Santorum booed for his positions on same-sex marriage, legal pot (New Hampshire colle

[JoeB131]

I already said that polygamy should be fine.

Quite frankly, all the reasoning you're applying to gay marriage being ILLEGAL could apply to straight people. IK think that you're a closet bigot like the rest and you try to skirt it with logic that REALLY isn't there.

People are born gay sometimes, and should be afforded the same respect as straight people as they're doing NOTHING WRONG.

You can think what you want. The problem is you want to grant a "right", where society has already concluded that there should be a privilage.

If the gays can get 50% of the voters to agree they should have this privilage, I don't have a problem with it. I have a big problem with judges finding 'rights' hidden in the 14th amendment or the 9th amendment that no one has noticed for 100 or more years.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Santorum booed for his positions on same-sex marriage, legal pot (New Hampshire college students)
The Hill ^ | 1/05/11 | Alicia M. Cohn
Santorum booed for his positions on same-sex marriage, legal pot - The Hill's Ballot Box

Santorum booed for his positions on same-sex marriage, legal pot
By Alicia M. Cohn - 01/05/12 06:21 PM ET


Amid boos and occasional cheers, Rick Santorum defended his views on same-sex marriage and legalized marijuana, as he was peppered with questions by a crowd of college students in New Hampshire on Thursday.


The conservative candidate did not sidestep a challenge issued by several members of the crowd on the subject, but instead asked students to break down their argument so he could reply at length.


“Don’t you have to make the positive argument why the law should be changed?” he asked.


Santorum was speaking at the College Convention 2012, an event in Concord, New Hampshire planned ahead of Santorum’s recent surprise jump in the polls.


The initial question posed to Santorum was to explain how same-sex marriage “personally” affected him. Santorum has expressed his support of a federal ban on same-sex marriage.


Santorum noted that he was not surprised to take a question on same-sex marriage from a college-aged audience, and said he was “happy to engage in a discussion” but emphasized that it would be “civil” even as he faced interruptions from various members of the audience.


Santorum grilled one female audience member who chimed in on the subject, challenging her to defend her argument in favor of same-sex marriage by answering questions about whether the definition of marriage should be changed to reflect whatever makes various people happy.


"Are we saying everybody has the right to marry," Santorum asked.


"Yes, yes," a significant segment of the crowd responded.


"What about three men?" Santorum challenged. “If she reflects the values that marriage can be for anybody or any group of people, as many as is necessary, any two people or any three or four, marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.”


The student fired back a qualification that people should be allowed what makes them happy so long as it didn’t harm anyone else.


“Who decides that, though?” Santorum said.


Santorum concluded with a passionate defense of traditional marriage that included his argument in favor of a “birthright” of every child to know and be loved by a man and a woman. His argument earned applause.


Asked about laws to legalize marijuana, Santorum admitted he is not familiar with the nuances of medical marijuana laws. Marijuana use by prescription has been legalized in several states, with various restrictions. Santorum pushed back against rumbling in the already testy crowd, joking he knows he’s “supposed to know everything.”


But he said he believes marijuana use is dangerous, based on his personal experience of seeing it used. "I went to college, too,” he told the crowd.


Santorum hit the campaign trial in New Hampshire after a near-win in the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday, where Mitt Romney beat him by just 8 votes. Santorum is enjoying a slight bump in the most recent polls in New Hampshire as a result, hitting 11 percent and 8 percent in the most recent polls from Washington Times-JZ Analytics and Suffolk University, respectively. Santorum's win in Iowa was credited in part to the large evangelical voting population and Santorum's credibility with social conservatives.

Just another one of the church's bold mistakes:

1) The church required infant baptism for a thousand years. After people began to doubt that a loving god would burn an infant in eternal hell and protested...the church stopped requiring it. The scripture is still there

2) The church hunted down, tortured and killed young women who had been accused of witchcraft for thousands of years. When ordinary people reali ed that there is no such thing as witchcraft the church stopped mentioning it. The scripture is still there.

3) The church tolerated and often accomodated slavery for thousands of years but when the "Free Man" concept began they shut up. The scripture is still there.

4) The church required the submission of women and kept them pregnant and at home for thousands of years but after the various women's movements demanded equality the church stopped mentioning it. The scripture is still there.

5) After preaching hundreds of billions of hell fire and brimstone sermons across thousands of years when the public began to reject the eternal flames concept guess what....the church began to say it was all a misunderstanding and translation problem so we now have a flame free hell. The scripture is still there.

