Rick Santorum - Page 4

But you lend your support to people who do. You try to defend Rick Santourum by saying "he didn't equate anything."

I'd love to see some of you just admit when you're wrong.

No, Shawn. I've read and read his statement again (the word "gay" was added after the fact, I believe) and I don't think he was talking about it in the way it's been painted. I think he was talking in a broad, general way about laws and privacy. I DON'T think he was saying some horrible thing.

In any case, in the past couple of weeks I've admitted to being wrong about something. I do it here more than you ever have, that's for sure.

When I'm wrong - and it's proven fact and not just someone's "opinion" - I'll always be the first to cop to it. It's the graceful, cool thing to do.

Thing is, I just can't help it if that's a rare event.

Sorry to do this but the aimless chit chat has forced me to do it:
The part that disgusts me most about what Santorum represents is the notion that somehow if we just legislate some kind of MOral code then the profoundly complex psychology of human sexuality will just dissapear
when in actual fact it is the kind of moral repressivenes that is simply another expression of human desires
its just returning after being repressed in negative, violent (though vieled as such) form, dressed up as morality and ethics

it is screwed up and repressive and is just a pale version of the same set of psychological complexes that drive the extreme anti-woman, anti-sex, anti-life psyche of fundamentalist Islam

Santorum's notion of healthy natural sexuality is of course "heterosexual" . . . that is "normal", that is paternal and traditional . . . but sexuality is not that simple . . .not even in straight males is sexuality that simple . . Santorum's a projection of a sexless life of 'Normalcy and wholesomeness" onto the reality of human Libido . . which is not so clear cut: his vision is the product of repression run rampant, a denial of life and of the body and, ultimately, of Death . . . its antiseptic and unatural and we shuld not have to force our complex human psycho-sexual beings into such a model of existence . . .
it is the perspective that Santorum thinks is real that is truly perverse . . not sexual "perversions"

You write as being "forced to do it...".



You didn't say anything THAT grandiose or earth-shattering.



I don't completely disagree. I don't know this Santorum guy particularly well - outside of the news and C-Span - but I know - from recent, past events - he'll be badgered and harangued until he's gone. If anything, that's what I'm posting about here: the whole "some people can say stuff and it glides over, others can say stuff and they get nailed..." kind of thing that irks me.

Like Lott and others, he'll get harrassed and berated right out of his position.

Fine, if that's the outcome. I don't agree with it and I think it's a little wild, considering. But wouldn't be the first time a right-winger goes down - so to speak - for stepping in it...and is helped along his way by a pissed-off, vocal and an untouchable, politically protected/powerful minority group of some sort (with plenty of help from a sympathetic press and all).

I hate to have something that I said passed over because ouu have to have little quibbles about nothing that jump to page 4 all of a sudden

and yes, if you actually understood what I was talking about it would probably 'shatter' your world
The notion of repression has itself been repressed and almost systematically misunderstood
mainly, because the reality of what is repressed is too difficuult for the ego to comprehend . . . to understand one's own repressions is to risk shattering one's own defense mechanisms, subterfuges and one's little ego

What the hell are you talking about?

Sorry to disrupt your flow and knock your thoughts to another page. I had no idea that me and Shawn would kick it from 3 to 4. I'll pay attention.



As if you know anything about it. Or, specifically, me. Nothing "shatters" my world. And my ego isn't that little. If you only knew...



In any case, you do write well. Almost like a book or something!

And Shawn, quit doing that cloying, passive/aggressive thing and playing dumb. You know exactly what I'm talking about in my quoted post above. Knock it off with the devils...I write very plainly and use normal, everyday words. I don't use $10 words or sentences where 25-cent ones work just fine...

Okay, why not...

Shawn, you know what kind of world it is. You know what's acceptable and what's not. You know who is powerful and has influence and can make big deals out of smaller deals. I know you don't believe in the notion "political correctness" much, but there are people, groups, organizations, etc. that - these days - you simply don't piss off, offend, annoy or in any way come across like you're "against" them.

I would, at this point in history, consider gay activists one of those groups. A lot of power, a lot of clout.

If Santorum would've said something to lemon growers in Florida that pissed them off, there wouldn't be much they could do about it and there wouldn't be much coverage.

But a gay issue gets huge notice and he pissed off the wrong group. They will fight back. Loud and hard and with resources.

That's what I'm talking about.

It's not even earth-shattering or unknown.

It's a very powerful, influential group (can take a talk-radio psychiatrist off the TV, can influence language in TV and movies, can lobby for certain things, can oppose certain individuals and institutions and generate lots of attention doing so, etc.).

