or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rick Santorum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rick Santorum - Page 2

post #41 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

I'm geniunely curious to know exactly what's so bad about sodomy.

Well, for one...

oh wait, i've nothing.
post #42 of 275
Ena asks the following question: Why can't he speak his mind without this new puritanism crucifying him?


I respond with: Why can't we have people bumfvcking eachother without this not so new puritanism crucifying them?


He responds with: I DISAGREE WITH THE ACT SO IT MUST BE STOPPED!

I respond with: Yeah, but what about that whole freedom thing?

He responds with: YOUR RIGHTS END WHEN I FIND WHAT YOU DO OR SAY DISTASTEFUL!

I respond with: OH DEAR LORD PLEASE TELL ME THIS PERSON DOESN'T REALLY EXIST!

He responds with: Oh, you bet your ass I exist and I'm coming for you with a chainsaw.

I respond with: HOLY CRAP THIS IS A NIGHTMARE WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP!

He responds with: You aren't dreaming. This is MY AMERICA so GET USED TO IT!

I buy a small island in the Pacific and giant orgy ensues.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #43 of 275
Incest, unlike homosexuality, can result in offspring that have feet like a duck but are furry. We don't need any more duck billed platypus kids runnin around.

Adultery and polygamy are not just sexual mores, they deal with social relationship hierarchies and obligations. Whereas the right to be a backside buckaroo is strictly a behavior, homosexual marriage for example is again a social construct. It doesn't necessarily follow that to allow certain personal sexual practices including raging rectal reaming precludes a social interest in enforcing social norms as relationship and marriage parameters for the good of society.

I dunno why anyone mentions bigamy anyway when we are talking about polygamy and bigamy is just a subset of polygamy.
post #44 of 275
Token hetero-disclaimer: I'm not gay.

Having said that, to work:

Quote:
Two things:

.....the long-standing animas against homosexuality and incest is due to the fact that they are both a rebellion against a social order which identifies itself with the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage and the institutional monogamy that it represents.

....For Muslims, Christians, and Jews there has been a long-standing prohibition against gender incest from the beginning.

This isn't true. Homosexuality isn't a choice, like adultery or incest. It's what you are and you can't change. Adultery means you have no morals, you're weak, whatever you want to hang on the adulterer; a predilection for incest means you're either a Pharoah or you have issues that need to be addressed, and with an urgence.

But no-one is born with a predispositon to either adultery or incest. People ARE born with a predisposition to homosexuality, and if they want to act on it then they can find a million ways and all are OK as long as no-one gets damaged. In this they're absolutely no different to straight people.

Of which I am one.
post #45 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Incest, unlike homosexuality, can result in offspring that have feet like a duck but are furry. We don't need any more duck billed platypus kids runnin around.

People with all sorts of genetic diseases are allowed to reproduce. Some of the percentages for passing on those diseases and defects are assuredly higher than the percentages of defects in incest-related births.

Again, I'm not advocating incest but one must examine the implications of one's arguments.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #46 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by BR

I buy a small island in the Pacific and giant orgy ensues.

What does giant have to say about this?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #47 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
What does giant have to say about this?

You made me laugh out loud. Thank you kindly, sir.

Edit: Care to respond to anything else I've written?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #48 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
You will notice I stayed on topic in the end. YOU ARE DERAILING IT BY SAYING I'M DERAILING IT.


Now, back on topic:

I ask a third time: What is wrong with sodomy, bigamy,incest or polygamy? I will further add I believe that consenting adults should be allowed to perform any of these acts.

There BR I added it for you.

BR is about the most right on with regard to this issue and I would also say the most honest. Bunge has thrown up straw regarding...key lime pie....because what Santorum is speaking about is lawsuits attempting to declare laws against sodomy unconstitutional based off the fact that it is between two consenting adults and thus the government should keep it's nose out of it.

BR sincerely, and unapologetically asks, what is wrong with these other acts that also take place between adults?

However it the spirit of what Bunge says, I will be writing my local congressional leader and demand that key lime pie be outlawed due to its destructive effects on the family unit.

Here is what Santorum said unedited.

Quote:
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.