6) The church has condemned homosexuality and been responsible for the torture and killing of enormous numbers of human's who were born a certain way and had to either hide their lifestyle or falsely reject it. This has continued since the gospel was first preached but now modern lifestyles have even accomodated membership for many homosexuals. The scripture is still there.

Religion is a man's game written by their own interests and and anyone who fails to see the truth in the conceived image of primitive mankind and the similarities to their conceived god which reflects their own weakness has either been brainwashed... is very ill informed or naive.

 

[Seawytch]

"Who is harmed by" is a lame argument. That isn't how this works.
Who is harmed by a court ruling that gay marriage is an inalienable right? All the voters who voted otherwise. It is the suspension of democracy.

So, if a state like...oh say California, decided to vote to ban all handguns, that would be okay with you?

Oh, and it's not a "lame" argument...it is how it will be decided in court. Those opposed to gay marriage must demonstrate a societal harm in allowing them. Good luck with that.

yes he would be, but so would i because it goes against the 2nd amendment, and a state can not have more power then the federal Government. Cali banning handguns would be a direct violation of that and be struck down.

You picked a poor example., but i get your point.

A fundamental right is a fundamental right...whether clearly enumerated in the Constitution or declared so by the Supreme Court.

 

[Seawytch]

Here's the deal, folks. In order to exclude a group of people from a fundamental right like marriage, you must demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. So far nobody has been able to and that is why these anti-gay laws are being overturned in court after court.

Nobody has been able to provide a reasonable answer (that would hold up in court) as to why two non-familial consenting adult couples cannot enter into legal, civil marriage.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the deal, folks. In order to exclude a group of people from a fundamental right like marriage, you must demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. So far nobody has been able to and that is why these anti-gay laws are being overturned in court after court.

Nobody has been able to provide a reasonable answer (that would hold up in court) as to why two non-familial consenting adult couples cannot enter into legal, civil marriage.

Marriage isn't a right.

You don't issue licenses for free speech, or due process of law, or to be safe in your home from searches. You do issue licenses for marriage, driving, hunting, fishing, owning a pet, based on society's opinion that you should have those things, and society limits the license based on its desires and your responsibility.

Marriage is a privilage allowed by society. So really, it should be on the homosexual community to prove to the rest of us that we as a society should give out that license.

Get 50% to agree you should have a thing, and I have no problem with you having it.

 

[beagle9]

There were problems in the past for sure, but due to peoples Christianity, their values, and the understanding finally that it was wrong to do the things in which they had gotten themselves into somehow, then those problems were corrected as they should have been in this nation, and they were corrected because of Christian values being strong in the nation, along with the true practicing of ones faith, and having a conscience as was found in the nation during and/or after those periods came and went, in which allowed us the wisdom and will to get it right finally.. If this nation would have been moving towards being a non-Christian nation back then as it is today, then it is my feelings that slavery in some of the worst forms imaginable, would still exist today, and this all because of Greed in which is a terrible practice, and the sin of greed that is found in many who are not Christians, and in many who profess to be Christian, but are not who we think that they are or we know them to be. What is your point to go back and try and bring the past and it's corrections forward in this way, that was relating to a nation that was in progress, and to now base it upon todays issues regarding a nation that is in decline? Doesn't it strengthen my position and weaken yours?

Maybe you should look back, and then hope for true Christian values to become strong once again in this nation, just as it was for the blacks who had delt with slavery much better because of their faith in those hopeless days of old, in which they thought were upon them forever I would imagine, and their song in old black spirituals, and their Christian values in which they still hold dear unto them right on up to this day in America.

Why don't you ask the blacks why it is that they still have Christianity and faith in their lives right now today in America, I mean if it is that you think Christianity is somehow a bad thing for America, and especially since you tried to tie your questions into slavery and what not in order to make some kind of counter point here with, just ask them why do they still believe and have faith in God, their fellow man, and in their nation ? Using the blacks and the issues of the past in order to counter Christianity or faith being found in this nation still in people, is just usery by you. Everyone see's beyond such pettyness and bad tactics used anymore by people like you, where as your questions and mindset is well ummmm almost readable before you make your next move.. Do you play chess ? B )

 

[Cammmpbell]

Here's the deal, folks. In order to exclude a group of people from a fundamental right like marriage, you must demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. So far nobody has been able to and that is why these anti-gay laws are being overturned in court after court.