And right now, it seems, gay is "hot" in pop culture and so forth. Several major movies, a hit sitcom, some cable shows, actors and musicians are more open and comfortable coming out. Hell, Time magazine did an entire big story on it, didn't they? So it's a big, talked-about issue and I'd venture to guess that there are quite a few gay journalists, editors, entertainment writers, reporters, columnists and other assorted opinion-givers and -shapers out there who would definitely get behind their fellow activists or citizens in matters such as these. A sympathetic, in-step-with press. That's not even a bad thing.

This isn't hard.

Don't assume that everything out my mouth is tainted with evil. I'm not even bitching about it (read my original post). I'm just saying that if I were in the public eye, I wouldn't go out of my way to offend or anger gay groups or whatever. Hell, I wouldn't even do it period because that's not who I am, but in the public eye, you have to REALLY be careful how you say things.

People go nuts and come for your head on a stick if you screw up.

I will say this: I think there are indeed people out there - of all stripes - who are so tied to their one, major identity trait...or what THEY see as that being. Think about it: we all know someone who can't go through the day without talking about or acknowledging their gayness, blackness, handicap, conservativeness, openness, womanness, etc.

I do think when those people are confronted with something that smacks a little bit of an offense or affront, they're so tied to their [fill in the blank] that it's a big, horrible personal attack on them directly. I've seen it a bazillion times. Anyone honest will say the same thing.

And, for the record: no, the movie "White Men Can't Jump" didn't piss me off with its title. I thought it was a pretty funny movie. But could you ever replace the word "white" with another group and the word "jump" with another verb for another movie or book?

No, not hardly. It wouldn't fly AT ALL. Ouch!

Snog? Is that legal in Texas?

What is "snog"? I head Nicole Kidman say that once. Is it "kiss"?

Australian for a kiss where tongue is involved.

CNN: White House Says Gay-Bashing A-OK

Essentially.


The implication being homosexuality is a blemish among other factors by which the President would judge a person.

The ramifications are clear:

Gay bashing is okay. It's an issue that's still in "debate."

Yowza.

Shawn,

If you are going to add something to the discussion, please do so. If you are going to practice writing headlines, (not even articles, just headlines) for the DNC then don't consider yourself to be persuading anyone.

Nick

So you're saying that the White House by failing to speak out against Santourum does support gay rights? Or are you just fixated on a "headline?" Come on now, headline writing is not the issue. I think the implications of the White House's inaction speak volumes.

You're not alone. I think the White House considers this guy 'the future' of the party while Lott was expendible.

What you are showing in an incapacity to think at all. When the headline for the article is CNN:White House expresses support for Santorum that is what it means.

You simply put, CNN:White House Says Gay-Bashing A-OK.

You said the suggestion from this is that Bush supports bashing gays.

From the article

I could have sworn that this is exactly what gay rights groups want. They want to be seen as whole people and judged accordingly instead of being seen as just "gay" or condemned for who they love.

Of course like most liberally biased articles, they spend a lot more time letting critics bash the President than they do getting his views on the issue.

Note that they "balance" the President giving his support with the following "commentary" within the same article.

The Human Rights Campaign - saying Bush isn't inclusive
The Family Research Council - saying Bush isn't defending families
Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland
"many Democrats" "other Democrats"
and of course the two Republicans Senators out of 51 who happen to think it "unfortunate"

Could Bush get any less of a voice in an article that is supposed to be about him and who he supports?

Here is an example of an article without an agenda.

Bush voices support...and...thats the news

Nick

Incapacity to think?

That's the problem eh?

I'll keep that in mind.


I suppose it is. And YOU TELL ME, trumptman, how do Bush's remarks (as spoken to us by ari fleischer), which support Sen. Santourum, NOT condemn homosexuals when Santourum's remarks lend themselves to CRIMINALIZING consensual gay sex?

Jeez-louise...

You know, in the past months I've come to expect a certain level of patella-spasms from you. But this might rank right up there with some of the classics.

The "implication" that Bush doesn't care or concern himself with someone's gayness is bad? You can actually make that leap and just put those words in his mouth (or at least his thoughts)?

If it makes you feel any better, I do the same thing: I DON'T factor in someone's skin color, sexual orientation, etc. to determine how I feel about them. When, exactly, did this become a bad thing? I thought that was what we should be striving for?

I totally judge my opinion on others by what they do, say, conduct themselves, etc.

I think that's what Fleischer was getting at. Leave it to you to spin that into some sort of weird, hateful direction.