He seems quite consistant to me. He says the right to privacy was "discovered" in the constitution. Many constitutional scholars have questioned the decisions regarding abortion, not because they hate abortion, but because it created a right (privacy) that really is a logical stretch from just a reading of the constitution.

People are now using this right to privacy to say that sodomy laws should be overturned because you have a right to privacy and what you do in the privacy of your home and in your bedroom with a consenting adult is not the government's business.

Santorum points out, I believe it is logically consistant that consenting adults, in the privacy of their home can also engage in these other acts like incest, bigomy, etc.

if we can't say who you can love and how you can love them, why should we really be able to say if they are family or how many?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #49 of 275
I wasn't aware that Hassan was gay until this thread. Odd. It's OK Hassan, no need to feel uncomfortable about your gayness.

Quote:
People with all sorts of genetic diseases are allowed to reproduce. Some of the percentages for passing on those diseases and defects are assuredly higher than the percentages of defects in incest-related births.

I would imagine that the % of people with genetic diseases ought to be just as high among a population practicing incest as for a non incest practicing population. I'm no geneticist obviously but by my flawed layman's logic it would seem on the face of it that the incest practicing population on the whole is more at risk for birth defects in their offspring as they take on the problems both of all other genetic risks which everyone does in addition to the compounding of their risk through the problems inherent in mixing DNA with someone of like DNA. It seems like they have a compounded risk to me.

Now of course some individuals might have genetic issues which make their offspring more like to suffer some problems than say an incestuous couple who have no other issues. On an individual level certainly what you suggest would be the case at least some of the time. But it still seems to me that in terms of the whole groupings that an incestuous population would be at a higher risk. Again, you may well know better than I in the field so I'm open to what the probabilities of the science entail and how that ought to impact law.

I might also suppose, though I don't really know, there might even be an argument to be made that a population practicing incest might even be more likely to have other genetic issues which would potentially filter them out of the social gender interactions that we all love and act as an instigator for their incestuous actions because incest is then their only social recourse for a booty call.
post #50 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Token hetero-disclaimer: I'm not gay.

Having said that, to work:



This isn't true. Homosexuality isn't a choice, like adultery or incest. It's what you are and you can't change. Adultery means you have no morals, you're weak, whatever you want to hang on the adulterer; a predilection for incest means you're either a Pharoah or you have issues that need to be addressed, and with an urgence.

But no-one is born with a predispositon to either adultery or incest. People ARE born with a predisposition to homosexuality, and if they want to act on it then they can find a million ways and all are OK as long as no-one gets damaged. In this they're absolutely no different to straight people.

Of which I am one.

Hassan,

I don't wish to get into this to far because honestly, I have nothing against homosexuality, but I do have something against junk science.

There might be an aspect of it that could be biological. Must like how some smokers get a better high off nicotine, there might be some humans who just get more pleasure from their bums.

But they have not found a gay "gene" and can explain homosexuality via biology. The science that claims this is pure junk science that has been repeated over and over until it is true. I'm not just saying this to get on your nerves. I read the actual studies. They didn't have control groups or anything like that.

I would gladly read any science experiments that you care to link to though that explain the biological origins of homosexuality and are good science as well.

Until then though I consider it nothing more than a choice certain people are more apt to make. (Much as certain people are more apt to smoke or drink) I don't deny them their choice, but it is a choice.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #51 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I wasn't aware that Hassan was gay until this thread. Odd. It's OK Hassan, no need to feel uncomfortable about your gayness.



I would imagine that the % of people with genetic diseases ought to be just as high among a population practicing incest as for a non incest practicing population. I'm no geneticist obviously but by my flawed layman's logic it would seem on the face of it that the incest practicing population on the whole is more at risk for birth defects in their offspring as they take on the problems both of all other genetic risks which everyone does in addition to the compounding of their risk through the problems inherent in mixing DNA with someone of like DNA.

Now of course some individuals might have genetic issues which make their offspring more like to suffer some problems than say an incestuous couple who have no other issues. On an individual level certainly what you suggest would be the case at least some of the time. But it still seems to me that in terms of the whole groupings that an incestuous population would be at a higher risk. Again, you may well know better than I in the field so I'm open to what the probabilities of the science entail and how that ought to impact law.

