about the marriage penalty, start a new thread!).

I'm glad you head by here every so often DMC. It's nice to have a voice for the more culturally conservative set, as the right/left dichotomy here tends to be mostly on the economic or nationalistic spectrum, not on the cultural spectrum.



"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.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3750 days
Last activity: 3219 days
AIM:  
#46 Posted on
DMC, you talk a great deal about natural laws...

Yet, you've ignored, several times now, the fact that homosexuality is present, even fairly prevalent, in nature. It's a part of "natural law". The fact that it's non-reproductive is a means of population control, nothing more. Thus, anal intercourse is as much a part of nature as anything else.

Many animals have been observed masturbating, which would tend to imply that that, too, is a part of "natural law", since I sincerely doubt that they were imitating behaviour that they observed in a human being. Thus, masturbation (and, by extension, mutual masturbation and touching of other's genetalia) is just as natural.

About the only thing you don't see much of in the wild is oral sex. So, next time you're about to get a little bit of "attention", please remember that you're about to engage in what is obviously the most "unnatural" sexual act there is.

Bodies were designed to function in very, very specific ways. We eat, we sleep, we reproduce, we die. Everything else we do is "unnatural" by that definition. Human nature is practically defined by its attempts to subvert our "animal" instincts. Why, then, would any "unnatural" act, even if it harms a consenting person, be a bad thing, unless it was attatched to some religious taboo? We smoke, we drink, we play extreme sports... I don't see you arguing that those things are violations of natural law and therefore wrong.

(edited by Nate The Snake on 26.4.03 1733)


Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
About the only thing you don't see much of in the wild is oral sex.

Dude, you've obviously never owned a pet. Unless you just consider that masterbation.



"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.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3750 days
Last activity: 3219 days
AIM:  
#48 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    About the only thing you don't see much of in the wild is oral sex.

    Dude, you've obviously never owned a pet. Unless you just consider that masterbation.



Unfortunately, I've seen far too many instances of pets licking themselves 'round those parts. However, it IS the animal licking itself... I'd qualify it as masturbation, yeah. Hell, as a million zillion comedians have said... "Why do they do it? BECAUSE THEY CAN. If I could do that, I'd never leave the house."

God in heaven, this is starting to get icky. (:



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2546 days
Last activity: 649 days
#49 Posted on
DMC! I agree with you on something!

No, I don't think one does have to be a Bible thumper in order to subscribe to the idea of "natural law" and didn't mean to imply that.

What I was getting at is that invoking "natural law" is the functional equivalent of invoking "God's will" in an argument such as this. It's not really something one can argue with. The argument ends up being: Is this natural, or not? (or, Is this God's will, or not?) Since we don't really have access to all of nature's laws, or the total will of God, the discussion breaks down. There are universally agreed upon laws of nature (example: gravity), but they don't apply in this case.


Now, back to the sex thing: No, lesbians don't have heterosexual intercourse (by definition). But you are taking the narrow definition of "designed" here. In fact, I'd argue with "designed", if you are trying to make this a secular position. When it comes to girl on girl sex, well, a man can do most of those things to a girl to, right?

Damn! I had more to write, but have to leave now - til monday



-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3907 days
Last activity: 3852 days
#50 Posted on
How exactly is this supposed to mean that male homosexual sex does not in a general way involve anal sex as a main characteristic? Just because half may not enjoy it "on a regular basis" does not seem to mean much

How can a sex act you don't do on a regular basis be the main characteristic of a type of sex? You're dithering in semantics, and with no great effectiveness either.

and I wouldn't be surprised if many gay men completely abstain from the practice (due to all that it entails).

Actually, the majority of gay men who abstain from anal sex (both from polling and my personal experience with the gay community) abstain for one of two reasons:

1.) They just don't like it (by the far the most common reason).
2.) They don't like the association of penetration, a "breeder's" activity, with homosexual sex.

Health reasons are really way down the list. Lubricants and condoms take care of practically all the health problems worth mentioning when used correctly, and most gay men know how to use them correctly.

That still does not make what they are doing the natural and normal thing to do.

Your assertion of "unnaturalness" still remains completely unenforced beyond your own whining bleats that it, you know, just IS. You might as well complain about the creation of fire and the wheel.