Nobody has been able to provide a reasonable answer (that would hold up in court) as to why two non-familial consenting adult couples cannot enter into legal, civil marriage.

What difference does it make....half of the people who marry also divorce anyway. For the half who stay married...why should gay people be any better off than they are

 

[Katzndogz]

The trend is generally toward degeneracy that's the goal across the board. What Santorum was talking about wasn't limited to gay marriage. He was talking about boundaries. Do people want any boundaries at all? More and more, the answer is no.

 

[Crackerjack]

I assume this overly verbose response is to me.

There were problems in the past for sure, but due to peoples Christianity, their values, and the understanding finally that it was wrong to do the things in which they had gotten themselves into somehow, then those problems were corrected as they should have been in this nation, and they were corrected because of Christian values being strong in the nation, along with the true practicing of ones faith, and having a conscience as was found in the nation during and/or after those periods came and went, in which allowed us the wisdom and will to get it right finally.. If this nation would have been moving towards being a non-Christian nation back then as it is today, then it is my feelings that slavery in some of the worst forms imaginable, would still exist today, and this all because of Greed in which is a terrible practice, and the sin of greed that is found in many who are not Christians, and in many who profess to be Christian, but are not who we think that they are or we know them to be. What is your point to go back and try and bring the past and it's corrections forward in this way, that was relating to a nation that was in progress, and to now base it upon todays issues regarding a nation that is in decline? Doesn't it strengthen my position and weaken yours?

Actually, they were corrected because of a war between two sides claiming God was behind their struggle. Church attendance bottomed out around the time of the Civil War, then boomed in the South during and after it. So basically statistics refute your claim.

Maybe you should look back, and then hope for true Christian values to become strong once again in this nation, just as it was for the blacks who had delt with slavery much better because of their faith in those hopeless days of old, in which they thought were upon them forever I would imagine, and their song in old black spirituals, and their Christian values in which they still hold dear unto them right on up to this day in America.

The point I was making, which is the one you clearly avoided, is that the majority can, and has, been wrong regarding rights.

Why don't you ask the blacks why it is that they still have Christianity and faith in their lives right now today in America, I mean if it is that you think Christianity is somehow a bad thing for America, and especially since you tried to tie your questions into slavery and what not in order to make some kind of counter point here with, just ask them why do they still believe and have faith in God, their fellow man, and in their nation ? Using the blacks and the issues of the past in order to counter Christianity or faith being found in this nation still in people, is just usery by you.

You don't know what the word "usery" [sic] means, spanky.

Everyone see's beyond such pettyness and bad tactics used anymore by people like you, where as your questions and mindset is well ummmm almost readable before you make your next move.. Do you play chess ? B )

People like me? What sort of person am I? Do tell.

 

[Cammmpbell]

The trend is generally toward degeneracy that's the goal across the board. What Santorum was talking about wasn't limited to gay marriage. He was talking about boundaries. Do people want any boundaries at all? More and more, the answer is no.

This is a free country. People are entitled to believe what they will and execute their freedoms as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedoms of others. In other words, "Keep Your Nose Out Of My Business!" "Keep Your Religion To Yourself" Stop trying to brainwash people into your way of thinking. That's what's wrong now....too much brainwashing of infants and small children. The most recent absolute outrage that I've heard of is the state of Texas trying to leave any mention of Thomas Jefferson out of textbooks. One of them who could read discovered that Jefferson said this:

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823). Excerpt from a letter to then president John Adams

 

[Seawytch]

Here's the deal, folks. In order to exclude a group of people from a fundamental right like marriage, you must demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. So far nobody has been able to and that is why these anti-gay laws are being overturned in court after court.

Nobody has been able to provide a reasonable answer (that would hold up in court) as to why two non-familial consenting adult couples cannot enter into legal, civil marriage.

Marriage isn't a right.

You don't issue licenses for free speech, or due process of law, or to be safe in your home from searches. You do issue licenses for marriage, driving, hunting, fishing, owning a pet, based on society's opinion that you should have those things, and society limits the license based on its desires and your responsibility.

Marriage is a privilage allowed by society. So really, it should be on the homosexual community to prove to the rest of us that we as a society should give out that license.

Get 50% to agree you should have a thing, and I have no problem with you having it.

Why would you consistently insist upon repeating something that simply isn't true. Marriage IS a fundamental right as determine by the SCOTUS (on no less than three occasions).

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

And then from Wiki...