I might also suppose, though I don't really know, there might even be an argument to be made that a population practicing incest might even be more likely to have other genetic issues which would potentially filter them out of the social gender interactions that we all love and act as an instigator for their incestuous actions because incest is then their only social recourse for a booty call.

All I am saying is that if you make incest illegal on the grounds that the children produced are more likely to have birth defects, you also must make it illegal for people with known highly transferable genetic diseases to reproduce as well.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #52 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Hassan,

I don't wish to get into this to far because honestly, I have nothing against homosexuality, but I do have something against junk science.

There might be an aspect of it that could be biological. Must like how some smokers get a better high off nicotine, there might be some humans who just get more pleasure from their bums.

But they have not found a gay "gene" and can explain homosexuality via biology. The science that claims this is pure junk science that has been repeated over and over until it is true. I'm not just saying this to get on your nerves. I read the actual studies. They didn't have control groups or anything like that.

I would gladly read any science experiments that you care to link to though that explain the biological origins of homosexuality and are good science as well.

Until then though I consider it nothing more than a choice certain people are more apt to make. (Much as certain people are more apt to smoke or drink) I don't deny them their choice, but it is a choice.

Nick

Are you attracted to redheads more than blondes? Are you attracted to tall girls more than short? You may not know why you are (or aren't) but you simply have certain reactions to the way certain women look. I imagine that this phenonemon is similar in gay people in that they are simply more attracted to men (or women for lesbians) and that there is no real concrete reason; it simply is what it is.

I find Elizabeth Hurley to be the sexiest woman alive because of her figure, hair, and accent. There are plenty of people that would disagree with me but this is simply my natural proclivity. Whether this proclivity developed via nature or nurture, it matters little. It is there. That's all that matters.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #53 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by BR

Edit: Care to respond to anything else I've written?

The thread grew so fast I couldn't really respond to any direct questions because we were already 4 points past it. You and Hassan were pretty much spot on with every post though, covering anything I would have covered on my own.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #54 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
All I am saying is that if you make incest illegal on the grounds that the children produced are more likely to have birth defects, you also must make it illegal for people with known highly transferable genetic diseases to reproduce as well.

There are people here who want to mandate sterilizing retarded people. The argument is that they can't think for themselves, therefore they have no freedom. They can cause damage by reproducing, therefore the must be stopped.

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #55 of 275
In the fine tradition of the PeTA thread...

Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #56 of 275
Quote:
All I am saying is that if you make incest illegal on the grounds that the children produced are more likely to have birth defects, you also must make it illegal for people with known highly transferable genetic diseases to reproduce as well.

And I'm saying that on the face of it it would seem that the incest practicing peoples are still more likely as a group to have defects than a non-incest practicing group. If you want to argue that drawing the line to exclude their group from legal practices is somewhat arbitrary that's fine but it is not inconsistent or illogical if there is an inherent higher risk to incest. As long as they are higher up the flipper kid gradient than the non-incest practicing population then at least there is an argument for it. Obviously it depends greatly on the science of the genetics and the probabilities involved which most of us are not fully equiped to discuss in depth.

Furthermore, incest practicers are knowingly participating in a higher risk procreative behavior (if the probabilities are in line with what I assume). Those with other genetic defects are not necessarily making that same choice to increase risk.

By the by, when is Ricky up for reelection?
post #57 of 275

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #58 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Are you attracted to redheads more than blondes? Are you attracted to tall girls more than short? You may not know why you are (or aren't) but you simply have certain reactions to the way certain women look. I imagine that this phenonemon is similar in gay people in that they are simply more attracted to men (or women for lesbians) and that there is no real concrete reason; it simply is what it is.

I find Elizabeth Hurley to be the sexiest woman alive because of her figure, hair, and accent. There are plenty of people that would disagree with me but this is simply my natural proclivity. Whether this proclivity developed via nature or nurture, it matters little. It is there. That's all that matters.

Actually no I would say that I find lots of different types of women attractive. Me and ol' Bill C. we want them all.

Perhaps some people like ordering the same food day after day, but me, I like the buffet.