As for not being "normal" - since when is that a basis for suppressing a minority through the law?

Again, just because something *occurs in nature* is not enough to demonstrate that it is in accordance with the *laws* of nature in a very real sense.

It occurs across the board in all mammalian species with astonishing regularity (and in quite a few other families as well). These aren't freak incidents we're talking about here - any zoologist can tell you that homosexuality and bisexuality are statistically significant within the animal kingdom.

Please cite your source for this (and try to make it someone other than John Boswell if you can).

I was indeed referring to Boswell, and it's my bad - I should have said it was the EASTERN ORTHODOX Church, as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. (Which, conveniently, is the part of his book that actually stands up to scrutiny.)

Are they not also set in a relationship with forces them to use their body in unnatural ways, including the basic fact that their actions leave them with the inability to procreate?

I didn't realize the inability to procreate was cause for removing one's civil rights. Well then. All you sterile people, into the concentration camps! Ditto all you freaks who choose not to have children! The children are our FUTURE, you know.

Seriously - I just pointed out that there's ample evidence that homosexuality is Mother Nature's form of population control. What do you say to that, other than ignoring it outright because you can't actually come up with an answer beyond "gay sex sucks"?

I don't believe sex is only for procreation, but gays and lesbians both go about this in ways that human nature was just not designed for. It shouldn't be a surprise then that those actions are extraordinarily unhealthy.

Again, what's unhealthy about lesbian sex, given that there's nothing lesbians do that a girl-guy pairing can't beyond procreate (and egg fusion is less than five years away)? Or oral sex (which human beings certainly aren't designed for)? And you still haven't explained why the male prostate gland is clearly designed to be a pleasure center.
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 3 days
#51 Posted on
I just pointed out that there's ample evidence that homosexuality is Mother Nature's form of population control. What do you say to that, other than ignoring it outright because you can't actually come up with an answer beyond "gay sex sucks"?

I'll wade into this. Let's combine this statement with the idea that homosexuality is/isn't part of 'natural law' (although if we are going to continue to invoke natural law, we really another thread to agree on what we mean because this phrase is pretty empty in this thread at this time).

The idea that homosexuality is Mother Nature's form of population control ignores many other forms of population control. First and foremost, the greatest population control of all is that our resources are limited. Therefore, paradoxically, to reduce population, we need only to expand it greatly, use up our resources and watch the population dry up. I don't know if you consider war a natural state, but that's also worked to control population historically (as has famine, plague/disease, and other things that tend to afflict an overly congested population, whether it is human or animal)

Of course, if we had a generation that consisted of nothing but 'natural' homosexuals, then we'd have the population control thing licked (no pun intended). Similarly, if the population consisted of nothing but 'natural' heterosexuals, then there would be some of the aforementioned forms of population control (although those tend to be not nearly as pleasant).

I didn't realize the inability to procreate was cause for removing one's civil rights.

I didn't realize that sexuality was a civil right. And, I don't think anyone is arguing that homosexuals (or even pedophiles or polygamists) should be denied their civil rights.

EDIT: I mean that the freedom to have sex however and with whomever you want is not a fundamental, civil right. I am certainly not suggesting that you should be able to discriminate based on someone's sexuality.

(edited by Corajudo on 26.4.03 2253)
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3834 days
Last activity: 2900 days
#52 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
If you believe there is a right to privacy in the constitution, then you see the right to sex as a civil right. I don't believe the right to privacy exists, so no, I don't think sex is a constitutional right. However, I think any money spent on regulating sex as opposed to going after real criminals is a criminal waste of my tax money.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2831 days
Last activity: 2674 days
AIM:  
#53 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
They're charging this guy with sodomy.



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

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3559 days
Last activity: 3559 days
#54 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.59
There is a right to privacy. The Nineth Amdendment was written as a catch all. Basically the old land owners decided that maybe all the good of the world may not be around that time. They made the Nineth Amendment to make sure stuff like privacy that was not covered back then could be added now. I hate to burst your buble, but if there is no right to privacy in this country then hacking would be legal. People could hack into your computers look around as long as there is no theft, they can get off. So, if I were you computer user I'd pick my rights carefully.

