Santorum Wants to Enslave People Who Have Unconventional Sex

[mudwhistle]

Most of the time anyone, be they left, right, light, reft or whatever, claims racism they have no clue what racism is.
Racism is a belief. Racism is when one believes their race is superior to another.
As a result of that racism, a belief, sometimes others are discriminated against.
You can never stop racism, beliefs, with any law at any time.

Well said.

 

[Gadawg73]

Racism, sexism, and homophobia are not the realm of one party or the other. The Democratic party is supposed to be, according to you guys, a bigger club then the GOP.

That means that all sorts of people can be included. Including racists, sexists, and homophobes.

I used to believe the left when they said the GOP had all the bigots, until I started finding out the voting habits of some of the bigots around here. Turns out some of the worst bigots are still Democrats. They are the most closed-minded, stubborn assholes you'd ever want to meet. My guess is you've never lived here so you wouldn't know. I know of one who went around the factory telling all of the girls not to talk to me. Said I was black because I go out and have a drink with blacks. Said he would kill his kids if they ever thought of marrying one. Votes Democrat too.

Telling jokes about homosexuality by implying they may be a Peterpumper doesn't go over well with Red-neck Democrats. They don't think it's a laughing matter. They want to fight over it. They hate Gays. They're just as likely to want to drag them behind their trucks as they are likely to take another dip of snuff. They drive their trucks, ride their motorcycles, go hunting, go to church, listen to country music, love NASCAR, and all of the stuff you think is exclusive to the GOP.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

I r a redneck done good and I do not hate gays. Used to until I realized they are good folk like a lot of the rest of us.
Many of my red neck friends do not hate gays. Funny how when we get a little older and wiser we accept people for who they are and HOW THEY WERE BORN.

That may be true in your case, but most people get more set in their ways as they get older.

And you're hardly a Red-neck.

I think you need to look up the definition of it to really understand what it means.

Git er done

I know what it means. The term was started from the farmers working in the hot sun from sun up to sun down. The necks would become red.
And Yankees started it's use in a derogatory way.
I grew up with, fought, played sports with and against the best and the worst of the rednecks. Saw the worst treat blacks like scum and still do.
The main reason I seek to protect the rights of everyone is from what I saw from the worst of the red necks as a youth. To them, gays are the new *******.

 

[Seawytch]

You think you can, because you'll distort meanings.

There is no need to distort things like a picture of the White House surrounded by watermelons, fake money with buckets of chicken on it or the President depicted with a chimp family. Oh, and these weren't just morons with signs at a tea bagger rally, but Republican LEADERS.

I also know the difference between intentional and unintentional racism like O'Reilly and his "MFer I want some ice tea" statement.

Ahhh....so you're going to automatically dismiss the left's racism as "unintentional".

You're dismissed.

Since when is Bill O'Reilly on "the left"?

 

[Seawytch]

You asked if I could come up with a compelling reason. I did.
The fact that you dont find it compelling isn't my problem.

The state has an interest in seeing traditional families form because that is the source of the most solid, successful citizens. This is not in doubt.

No, you came up with a personal and bigoted reason to prevent marriage equality, you did not come up with a compelling state reason. You did not present an "overriding harm" that would occur should gays and lesbians be able to legally marry the non-familial consenting adult of their choice.

Again, it isn't me that you have to convince, but a court of law. You've failed just like the lawyers did.

I'm not a lawyer (thank Gd). You're not a judge.
The fact is that equal protection applies across classes of people. Gays are not a class of people. No one can look at someone and determine they re gay. Gay is not a creed. Ergo they do not require "equal protection" because they are already protected as citizens.
Gays want rights not currently in existence. Why should the state create a new class of rights? No reason. Why is the current scheme of marriage law insuffiicient, especialy where that law has been upheld by the sovereign will of the people? No reason.
The "gay" lifestyle is fraught with public health perils. Do we need to rehearse the different rates of: sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, suicide, drug addiction, alcoholism, and other destructive and self-destructive behaviors among homosexuals? No, this is settled territory. Endorsing it will not make those problems better.

Oh, I think we can all be thankful you aren't a lawyer...at least potential clients are anyway.

Being able to "tell" if someone is gay or not does not determine their right to equal protection.

There is no "new class" of rights...it is the same rights that everyone else has, given to gays and lesbians.

Go right ahead and post all the red herrings you like, won't help the anti-gay bigots win in court. They've tried all those silly crimson fish...and keep losing time and again.

 

[Seawytch]

You think you can, because you'll distort meanings.

There is no need to distort things like a picture of the White House surrounded by watermelons, fake money with buckets of chicken on it or the President depicted with a chimp family. Oh, and these weren't just morons with signs at a tea bagger rally, but Republican LEADERS.

I also know the difference between intentional and unintentional racism like O'Reilly and his "MFer I want some ice tea" statement.

So.....if some dumb-ass shows up at a tea-party rally with a sign that doesn't represent the party's view everyone that showed up at that rally is responsible???