Come on BR how could you only like one type of girl in California? Bad example. There are so many different types of beautiful women here. Latinas, Asian, Black, White, thick, thin, tall, short... they all find a way to make it look good.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #59 of 275
...but I know it when I see it!
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #60 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually no I would say that I find lots of different types of women attractive. Me and ol' Bill C. we want them all.

Perhaps some people like ordering the same food day after day, but me, I like the buffet.

Come on BR how could you only like one type of girl in California? Bad example. There are so many different types of beautiful women here. Latinas, Asian, Black, White, thick, thin, tall, short... they all find a way to make it look good.

Nick

The british accent blows my mind and will vault any girl a few points up the scale. Am I attracted to other types of girls? Sure...just not nearly as much as I am to the Elizabeth Hurley type.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #61 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Hassan,

I don't wish to get into this to far because honestly, I have nothing against homosexuality, but I do have something against junk science.

There might be an aspect of it that could be biological. Must like how

[snip]

ugh I consider it nothing more than a choice certain people are more apt to make. (Much as certain people are more apt to smoke or drink) I don't deny them their choice, but it is a choice.

Nick

This is probably something for another thread, but I don't believe that gay people have a choice. As far as I can tell you're pretty sure from the youngest age what you're about, and there's no changing it, but that doesn't mean that it's genetic: or rather entirely genetic.

Homosexuality's not a disease, but there is a sort of comparison to be made with schizophrenia I think. It seems that schizophrenic people have a genetic predisposition to the disease that certain environmental conditions in early childhood just kicks off: schizophrenics come from families with very similar dynamics, apparently. I rather fancy that homosexuality's similar in that there are environmental and genetic factors doing their thing.

The difference is that mentally ill people need medical help, and gay people need... straight people to leave them alone and stop telling them they can't shag each other any way they like.

But what do I know.

Let's ask the Scottish Faggot Twat. Jamie?
post #62 of 275
how did this turn into a whapita thread? where's spj?
post #63 of 275
Hello???

Quote:
"'If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery,'' Santorum was quoted as saying. ''You have the right to anything.'"

How the **** do you NOT get a homophobic tone from that?

EDIT: Ah. Privacy Law. Let's see if Rick's argument has merit.
post #64 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Hello???



How the **** do you NOT get a homophobic tone from that?

Goddammit Pscates and anyone who defends those remarks.

Well, in a roundabout accidental sort of way, what that senator said is true. You do have a right to do all those things in private.


Here kitty kitty kitty.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #65 of 275
EDIT: I concede nothing. He's an idiot.
post #66 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I wasn't aware that Hassan was gay until this thread. Odd. It's OK Hassan, no need to feel uncomfortable about your gayness.



I would imagine that the % of people with genetic diseases ought to be just as high among a population practicing incest as for a non incest practicing population. I'm no geneticist obviously but by my flawed layman's logic it would seem on the face of it that the incest practicing population on the whole is more at risk for birth defects in their offspring as they take on the problems both of all other genetic risks which everyone does in addition to the compounding of their risk through the problems inherent in mixing DNA with someone of like DNA. It seems like they have a compounded risk to me.

Now of course some individuals might have genetic issues which make their offspring more like to suffer some problems than say an incestuous couple who have no other issues. On an individual level certainly what you suggest would be the case at least some of the time. But it still seems to me that in terms of the whole groupings that an incestuous population would be at a higher risk. Again, you may well know better than I in the field so I'm open to what the probabilities of the science entail and how that ought to impact law.

I might also suppose, though I don't really know, there might even be an argument to be made that a population practicing incest might even be more likely to have other genetic issues which would potentially filter them out of the social gender interactions that we all love and act as an instigator for their incestuous actions because incest is then their only social recourse for a booty call.

Actually, the idea of kissing cousins=birth defects is a pretty good example of bad science used to support a pre-established bias.

There have been a few studies recently, and a quick search turned this up that sort of explains it:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/colum....incest.04.09/

Which demonstrates what the really issue at hand is. People have had long standing opinions about what is considered acceptable in their moral system. Folks in the developed world don't necessarily realize the roots of their ideas or how those unsubstantiated beliefs influence science.

As for regulating consenual adult sexual interaction, it's rediculous. The only argument that will ever hold up in the end is that it makes you uncomfortable. Well, it's a free country, so deal with it. If you want a society that prohibits this kind of thing, go try to get the taliban back in power.
post #67 of 275
What an idiot.