Listen, I live in this fucking state and let me say this, Rick is an idoit. He looks good on TV and has the substance of vapor. People are generally stupid when it comes to electing Senators in this state, but when the Presidency comes around or electing a new Govenor, people see the high unemployment rate and say good night to the Republicans. Why, you may ask, because they have been in power the longest and have done nothing with it. I can't explain the Senator thing other than that Arlen Spector is true evil, I know this, becaus I have met with him. Evil.

As for sodomy laws, there as outdated as the Salem Witch trials. If your girl just likes the one or two positions fine have a nice few year marriage as she goes for someone who can make her wet in bed. If I go to jail, because of Bjs then God help all the men in this state. I agree with Rick when he says its not a gay thing, its just common sense to get rid of these laws. If you want to outlaw inscet and biglimy I am with. Its just stupid old laws like this that get upheld, because we have Judges who wrote them kinda pisses me off. It just seems silly to me that they still exist and even sillier for people to defend them and then they say they support gay rights.

A Fan- Man, it must be late for me to have to respond to something as stupid as this conversation.

Jakegnosis
Morcilla








Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 2863 days
Last activity: 2847 days
#55 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.91



Holy fuck.

I think we'd do okay with kidnapping, rape, assault, psychological torture, etc...

Honestly, this is the kind of fucker that should be in solitary confinement forever. There is no rehabilitation for his sick ass. If he gets off on some kind of insanity plea, the entire legal system needs an overhaul.

I would weigh in on the issue at hand,here, but Godking pretty much made every point I would have brought up.



Rangers Lead the Way!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#56 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Jakegnosis
    Honestly, this is the kind of fucker that should be in solitary confinement forever. There is no rehabilitation for his sick ass.

No, this is the kind of guy who needs to be executed...




vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3035 days
Last activity: 249 days
#57 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00



And your point is? They're also charging him with kidnapping, rape and sexual abuse, which make the sodomy charges the least of his concerns.

No one's questioning whether UNWILLING sodomy should be illegal. That's called "rape." But sodomy laws that do not exempt consenting participants are inherently ridiculous.



"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
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#58 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by vsp
    >No one's questioning whether UNWILLING sodomy should be illegal. That's called "rape."

Not necessarily true. The legal definition of rape in the state of Maryland(Title 3, Subtitle 3, Paragraph 3, Section 303), for both first and second degree offenses is:

"engag[ing] in vaginal intercourse with another by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other."

That doesn't count forcible sodomy or any type of male homosexual rape. That is covered under sexual assault statues and, for whatever reason, is a lesser crime.

(edited by Grimis on 30.4.03 1428)



vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3035 days
Last activity: 249 days
#59 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by vsp
      >No one's questioning whether UNWILLING sodomy should be illegal. That's called "rape."

    Not necessarily true. The legal definition of rape in the state of Maryland(Title 3, Subtitle 3, Paragraph 3, Section 303), for both first and second degree offenses is:

    "engag[ing] in vaginal intercourse with another by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other."

    That doesn't count forcible sodomy or any type of male homosexual rape. That is covered under sexual assault statues and, for whatever reason, is a lesser crime.



Fair enough -- that's a technicality, but a valid one for Maryland. I suspect you'd agree, however, that the problem is that Maryland's rape law (as it's currently written) is inadequate. Such an unwilling assault is still criminal behavior in either case, as it should be. (Small prediction: If a male member of the Maryland legislature is ever involuntarily penetrated by a male attacker, the law will be adjusted around three and a half seconds later.)

For some reason, I'm humming Zappa's "The Legend of the Illinois Enema Bandit" right about now...






"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
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#60 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by vsp
    I suspect you'd agree, however, that the problem is that Maryland's rape law (as it's currently written) is inadequate.

Absolutely....of course,I want the penalties for all first degree rapes to once again be execution, as I stated earlier.




Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Pages: Prev 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
(2071 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The way to take care of this is the way that Israel took care of the people responsible for the Munich Massacre. The hunted them down quietly and killed them off one by one. The last few were nut cases by the end.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Rick "The Dick" Santorum (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.146 seconds.