I never said that either. I did not say that the racists were representative of the entire group, only that they find a less hostile environment in some places (Like at Tea Bagger rallies or within the Republican party )

 

[mudwhistle]

There is no need to distort things like a picture of the White House surrounded by watermelons, fake money with buckets of chicken on it or the President depicted with a chimp family. Oh, and these weren't just morons with signs at a tea bagger rally, but Republican LEADERS.

I also know the difference between intentional and unintentional racism like O'Reilly and his "MFer I want some ice tea" statement.

So.....if some dumb-ass shows up at a tea-party rally with a sign that doesn't represent the party's view everyone that showed up at that rally is responsible???

I never said that either. I did not say that the racists were representative of the entire group, only that they find a less hostile environment in some places (Like at Tea Bagger rallies or within the Republican party )

I would love to compare the conduct of members at as Tea Party rally to that screwed up mess in Wisconsin or that riot those high school kids started at the Tuscan City Council meeting they that they took over.

It would be a pleasure to point out the differences.

 

[daveman]

There is no need to distort things like a picture of the White House surrounded by watermelons, fake money with buckets of chicken on it or the President depicted with a chimp family. Oh, and these weren't just morons with signs at a tea bagger rally, but Republican LEADERS.

I also know the difference between intentional and unintentional racism like O'Reilly and his "MFer I want some ice tea" statement.

Ahhh....so you're going to automatically dismiss the left's racism as "unintentional".

You're dismissed.

Since when is Bill O'Reilly on "the left"?

He's not. But I can tell you've got the defense all teed up and ready to go.

 

[daveman]

So.....if some dumb-ass shows up at a tea-party rally with a sign that doesn't represent the party's view everyone that showed up at that rally is responsible???

I never said that either. I did not say that the racists were representative of the entire group, only that they find a less hostile environment in some places (Like at Tea Bagger rallies or within the Republican party )

I would love to compare the conduct of members at as Tea Party rally to that screwed up mess in Wisconsin or that riot those high school kids started at the Tuscan City Council meeting they that they took over.

It would be a pleasure to point out the differences.

One obvious difference is the TEA Partiers are nice and neat and pick up their trash. Leftists are damn slobs and leave litter all over the place.

 

[mudwhistle]

I never said that either. I did not say that the racists were representative of the entire group, only that they find a less hostile environment in some places (Like at Tea Bagger rallies or within the Republican party )

I would love to compare the conduct of members at as Tea Party rally to that screwed up mess in Wisconsin or that riot those high school kids started at the Tuscan City Council meeting they that they took over.

It would be a pleasure to point out the differences.

One obvious difference is the TEA Partiers are nice and neat and pick up their trash. Leftists are damn slobs and leave litter all over the place.

That's not exactly what I was talking about, but they said the walls in the Wisconsin State Capital has to be stripped and resealed because of the filth that was all over them. All that marble was practically ruined.

 

[daveman]

I would love to compare the conduct of members at as Tea Party rally to that screwed up mess in Wisconsin or that riot those high school kids started at the Tuscan City Council meeting they that they took over.

It would be a pleasure to point out the differences.

One obvious difference is the TEA Partiers are nice and neat and pick up their trash. Leftists are damn slobs and leave litter all over the place.

That's not exactly what I was talking about, but they said the walls in the Wisconsin State Capital has to be stripped and resealed because of the filth that was all over them. All that marble was practically ruined.

I believe it. Leftists think destruction of property is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Morons.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, you came up with a personal and bigoted reason to prevent marriage equality, you did not come up with a compelling state reason. You did not present an "overriding harm" that would occur should gays and lesbians be able to legally marry the non-familial consenting adult of their choice.

Again, it isn't me that you have to convince, but a court of law. You've failed just like the lawyers did.

I'm not a lawyer (thank Gd). You're not a judge.
The fact is that equal protection applies across classes of people. Gays are not a class of people. No one can look at someone and determine they re gay. Gay is not a creed. Ergo they do not require "equal protection" because they are already protected as citizens.
Gays want rights not currently in existence. Why should the state create a new class of rights? No reason. Why is the current scheme of marriage law insuffiicient, especialy where that law has been upheld by the sovereign will of the people? No reason.
The "gay" lifestyle is fraught with public health perils. Do we need to rehearse the different rates of: sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, suicide, drug addiction, alcoholism, and other destructive and self-destructive behaviors among homosexuals? No, this is settled territory. Endorsing it will not make those problems better.

Oh, I think we can all be thankful you aren't a lawyer...at least potential clients are anyway.

Being able to "tell" if someone is gay or not does not determine their right to equal protection.

There is no "new class" of rights...it is the same rights that everyone else has, given to gays and lesbians.

Go right ahead and post all the red herrings you like, won't help the anti-gay bigots win in court. They've tried all those silly crimson fish...and keep losing time and again.

Of course it does. BEcause there would have to be discrimination across a class of people for there to need equal protection. But gays are not a class of people.
You failed to refute the argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course it does. BEcause there would have to be discrimination across a class of people for there to need equal protection. But gays are not a class of people.
You failed to refute the argument.