Some universally recognized rights as fundamental, i.e., contained in the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are as follows:
Right to equal protection under the law
Right to freedom of thought
Right to freedom of speech and press (cf. freedom of expression)
Right to freedom of association
Right to freedom of movement within the country
Right to vote in general election
Right to direct a child's upbringing
Right to privacy
Right to marry
Right to property
Right to freedom of contract by parties with proportional bargaining power

Fundamental rights

That's not how our judicial system works. We don't have to "prove our worth", you have to prove our "unworthiness".

You have to get a license to own a gun. Does that mean that the 2nd Amendment isn't actually a "right"? Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[JoeB131]

Why would you consistently insist upon repeating something that simply isn't true. Marriage IS a fundamental right as determine by the SCOTUS (on no less than three occasions).

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

And then from Wiki...

The court has never held that it's an absolute right. Otherwise, they would strike down the polygamy and incest laws.

Some universally recognized rights as fundamental, i.e., contained in the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are as follows:

Last time I checked, the UN Charter didn't overrule the constitution. Or our rights as a sovereign people.

That's not how our judicial system works. We don't have to "prove our worth", you have to prove our "unworthiness".

No, it should be what the voters decide, and judges who are activists should be impeached. A nice tar and feathering would be nice as well.

You have to get a license to own a gun. Does that mean that the 2nd Amendment isn't actually a "right"? Yeah, didn't think so.

Actually, if you've read my other posts on the subject, you'd know that I think the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted and I think there ought to be strict licensing.

 

[Seawytch]

Why would you consistently insist upon repeating something that simply isn't true. Marriage IS a fundamental right as determine by the SCOTUS (on no less than three occasions).

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

And then from Wiki...

The court has never held that it's an absolute right. Otherwise, they would strike down the polygamy and incest laws.

Some universally recognized rights as fundamental, i.e., contained in the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are as follows:

Last time I checked, the UN Charter didn't overrule the constitution. Or our rights as a sovereign people.

And our own Supreme Court has also declared it a fundamental right...without the U.N.

So the 1st and 2nd Amendments are also not an "absolute right"? Would you deny free speech or gun ownership to gays and lesbians? Why legal marriage?

That's not how our judicial system works. We don't have to "prove our worth", you have to prove our "unworthiness".

No, it should be what the voters decide, and judges who are activists should be impeached. A nice tar and feathering would be nice as well.

We don't vote on civil rights. How many times does that have to be explained? If we waited for "voters" to decide to grant the right to vote to women and blacks...well, we'd probably still be waiting. If we waited for voters to decide to allow blacks to marry whites, it would have been in the 90s before a majority of Americans supported interracial marriage.

I love how ruling on the Constitution is suddenly "judicial activism".

You have to get a license to own a gun. Does that mean that the 2nd Amendment isn't actually a "right"? Yeah, didn't think so.

Actually, if you've read my other posts on the subject, you'd know that I think the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted and I think there ought to be strict licensing.

Does that no longer make it a fundamental right just because you support stricter licensing?

 

[JoeB131]

And our own Supreme Court has also declared it a fundamental right...without the U.N.

So the 1st and 2nd Amendments are also not an "absolute right"? Would you deny free speech or gun ownership to gays and lesbians? Why legal marriage?

There are no "rights" at all, really. Just ask the Japanese Americans who were alive in 1942. What you have are privilages the rest of society tolerates and supports.

We don't vote on civil rights. How many times does that have to be explained? If we waited for "voters" to decide to grant the right to vote to women and blacks...well, we'd probably still be waiting. If we waited for voters to decide to allow blacks to marry whites, it would have been in the 90s before a majority of Americans supported interracial marriage.

I love how ruling on the Constitution is suddenly "judicial activism".

It's judicial activism when you rule on what you WISH was in there, not what is actually in there. The 14th Amendment was speficially about race and not denying rights on the basis of race. It was not a grab bag for gay marriage and abortion on demand and whatever other silly nonsense the politicians were too cowardly to do in the legislatures.

Incidently, the voters DID (through their legislatures) grant the to vote to women and blacks. The 15th Amdendment gave it to blacks and the 19th to women. There was a process and it was followed and didn't require a judge to make shit up on the fly.

Does that no longer make it a fundamental right just because you support stricter licensing?

I don't think it's a "fundemental right". The only people who should have guns are those who are responsible. The Second Amendment was never about gun ownership, it was about militias and the right of states to maintain them.

So the recent rulings are really judicial activism from the other direction, and just as wrong. But at least there, the justices had a peg to hang their hats on.