You're completely off the charts these days, man. You're funny with that whole "whapita" thing, but I honestly don't think you have any ties to reality and are one of those rare people whose entire essense and identity is tied up in "dinging Bush" and "praising your guys"...NO MATTER WHAT.

You would go 86 miles out of you way to paint a conservative in a bad light. And you'd travel that same exact distance to excuse or explain away one of "your guys" blatantly caught acting like an asshole or an idiot.

It's freakishly transparent and only gets more so with each passing week.

Having said all that, I still like you because you provide great entertainment and you're a nice guy, deep down. But holy-freaking-cow...YOU are a nutcase and completely out to lunch.

I like you too Pscates, but I think that Bush deep down wants to appease the religious right. Like I said, how do Bush's remarks (as spoken to us by ari fleischer), which support Sen. Santourum, NOT condemn homosexuals when Santourum's remarks lend themselves to CRIMINALIZING consenual gay sex? I think it's clear what Bush believes- and that is whatever the religious right wants him to believe.

It's gay bashing.

(Bunge is with me on this one, your other favorite person)

pscates and SPJ - it's like watching those Tonya Harding vs. Paula Jones celebrity boxing matches. I can't help but watch, but when I do, I always cringe, and afterwards, I always feel guilty.

That was what I was getting at with the whole incapcity thing... First of all how do you prove a negative. Prove to me you are NOT going to go kill someone with a gun ten years from now.

Santorums remarks do not criminalize consexual gay sex. It is ALREADY criminalized in some states. (DUH!) That is why he was commenting about the case before the Supreme Court.

Here is some info about the case from a source I think you would consider unbiased about this issue, even though they happen to be a party in the case.

LAMDA-state by state sodomy

As you can see the case addresses two issues, Right to privacy and equal protection. LAMBDA obviously wants to win on both issues and a gay plaintiff lost previously on the right to privacy issue. Santorum (for about the fifth time here) commented on the privacy issue and mentioned all the types of acts that could no longer be legislated against if the privacy matter were upheld.

He was not linking the acts or saying gay men are pedophiles or any of that other slippery slope nonsense. He just mentioned that there are several other acts where the law has been effected.

Have you considered these other areas of law Shawn? Have you considered how a woman could be harmed in divorce proceedings if adultery cannot be considered grounds for alimony, and custody hearings then it could significantly harm women who have been flung aside for the younger woman.

This does affect the other areas like polygomy because right now even if you brought another woman into your house, declared her your wife when you slept with her it would affect your legal standing with your first wife. She could sue for divorce under adultery law. That would not be true anymore.

It's not just bashing, one group's rights and one law. Pointing that out does not equal gay bashing.

Nick

"Gay-bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion; it is immoral." -Howard Dean

You're being obtuse.

The example you presented is in the future while what really happened occured in the past. Do you expect me to predict the future? Honestly, that's not an example that's germane to the discussion.

Answer the question.

"How do Bush's remarks (as spoken to us by ari fleischer), which support Sen. Santourum, NOT condemn homosexuals when Santourum's remarks lend themselves to CRIMINALIZING consensual gay sex?

Consensual gay sex does not have to be already criminalized in a few states for someone to support expanding or upholding it.

Uh oh... I said..."NOT"

I apologize, but you have wandered into incomprehensibility here.

Nick

You want me to predict the future...

not sure if this has been answered yet, but i didn't feel like reading 10 pages of crap.

the statement above makes sense because

1. gay sex (illegal in most states)
2. bigamy (illegal)
3. polygamy (illegal)
4. incest (illega in most states, close relatives everywhere)
5. adultery (legal, but also legal grounds for divorce)

the adultery one is the only one that doesn't fit in there perfectly, but it seems pretty easy to see what he was getting at with that statement. there are various sex acts that are illegal in this country, for a variety of stupid reasons. make one legal, odds are you make 'em all legal.

alcimedes,

I didn't know you were a gay-basher and a homophobe.



Nick

I just saw this bumper sticker:

"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks!"


Grrrrrr. I hate people who hate.

well, i have to find something to do when i'm not at a good 'ol book burning.

flame on!

Two points:

1. It's not necessarily true that making one of those legal would make the others legal too. The case would certainly be decided on a much narrower basis than "if gay sex is OK, then anything goes! Yippeee!" In addition, this Texas case to which Santorum was referring will probably not be decided on a privacy basis but on an equal protection basis (because it outlaws gays from putting their sex organs in mouths or anuses while not outlawing straights from doing the same thing).

2. There is a long-standing tradition among gay-bashers to compare homosexuality to lots of really bad things like incest, pedophilia, and bestiality. I think everyone knows that, and it's pretty clear to me that he was just following in that tradition.

