Santorum Wants to Enslave People Who Have Unconventional Sex

[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.

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.

Which "Leaders"?

The ones you libs assigned to us or the actual leaders, if any exist?

 

[mudwhistle]

This from the National Trust for Historic Preservation...

Demonstrators Treating Historic Wisconsin State Capitol with Care and Respect

If you believe that then Rosie O'Donell loves Dick.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Please identify the defining characteristics of Civil Marriage defined under the various laws which bar Same-Sex Civil Marriage.

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

Very simple question:

Is it Sexual Orientation? Yes or No

Is it the gender make-up of the participants? Yes or No​

>>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

The question relies on a fallacy. It is not "illegal" for a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman. It is simply not recognized by the state.
The state will recognize a marriage by a man to a woman, assuming no other prohibiting factors. That is the same whether the man or the woman is straight or gay. Thus everyone has equal protection and equal rights.
QED.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Please identify the defining characteristics of Civil Marriage defined under the various laws which bar Same-Sex Civil Marriage.

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

Very simple question:

Is it Sexual Orientation? Yes or No

Is it the gender make-up of the participants? Yes or No​

>>>>>

Gender

 

[WorldWatcher]

The question relies on a fallacy. It is not "illegal" for a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman. It is simply not recognized by the state.
The state will recognize a marriage by a man to a woman, assuming no other prohibiting factors. That is the same whether the man or the woman is straight or gay. Thus everyone has equal protection and equal rights.
QED.

Your deflection from answering a simple question (unlike Mudwhistle - Thanks).


However your point is incorrect. You appear to be confusing "illegal" as in not authorized by law with "criminal" which means you are arrested and fined when found guilty in a court of law. QED - an illegal act need not be demonstrated as it is simply not recognized as a function of the law, criminal prosecutions normally require proof of a demonstrated act subject to criminal prosecution.


Illegal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit;

Definition of CRIMINAL
1 : relating to, involving, or being a crime <criminal neglect>
2 : relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime <criminal statistics> <brought criminal action>
3 : guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>​

>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

The question relies on a fallacy. It is not "illegal" for a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman. It is simply not recognized by the state.
The state will recognize a marriage by a man to a woman, assuming no other prohibiting factors. That is the same whether the man or the woman is straight or gay. Thus everyone has equal protection and equal rights.
QED.

Your deflection from answering a simple question (unlike Mudwhistle - Thanks).


However your point is incorrect. You appear to be confusing "illegal" as in not authorized by law with "criminal" which means you are arrested and fined when found guilty in a court of law. QED - an illegal act need not be demonstrated as it is simply not recognized as a function of the law, criminal prosecutions normally require proof of a demonstrated act subject to criminal prosecution.


Illegal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit;

Definition of CRIMINAL
1 : relating to, involving, or being a crime <criminal neglect>
2 : relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime <criminal statistics> <brought criminal action>
3 : guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>​

>>>>

Talk about deflecting.
It is not "illegal" for a man to marry a man. There is no civil or criminal penalty for doing so. It is simply not possible under the law. Period.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The question relies on a fallacy. It is not "illegal" for a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman. It is simply not recognized by the state.
The state will recognize a marriage by a man to a woman, assuming no other prohibiting factors. That is the same whether the man or the woman is straight or gay. Thus everyone has equal protection and equal rights.
QED.

Your deflection from answering a simple question (unlike Mudwhistle - Thanks).


However your point is incorrect. You appear to be confusing "illegal" as in not authorized by law with "criminal" which means you are arrested and fined when found guilty in a court of law. QED - an illegal act need not be demonstrated as it is simply not recognized as a function of the law, criminal prosecutions normally require proof of a demonstrated act subject to criminal prosecution.


Illegal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit;

Definition of CRIMINAL
1 : relating to, involving, or being a crime <criminal neglect>
2 : relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime <criminal statistics> <brought criminal action>
3 : guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>​

>>>>

Talk about deflecting.
It is not "illegal" for a man to marry a man. There is no civil or criminal penalty for doing so. It is simply not possible under the law. Period.

Read the definition of the words supplied approve, your confusion between "illegal" and "criminal" has no been confirmed.


>>>>

 

[ABikerSailor]

Rick Santorum wants to invade your bedroom in the middle of sex and arrest you for doing sexual acts he doesn't like.

He believes in upholding the current sodomy laws that imprison people for up to 1 to 15 years for acts such as falatio, anal, and other acts that aren't missionary position. This law extends to straight people and even married couples.

If you're gay, you especially better watch out because simply identifying as "gay" will immediately make you suspect to being indicted for sodomy. This means only gay virgins are safe, but if you're a sexually active gay, you will be enslaved.



