Sen. Santorum shooting his mouth off.

[Mystech]

Senator Santorum’s recent comments about homosexuality spurred on by the Lawrence Vs. Texas case to be heard in front of the Supreme Court some time soon are catching a lot of flack, and rightly so!

Read about it on CNN.com

He is quoted as having said

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,

This sort of thing has to be my favorite kind of republican rhetoric. In general, conservatives just love using the “Slippery slope” argument, despite the fact that it has been a recognized and documented informal fallacy for thousands of god damned years. “Why if we allow homosexuals to be physically intimate in their own homes, then by this time next year we’ll all be eaten by bears!” It’s ridiculous!

Republican congressional leadership hasn’t got a very good track record this year, first Trent Lott, and now this. But remember, the republican party isn’t just for heterosexual middle aged wealthy white males, no, really!

Some are saying that Santorum shot himself in the foot with this comment, as he is now being urged to resign. Personally I don’t think that having been shot in the foot is quite enough, and fully urge him to shoot himself in the face next time he decides to speak, if he refrains from this I’d be very happy to do it for him once the revolution comes.

The very idea that someone would think that he has the authority to say who I can and can not have consensual sex with, especially behind closed doors, is completely absurd, and then to go on and compare homosexuality to bigamy polygamy and adultery, well, that just shows a complete lack of understanding and a clear prejudice. It’s a damn shame that people like this are in our government, and an even bigger shame that they actually have a voice and manage to get laws passed. Each time A law is passed that infringes so much on peoples personal freedom, and denies them basic rights we get a little closer to the time to take up arms. It’s fast approaching, and I know which side I’ll be on.

 

[SuperFudd]

He did not say "(gay)". Some A hole inserted that word to get your goat.

 

[CounslerCoffee]

He basically said gay... I saw it on TV. He's the new Trent Lott.

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,

How does gay sex, lead to incest? And he thinks gay people are dirty...

See, by connecting gay sex, with incest, and adultery; people get different ideas. Even though none of these things are connected. (Unless you cheat on your wife, with your gay cousin)

Basically the Senator is wrong. You do have the right to adultery. I don't remember reading any laws that said it was against the law to screw someone else while your married... Half the people in the white house do that already!

Okay, it is immoral to screw someone while your married. But your allowed to do that. Even though it ends in divorce.

How exactly are they going to enforce this law? Are they going to put cameras in my bedroom?

Here in Kentucky that law is "invalidated."

Law Invalidated - This means that the law was struck down by a court of law, making the law "null and void". It does not mean that the law was removed from the books or repealed by the legislators of the state.

If the courts decide that it's against the law... Are they going to arrest all of the gay people?

The definition of Sodomy is "Any orifice that is used besides the vagina." Bill Clinton broke that law when he got oral from Monica!

 

[Cowboy]

Santorum was right!

If it is decided that government has no place regulating sexual acts between consenting adults, there will be no legal basis for bans on incest and polygamy provided those involved are consenting adults. This is not equating homosexuality with incest or polygamy, but only a fair and accurate statement on the logical conclusion of such a ruling.

Either the government should be empowered to regulate sexual activities between consenting adults or it shouldn't. I say it shouldn't.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by SuperFudd
He did not say "(gay)". Some A hole inserted that word to get your goat.

Please try to do a little research on the matter before you post here. Putting "gay" in brackets was so that they didn't have to make the quote even larger in order to include the origional subject that he was still talking about.

Another fun quote from Santorum:

"I have no problem with homosexuality, I have a problem with homosexual acts."

Though I didn't see it myself, I hear that Jay Lenno's response to this comment was that it sounds like Santorum just needs to try using some lube. hehe, come on, that one has to get a smile out of you.

Anyway, Galt, you're looking at his comments wrong, note that he said that the government would have to legalize Bigamy and Polygamy, this simply is not true. These are statuses which deal with marriages, allowing homosexuals to have sex in the privacy of their own homes would do nothing to allow a person to marry more than one person, it's got nothing to do with marriage at all, in fact. Take a closer look and you'll see that Counsler Coffee has pretty much got it right, he's just trying to portray homosexuals as beng evil immoral sexual deviants.

 

[Asguard]

i would LOVE to know how if i (as a bi guy) chose to sleep with a girl im a fine upstanding cizen who wouldnt cheat on my "potentual wife", screw animals ect but if i sleep with a GUY then i WOULD do all those things

i never knew i had 2 personalitys

 

[CounslerCoffee]

Thank you, Mystech.

If it is decided that government has no place regulating sexual acts between consenting adults, there will be no legal basis for bans on incest and polygamy provided those involved are consenting adults.

How is being gay, connected to having incestuous sex? Or polygamy? Is the good ol' dirt bag senator trying to say that all gays have sex with their fathers, and are married to multiple people? Yes, he is.