Oh, something else: although Santorum's comments will of course play well with certain segments of the population, there's a good chunk of moderate voters, the soccer moms and other swing voters, who will be turned off by it. Republicans are doing a great job of alienating those types that they'll want so much in about a year. It's Bush's whole "compassionate conservative" strategy.

Yeah, me too. I know what you mean. Hang in there, maybe something better will come along someday.

I don't know why you're dinging on Shawn...you often rush to defend him anyway from my brutal charges of "youngism" and seeing the world through "lecture hall eyes".



In any case, you could always opt to not read these things, you know? Works everytime. Lord knows I do it all the time with some of these clowns around here. You just know, going in, nothing good is going to come of it.



Anyway, I guess I'd be Paula, what with the Southern accent and all...

bah, as far as i'm concerned the govt. shouldn't legislate any of the above as long as all partipants are past the age of consent.

legislating morality is stupid.

GOP defends Ayatollah Santorum (Salon)

Another one by homosexual conservative Andrew Sullivan. It definitely substantiates the first article's title because Santorum is a theocratic radical.

you...cannot...defend...gay-bashing!

AMEN.

I don't care if Rick Santorum is a radical, conservative, liberal, theocratic, agnostic or martian, but i don't follow his line of reasonning.

There is nothing comparable between gay and incest. In general most incest are practiced by the father against his daughter. And it's not so uncommon. My wife related few stories about this subject among her patients.

It's not because you allow gayness, or sodomy or oral sex, that you will allow incest, which is a crime, who destroy the personality of the people who endure it. When you speak of incest you speak of victim, is there a victim in a gay relation ? : no. Incest is a crime, it's the job of the state to sue and sent to jail people who commit this.

Adultery is bad, because it make suffer other people, but it's not the job to the governement to punish it. The law should just give rights to the victim, when he ask divorce for example.

Strange that the same words that are in the mouth of these senator, should be in the mouth of a good Ayatollah.

This is just so disgustingly ignorant of the fact that there can, and should be healthy, stable, gay families. That, my friends, is where Santorum's prejudice and intolerance should require that he take responsibility for such a harmful statement in this new, superior age of tolerant values.

Where homosexuality cannot be compared to polygamy and incest is that homosexuality is irrefutably a common, life-binding, natural trait. If you cannot see that, or if you disagree with the overwhelming evidence in support of that fact, then you are no better than an intolerant bigot in denial.

Tonton is it serious to answer to a post written by a man called Dick van Rectum ?

Here's a hint. If the piece is already calling names before the end of the title, it isn't going to have credibility. Articles that discuss ideas have credibility, articles that just call names don't.

You expect a hit piece to convince somebody of something? If I posted an article from Rush Limbaugh called "Saddam's Angels" or something of that nature I'm sure you would give it credibility right? The article still doesn't fully quote Santorum. It doesn't get into his voting record or any other such issue. It simply sits there and calls names while setting up the same issue that others here keep bring up.

Discussing what a case would allow you to outlaw and no longer outlaw does not mean you are linking all those acts. However you and the others here can't get over that because you are looking to be offended and beat others, not with your political ideas, but with the fact that you can claim "offense" at something.

So keep being offended because while you are doing so, you aren't generating any new ideas that will get Democrats elected. I hope the whole Democratic party remains "offended" through much of 2003, it should lead to the loss of several more seats.

Nick

Finished jerking that knee yet? I posted the full quote here. Several others with the ability read AND comprehend understood that he was discussing what sexual acts you could outlaw and not outlaw according to a case that was coming before the Supreme Court.

He did not do any sort of connecting between the acts. He did not say homosexuals are child predators or anything like that.

I guess having "superior tolerant values" means giving up the ability to think.

Lastly you bash on incest and polygamy. Polygamy is very common in other cultures. Historically it has been at least as common as homosexual sex. Polygamy is even mentioned throughout the Bible. Likewise incest is much more common outside your culture than you might imagine. I remember in my public health class while discussing cultural differences that in come cultures the mother will suck an infants penis to calm him from crying. Likewise there are cultures where a child's first partner and teaching of sex all come from ther parents.

By the way how dare you believe that one set of values is superior to another. What sort of multiculturalist are you declaring that something is better than something else. Don't you know there is no "better" just "differences" that should be appreciated?

You have shown youself to be intolerance. How are you going to remedy this? I am very offended. You have declared your own culture superior to several other cultures and shown complete ignorance for how these acts occur historically.

Nick

Stuck on headlines again.

THEOCRATIC RADICALISM.