It was refuted pages ago, when Lawrence was first cited:

The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s constitution which named as a solitary class persons who were homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by “orientation, conduct, practices or relationships,” id., at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected” and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Id., at 634.

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Perhaps if you were to actually read and comprehend the ruling, you’d relent in this endless display of your ignorance.

 

[Seawytch]

So.....if some dumb-ass shows up at a tea-party rally with a sign that doesn't represent the party's view everyone that showed up at that rally is responsible???

I never said that either. I did not say that the racists were representative of the entire group, only that they find a less hostile environment in some places (Like at Tea Bagger rallies or within the Republican party )

I would love to compare the conduct of members at as Tea Party rally to that screwed up mess in Wisconsin or that riot those high school kids started at the Tuscan City Council meeting they that they took over.

It would be a pleasure to point out the differences.

Trying to change the subject from the cozy home racists have in the GnOP? Republican and tea party leaders (not some dipshit at a protest) send racist emails or hold signs with the N-word emblazoned on it.

Changing the subject is not going to change that.

 

[Seawytch]

Of course it does. BEcause there would have to be discrimination across a class of people for there to need equal protection. But gays are not a class of people.
You failed to refute the argument.

It was refuted pages ago, when Lawrence was first cited:

The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s constitution which named as a solitary class persons who were homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by “orientation, conduct, practices or relationships,” id., at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected” and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Id., at 634.

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Perhaps if you were to actually read and comprehend the ruling, you’d relent in this endless display of your ignorance.

Two snaps in a figure eight darling! Fabulous!

 

[Seawytch]

This from the National Trust for Historic Preservation...

Demonstrators Treating Historic Wisconsin State Capitol with Care and Respect

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm not a lawyer (thank Gd). You're not a judge.
The fact is that equal protection applies across classes of people. Gays are not a class of people. No one can look at someone and determine they re gay. Gay is not a creed. Ergo they do not require "equal protection" because they are already protected as citizens.
Gays want rights not currently in existence. Why should the state create a new class of rights? No reason. Why is the current scheme of marriage law insuffiicient, especialy where that law has been upheld by the sovereign will of the people? No reason.
The "gay" lifestyle is fraught with public health perils. Do we need to rehearse the different rates of: sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, suicide, drug addiction, alcoholism, and other destructive and self-destructive behaviors among homosexuals? No, this is settled territory. Endorsing it will not make those problems better.

Oh, I think we can all be thankful you aren't a lawyer...at least potential clients are anyway.

Being able to "tell" if someone is gay or not does not determine their right to equal protection.

There is no "new class" of rights...it is the same rights that everyone else has, given to gays and lesbians.

Go right ahead and post all the red herrings you like, won't help the anti-gay bigots win in court. They've tried all those silly crimson fish...and keep losing time and again.

Of course it does. BEcause there would have to be discrimination across a class of people for there to need equal protection. But gays are not a class of people.
You failed to refute the argument.

You realize that not one State in the Union bars homosexuals from marrying, the classification that bars marriage is gender - which the last I checked cannot be a basis for discrimination.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

This is a fundamental conservative principle: the restriction of the state, written by a conservative Justice appointed by Ronald Reagan. I fail to see what more the right might want.

 

[mudwhistle]

The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

This is a fundamental conservative principle: the restriction of the state, written by a conservative Justice appointed by Ronald Reagan. I fail to see what more the right might want.

Personally, I think politicians need to keep their big noses out of our bedrooms.

I don't like Santorum. I think he sticks his nose in places it doesn't belong.

Course he would make a better President then the POS that's in there now, but I still wouldn't relish him telling me I can't fuck someone in the ass or get a blow-job. I'm also partial to Reverse Cowgirl. My favorite. So I don't want anyone telling me how to screw.

But seriously, is this really what he's doing or is this yet another fabrication from the left.

I think all of these complaints are just that. Made up.

 

[The Rabbi]

The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

This is a fundamental conservative principle: the restriction of the state, written by a conservative Justice appointed by Ronald Reagan. I fail to see what more the right might want.

What does that have to do with marriage?
Another red herring argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, I think we can all be thankful you aren't a lawyer...at least potential clients are anyway.

Being able to "tell" if someone is gay or not does not determine their right to equal protection.

There is no "new class" of rights...it is the same rights that everyone else has, given to gays and lesbians.

Go right ahead and post all the red herrings you like, won't help the anti-gay bigots win in court. They've tried all those silly crimson fish...and keep losing time and again.

Of course it does. BEcause there would have to be discrimination across a class of people for there to need equal protection. But gays are not a class of people.
You failed to refute the argument.

You realize that not one State in the Union bars homosexuals from marrying, the classification that bars marriage is gender - which the last I checked cannot be a basis for discrimination.


>>>>

Women can get married. Men can get married. WHat gender bar is there to getting married? Lsat I checked those were the only two choices.