.

Did you have a source for this or are you just making shit up?

Nope, it's not made up........

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

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

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

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

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: 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.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

USATODAY.com - Excerpt from Santorum interview

 

[Dr.Drock]

The question relies on a fallacy. It is not "illegal" for a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman. It is simply not recognized by the state.
The state will recognize a marriage by a man to a woman, assuming no other prohibiting factors. That is the same whether the man or the woman is straight or gay. Thus everyone has equal protection and equal rights.
QED.

Your deflection from answering a simple question (unlike Mudwhistle - Thanks).


However your point is incorrect. You appear to be confusing "illegal" as in not authorized by law with "criminal" which means you are arrested and fined when found guilty in a court of law. QED - an illegal act need not be demonstrated as it is simply not recognized as a function of the law, criminal prosecutions normally require proof of a demonstrated act subject to criminal prosecution.


Illegal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit;

Definition of CRIMINAL
1 : relating to, involving, or being a crime <criminal neglect>
2 : relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime <criminal statistics> <brought criminal action>
3 : guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>​

>>>>

Talk about deflecting.
It is not "illegal" for a man to marry a man. There is no civil or criminal penalty for doing so. It is simply not possible under the law. Period.

Please provide the differences in "unlawful" and "not possible under law."

 

[The Rabbi]

Your deflection from answering a simple question (unlike Mudwhistle - Thanks).


However your point is incorrect. You appear to be confusing "illegal" as in not authorized by law with "criminal" which means you are arrested and fined when found guilty in a court of law. QED - an illegal act need not be demonstrated as it is simply not recognized as a function of the law, criminal prosecutions normally require proof of a demonstrated act subject to criminal prosecution.


Illegal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit;

Definition of CRIMINAL
1 : relating to, involving, or being a crime <criminal neglect>
2 : relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime <criminal statistics> <brought criminal action>
3 : guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>​

>>>>

Talk about deflecting.
It is not "illegal" for a man to marry a man. There is no civil or criminal penalty for doing so. It is simply not possible under the law. Period.

Please provide the differences in "unlawful" and "not possible under law."

Unlawful means if someone does it they are subject to criminal and/or civil penalties. Not possible means it cannot be done.
It is not unlawful to patent the Coca Cola logo. It would be unlawful to market a drink using that logo without approval by Coca Cola.
See the difference?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Talk about deflecting.
It is not "illegal" for a man to marry a man. There is no civil or criminal penalty for doing so. It is simply not possible under the law. Period.

Please provide the differences in "unlawful" and "not possible under law."

Unlawful means if someone does it they are subject to criminal and/or civil penalties. Not possible means it cannot be done.
It is not unlawful to patent the Coca Cola logo. It would be unlawful to market a drink using that logo without approval by Coca Cola.
See the difference?

un·law·ful/&#716;&#601;n&#712;lôf&#601;l/
Adjective: Not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules

You said not possible under law, not possible under law and not recognized by law sure seem like the same thing to me.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please provide the differences in "unlawful" and "not possible under law."

Unlawful means if someone does it they are subject to criminal and/or civil penalties. Not possible means it cannot be done.
It is not unlawful to patent the Coca Cola logo. It would be unlawful to market a drink using that logo without approval by Coca Cola.
See the difference?

un·law·ful/&#716;&#601;n&#712;lôf&#601;l/
Adjective: Not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules

You said not possible under law, not possible under law and not recognized by law sure seem like the same thing to me.

Because you're stupid?
I dunno. The distinction seems clear to me. I even gave an example.

 

[Gadawg73]

Concerning the Tea Party folks, I am impressed with their focus ONLY on the spending and tax issues.
The leaders that have emerged in Georgia have openly solicited ANYONE AND EVERYONE and could care less if they are gay, straight, black, white or any variation.
Gay marriage is a non issue to them and anyone else with a background in small business and how capitalism and the free market is what is important. The sex life and love between 2 gay folks has nothing to do with the stability of this country.

 

[The Rabbi]

Concerning the Tea Party folks, I am impressed with their focus ONLY on the spending and tax issues.
The leaders that have emerged in Georgia have openly solicited ANYONE AND EVERYONE and could care less if they are gay, straight, black, white or any variation.
Gay marriage is a non issue to them and anyone else with a background in small business and how capitalism and the free market is what is important. The sex life and love between 2 gay folks has nothing to do with the stability of this country.

Do you think this country is more moral or less moral than it was in, say, the early 1960s?