Get him out. We can't let this kind of crap slide.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #68 of 275
Quote:
As for regulating consenual adult sexual interaction, it's rediculous. The only argument that will ever hold up in the end is that it makes you uncomfortable. Well, it's a free country, so deal with it. If you want a society that prohibits this kind of thing, go try to get the taliban back in power.

Or the conservatives
post #69 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Well, in a roundabout accidental sort of way, what that senator said is true. You do have a right to do all those things in private.


Here kitty kitty kitty.

BR, you are one sick puppy.... kitty... oh whatever....

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #70 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
What an idiot.

Get him out. We can't let this kind of crap slide.

While I don't like Santorum, and I wish he weren't in office, the guy is remarkably consistent. There was a New Yorker profile of him years ago that discussed (IIRC) how he had made his political bed opposing late-term abortions for any reason. And then something went horribly wrong with his wife's pregnancy and he had to stand by that belief--and risk both his wife's and his unborn child's life. Pretty interesting stuff.

At any rate. Two things:

1) Is incest (between siblings of consenting age) actually *illegal*? Can you be put in jail for it?

2) The scariest part of his statement, for me, was this: "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." Yes. The constitution doesn't literally say that I have a right to privacy. But the constitution doesn't say I have a right to lots of things. (There was a great West Wing episode about this a while back). I find it difficult to imagine the repercussions of the notion of a "right to privacy" being eradicated (legally). Seems like an Ashcroftian nightmare to me. Nevertheless, isn't he being a litle disingenuous in yoking the right to privacy to abortion rights. Yes, Griswold in '65 was where the SC said it. But certainly the *idea* is in place well before then. I mean, the notion of a "right to privacy"--certainly in America--isn't a new thing. I mean, hell, the 9th amendment would seem to cover it.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #71 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
I can't see where he made some statement that equated homosexuality with those other things. He simply said, from what I take from it, that "if you say this, you say that...".

That's called equating.

post #72 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Actually, the idea of kissing cousins=birth defects is a pretty good example of bad science used to support a pre-established bias.

There have been a few studies recently, and a quick search turned this up that sort of explains it:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/colum....incest.04.09/

Which demonstrates what the really issue at hand is. People have had long standing opinions about what is considered acceptable in their moral system. Folks in the developed world don't necessarily realize the roots of their ideas or how those unsubstantiated beliefs influence science.

As for regulating consenual adult sexual interaction, it's rediculous. The only argument that will ever hold up in the end is that it makes you uncomfortable. Well, it's a free country, so deal with it. If you want a society that prohibits this kind of thing, go try to get the taliban back in power.

I read your article and while it was speaking about the type of unions allowd or not allowed it brought up some interesting combos that I hadn't seen posted here.

I just thought I would through them out here because the only type of relationships most people think of is kissing...cousins.

How many people here would be okay with consentual sexual relations between an adult parent and their child. Say the Dad was 40 and the daughter was 20.

I could post any number of variations on this but I think you get the point. Would this still sit okay with all of you?

Lastly, on a completely side note, does anyone else find it strange that we are discussing privacy law and at the same time many universities are passing laws attempting to curb professor and student relationships? What are the feelings here on what these obviously consenting adults are doing?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #73 of 275
Ena, I don't know you, but my uninformed opinion of you should be that you are an evil Nazi. I cannot believe that, in the year 2003, there are still people out there as backwards as you are. And again, I am confirmed in the conviction that the US is amazingly far to the right of the political spectrum. I swear that even leaders from our hated extreme-right parties wouldn't be caught dead with that kind of statement.
post #74 of 275
Homophobes are the biggest homos alive.

Oh, and if it matters, I do prefer beautiful girls over beautiful boys.

post #75 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by der Kopf
Ena, I don't know you, but my uninformed opinion of you should be that you are an evil Nazi. I cannot believe that, in the year 2003, there are still people out there as backwards as you are. And again, I am confirmed in the conviction that the US is amazingly far to the right of the political spectrum. I swear that even leaders from our hated extreme-right parties wouldn't be caught dead with that kind of statement.