Let's quote this a-hole:

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,

He jumps straight to bigamy, and then to polygamy, and then to incest. This is not about any of those things. This is about two dudes who love each other, getting it on. And the senator, obviously has a problem with gays. He thinks that it's immoral, so it should be illegal. This is not about law, this is about stopping gays from having sex because the bible tells him that it's wrong.

If it is decided that government has no place regulating sexual acts between consenting adults, there will be no legal basis for bans on incest and polygamy provided those involved are consenting adults.

Exactly. If a twenty-three year old girl (as a consenting adult) wants to have sex with her forty year old dad, then she can. Because they are both consenting adults. However, if the girl is under the age of consent, and the father has sex with her, then it is rape. This has nothing to do with homosexuals. So why did the Senator try to link it to them? Obviously, as I, and Mystech have said before, he's trying to make them out as bad evil people.

Polygamy is a whole different issue all together. I think that we can call Polygamy, swinging. Basically while your married, you can have sex with whom ever you want, as long as your spouse says it's okay. Once again, this is not about homosexuals. This is about what the Senator believes is wrong. This is about him and his damn bible. Some sex therapist actually recommend threesomes to spice up married couples sex life. If threesomes are outlawed, then come and arrest me. (Because what guy wouldn't want sex with two chicks at the same time? Not that I ever have.)

What it comes down to is that the Senator has morals (from the bible). He believes that homosexuality, polygamy, and incest between consenting adults is wrong. This is just him, trying to make people out as bad and immoral. If you are a consenting adult, and of age, then you should be able to have sex with whomever you want.

Why the senator is even trying to debate this, is hilarious.

P.S. Just finished reading "Catcher In The Rye" for the third time. This leads me to one more question. Would the senator be opposed to sex before marriage?

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
How is being gay, connected to having incestuous sex? Or polygamy? Is the good ol' dirt bag senator trying to say that all gays have sex with their fathers, and are married to multiple people? Yes, he is.

I can't speak for him, nor can I read his mind, but I didn't interpret his comment as connecting homosexuality with incest and polygamy in any way other than that they will all by default be legalized if the Supreme Court was to rule that the government has no business regulating sexual acts between consenting adults.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
He jumps straight to bigamy, and then to polygamy, and then to incest. This is not about any of those things.

It actually is, indirectly. As I have said before, a ruling by the Supreme Court that the government has no business regulating sexual acts between consenting adults will set a precedent that will almost certainly be used to challenge laws against incest and polygamy. This is not demonization of homosexuals but a statement on the logical conclusion of such a ruling, and to point out this obvious fact does not make one a bigot.

All laws regulating sexual acts between consenting adults are based on the same premise: that the government should be empowered to intervene when people engage in behavior that the general public and/or some nosy politician finds offensive. You either agree with this premise or you don't. But you can't agree with it for some people and not for others, which is basically what Senator Santorum seemed to be saying.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
This is about two dudes who love each other, getting it on. And the senator, obviously has a problem with gays. He thinks that it's immoral, so it should be illegal.

No disagreement there.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
This is not about law, this is about stopping gays from having sex because the bible tells him that it's wrong.

It is about the law since there is a pending Supreme Court case to challenge a law banning sodomy.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Exactly. If a twenty-three year old girl (as a consenting adult) wants to have sex with her forty year old dad, then she can. Because they are both consenting adults.

Actually, she couldn't since incest is probably illegal in most states.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
However, if the girl is under the age of consent, and the father has sex with her, then it is rape. This has nothing to do with homosexuals. So why did the Senator try to link it to them? Obviously, as I, and Mystech have said before, he's trying to make them out as bad evil people.

I didn't see any comments from Santorum regarding rape.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Polygamy is a whole different issue all together. I think that we can call Polygamy, swinging. Basically while your married, you can have sex with whom ever you want, as long as your spouse says it's okay.

The Dictionary.com definition of polygamy also includes plural marriages; another currently prohibited act that could be challenged by a possible precedent set in the pending case.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Once again, this is not about homosexuals. This is about what the Senator believes is wrong. This is about him and his damn bible. Some sex therapist actually recommend threesomes to spice up married couples sex life. If threesomes are outlawed, then come and arrest me. (Because what guy wouldn't want sex with two chicks at the same time? Not that I ever have.)

I'd doubt that threesomes are illegal, but the plural marriage version of polygany certainly is.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
What it comes down to is that the Senator has morals (from the bible). He believes that homosexuality, polygamy, and incest between consenting adults is wrong.

Lot's of people believe homosexuality, polygamy and incest are wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean they consider the three to be equally wrong.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
This is just him, trying to make people out as bad and immoral. If you are a consenting adult, and of age, then you should be able to have sex with whomever you want.

I agree 100 percent. I also believe that laws prohibiting plural marriages should be repealed.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Why the senator is even trying to debate this, is hilarious.

His views on homosexuality aside, I believe he was accurate in his claims of the logical conclusion of a Supreme Court ruling against sodomy laws. Whether you think this logical conclusion is good or bad is a matter of personal opinion and individual rights.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Galt
It is about the law since there is a pending Supreme Court case to challenge a law banning sodomy.