 

[Gadawg73]

Concerning the Tea Party folks, I am impressed with their focus ONLY on the spending and tax issues.
The leaders that have emerged in Georgia have openly solicited ANYONE AND EVERYONE and could care less if they are gay, straight, black, white or any variation.
Gay marriage is a non issue to them and anyone else with a background in small business and how capitalism and the free market is what is important. The sex life and love between 2 gay folks has nothing to do with the stability of this country.

Do you think this country is more moral or less moral than it was in, say, the early 1960s?

Are you and your family more or less moral now than in the 60s?
What control do YOU or I have over the morality of others?
Do you advocate legislating morality and under what authority under THE CONSTITUTION is that?
Morality is a family matter. Not my business to force legislation on you and your family concerning what morals you teach your kids.
You can not have it both ways.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not men and their various religions and moral beliefs.
And I intend to fight like the Founders did to ensure that no one changes that.
Get over it. Mind your own business. Gay marriage is none of your business. Focus on the real issues of the day such as fiscal policy, taxes and spending.

 

[The Rabbi]

Concerning the Tea Party folks, I am impressed with their focus ONLY on the spending and tax issues.
The leaders that have emerged in Georgia have openly solicited ANYONE AND EVERYONE and could care less if they are gay, straight, black, white or any variation.
Gay marriage is a non issue to them and anyone else with a background in small business and how capitalism and the free market is what is important. The sex life and love between 2 gay folks has nothing to do with the stability of this country.

Do you think this country is more moral or less moral than it was in, say, the early 1960s?

Are you and your family more or less moral now than in the 60s?
What control do YOU or I have over the morality of others?
Do you advocate legislating morality and under what authority under THE CONSTITUTION is that?
Morality is a family matter. Not my business to force legislation on you and your family concerning what morals you teach your kids.
You can not have it both ways.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not men and their various religions and moral beliefs.
And I intend to fight like the Founders did to ensure that no one changes that.
Get over it. Mind your own business. Gay marriage is none of your business. Focus on the real issues of the day such as fiscal policy, taxes and spending.

Why are you avoiding the question? Is it because you know the answer is the country is far less moral. Look at rates of out of wedlock birth, divorce, STDs, abuse etc etc. All of them much higher.
So do you think those things are none of my business too? BEcause they are a cost to society. And I have to live here as well.

 

[Gadawg73]

Do you think this country is more moral or less moral than it was in, say, the early 1960s?

Are you and your family more or less moral now than in the 60s?
What control do YOU or I have over the morality of others?
Do you advocate legislating morality and under what authority under THE CONSTITUTION is that?
Morality is a family matter. Not my business to force legislation on you and your family concerning what morals you teach your kids.
You can not have it both ways.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not men and their various religions and moral beliefs.
And I intend to fight like the Founders did to ensure that no one changes that.
Get over it. Mind your own business. Gay marriage is none of your business. Focus on the real issues of the day such as fiscal policy, taxes and spending.

Why are you avoiding the question? Is it because you know the answer is the country is far less moral. Look at rates of out of wedlock birth, divorce, STDs, abuse etc etc. All of them much higher.
So do you think those things are none of my business too? BEcause they are a cost to society. And I have to live here as well.

Explain to us how gay marriage is going to increase the out of wedlock birth rate Rabbi and maybe, possibly, your post will have some semblance of merit.
Same with the rest of it also.
Giving cash to out of wedlock mothers and an apartment caused 99% of those problems.
And that has nothing to do with morality or gay marriage.
I am glad that someone, myself, has finally made you admit that you believe homosexuality and gay marriage to be IMMORAL.
And that makes you NOT conservative. Your religous beliefs are more important to you than THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
A true defender of liberty seeks to protect the rights of those HE MAY DESPISE THE MOST.
Sorry Rabbi, if that is the case we do not claim you.

 

[Zona]

Links?

Oh, stop asking for verification. Would the left lie? They never lie. Their politicians don't lie.

Just accept what is told to you by the left and stop thinking for yourself. Accept the spin and hysterical bullshit without question.

So some other leftist faggot made it up and you're going right along with it, got it, thanks...

False. Santorum himself said it in an interview.

USATODAY.com - Excerpt from Santorum interview


.

California girl...you look like a fool here.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Which "Leaders"?

The ones you libs assigned to us or the actual leaders, if any exist?

Republican denounced for racist e-mail

Va. Beach GOP head resigns over racist email

Young Republican Caught Forwarding Racist Email About Obama on Student Government Listserv

FL GOP Chair Sends Out Racist E-mail: Beware Of The Car Loads Of Blacks

Racist Tea Party Leader Can’t Spell the N-Word