Acctualy, in this instance the particular law bans only homosexual sodomy, and as such that's how they can overturn it without having to even bother with saying if the government can regulate sexual acts between consenting adults. The law is clearly descriminatory, and as such all they even need to do is just come right out and say that you can't ban sodomy for some people and not for others, case closed.

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Mystech
Acctualy, in this instance the particular law bans only homosexual sodomy, and as such that's how they can overturn it without having to even bother with saying if the government can regulate sexual acts between consenting adults. The law is clearly descriminatory, and as such all they even need to do is just come right out and say that you can't ban sodomy for some people and not for others, case closed.

Discriminatory policies are not guaranteed to be overturned. Affirmative action is still alive and well. The bottom line is that virtually any reason given for overturning this law would eventually be used as an argument for overturning laws against incest and possibly polygamy.

 

[Mystech]

Well, again it could not be effectively used to argue polygamy or bigamy, because those are issues regarding marriage, this, however is not. As for adultery I think we already mentioned that that's not even illegal, so in the end what does any of it matter?

 

[CounslerCoffee]

The bottom line is that virtually any reason given for overturning this law would eventually be used as an argument for overturning laws against incest and possibly polygamy.

Polygamy between consenting adults is legal. It's also called swinging. Incest has nothing to do with a sodomy law.

Sodomy and incest are two completely different subjects. Incest between an adult and a child are illegal. Incest between two consenting adults is legal.

because those are issues regarding marriage,

Exactly. Gay people aren't even allowed to get married. The same Senator Santrom does not support gay married. His only excuse for this? Because someone could marry an animal! How does being married, when your gay, equal up to being able to marry an animal?

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Polygamy between consenting adults is legal. It's also called swinging. Incest has nothing to do with a sodomy law.

Dictionary.com also defines polygamy as "plural marriage".

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Exactly. Gay people aren't even allowed to get married. The same Senator Santrom does not support gay married. His only excuse for this? Because someone could marry an animal! How does being married, when your gay, equal up to being able to marry an animal?

Gay people can get married in America, just not to people of the same sex.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Galt

Gay people can get married in America, just not to people of the same sex.

Haha, yes, good point, but that is sort of a catch-22, though, isn't it? I want to get married, well I can. I want to marry a member of the same sex, but I can't do that, I can still marry a member of the same sex, however I don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex I want to marry someone of the same sex. And somehow all of that comes down to Doc. Danika not being able to ground Yossarian, so he has to keep flying missions, or something, right?

New plan: Run out into the ocean and row to Switzerland in a little yellow inflatable raft.

(Um, ok I think I went just a little too far with the Catch-22 allusion there.)

 

[Redoubtable]

I must say that Galt seems to be completely right.
The Senator is simply asserting that if the state loses its already tenuous power to regulate the private sexual activities of the individual, any activity from plural marriages to beastiality would, by implication, no longer be illicit or prohibited.

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Mystech
Haha, yes, good point, but that is sort of a catch-22, though, isn't it?

This is why challenges to the prohibition of same sex marriages must be based on the premise of individual rights rather than discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[Mystech]

I don't see the distinction, Galt. When my basic rights are being taken away I am being discriminated against. Oh well, who is John Galt?

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Mystech
I don't see the distinction, Galt. When my basic rights are being taken away I am being discriminated against. Oh well, who is John Galt?

Banning same-sex marriages is, in and of itself, non-discriminatory, since it applies to heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals; which is why challenges to the law based on claims of unequal status under the law are logically invalid.

It is only an argument based on the premise of individual rights - the individual right of a consenting adult to have a relationship/marriage with any other consenting adult - that would result in the overturning of such a law by a rational-minded court.

 

[Mystech]

Well, no banning homosexual marriages dose NOT effect heterosexuals, use your brain a little bit on this one. You're right, effectively a heterosexual can't marry a member of the same sex, but then think about what makes one a heterosexual, guess what, they aren't going to be marrying members of the same sex, it IS discriminatory because it is designed specifically to target homosexuals. If you honestly think that this is not the motive and practical application of such laws then you are delusional.

 

[machaon]

I am still not sure.

What does the government have to do with two people who decide to spend their lives together? Sure, there are tax considerations and whatnot. If I and five women decide amongst ourselves to spend the rest of our our lives together, why would the government feel it has to impose legal parameters to regulate such a descision? If the government decides not to offer any special tax considerations or legal accomodations, then fine. I think it boils down to some peoples need to have their government validate their personal decisions. Validating personal decisions is not the governments mandate. Why do people feel the need to have the government officialy say that it is OK to do what one wants concerning sexuality in ones home? I say do what you want in your own home, and do not worry about the goverment. The government is simply worried about having to legally and financially subsidize these PERSONAL decisions, not about the moral issue.