I think this is really uncalled for. This happens repeatedly in these forums. Someone states their beliefs and limits and then is ridiculed and called names for them, especially when others here still draw circles with regard to their own tolerances, but they just draw them a little wider.

So I pose a question to you der Kopf. Do you have ANY limits as to what two consenting adults should be allowed to do sexually? Professor and student, Mother and son (or daughter), Uncle and nephew, prostitution, anything?

How about if a daughter agreed to have sex with her father in the privacy of his home in exchange for money for college costs?

How about as BR mentioned beastiality? The animal doesn't get consent I suppose because it doesn't have the same rights. Humans and their pet dogs? Peanutbutter and ..... nevermind....

To anyone else that cares to judge here, I would pose that same question. What are your limits if any?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #76 of 275
Trumptman thinks that homosexuality can be equated with incest.
post #77 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
So I pose a question to you der Kopf. Do you have ANY limits as to what two consenting adults should be allowed to do sexually? Professor and student, Mother and son (or daughter), Uncle and nephew, prostitution, anything?

How about if a daughter agreed to have sex with her father in the privacy of his home in exchange for money for college costs?

How about as BR mentioned beastiality? The animal doesn't get consent I suppose because it doesn't have the same rights. Humans and their pet dogs? Peanutbutter and ..... nevermind....

To anyone else that cares to judge here, I would pose that same question. What are your limits if any?

Nick

I have no problem whatsoever with CONSENTING adults. These are, I think, people who are willing and able to engage in the act of having sex for NO REASON other than their mutual consent.

So: the college money case is not consent IMHO, that is prostitution of the worse kind.
Bestiality, you said it (unable to consent). A similar interpretation: the animal should be considered a legal minor, and therefore unable to voice his consent in this matter.

Other than that: shag at will. I really don't care if some father and daughter decide they like each other that much that they are willing to get it on. All rules apply to them: no sex in public and shit. I just don't see why that would have to bother me.
post #78 of 275
The thing ena does though is equalling homosexual contact to unwanted sexual contact (the rape type of incest) or illegal kinds of relations: for it is illegal to have more than one wife, but I have yet to here about someone convicted for having sex with two women at once. That illegality (of polygamy) has, IMHO, nothing to do with the kinkiness of it, as much as with the economical problems it brings: it is, of old, considered hard for anyone to provide for one, let alone two families. Also, it's not fair to all the ones not getting it on.
post #79 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I read your article and while it was speaking about the type of unions allowd or not allowed it brought up some interesting combos that I hadn't seen posted here.

I just thought I would through them out here because the only type of relationships most people think of is kissing...cousins.

How many people here would be okay with consentual sexual relations between an adult parent and their child. Say the Dad was 40 and the daughter was 20.

I could post any number of variations on this but I think you get the point. Would this still sit okay with all of you?

While I wouldn't want to be involved in any way, they are consenting adults.

An interesting one I think of is the brother-sister relationship. Studies have passed in front of me many times saying that many people have their first sexual experiences with siblings. Some have even put the percentage above 25%. I've also read studies saying that very high percentages of women had sexual encounters with family members. I have since asked many of my female friends and this seems to be accurate. But this activity appears to be greatly limited to youth. It is also true that this entire field is not what we would called a very mature (as in well-developed) sociological field, and much more research needs to be conducted before we get a clear picture.

That said, if a brother and sister decide to have a relationship, outside perception of that relatioship is tricky. There really is no justification for condemnation other than that you don't agree with it. If you condemn it for genetic purposes, which, as demonstrated, probably aren't as clear as they should be, then you are already arguing that certain individuals need to be prohibited from reproducing so that social engineering can be conducted. This situation, like that of homosexuality, also gives the state the power of determining what kind of communication two free people can have.

Furthermore, laws that govern contact between two (or more) consenting adults are really nothing more than witch-hunts conducted to convice the hunters of their own morality. Turning the government of a supposedly free state reverses much of the progress made in the search for equality of US citizens.

If the rationale for prohibiting sexual relations between a 50 year old father and his 30 yo daughter hinges on manipulation by older person, then you are talking about puting a limit on difference of age individuals can have to engage in touching certain regions of the body with particular motive. Pretty hazy stuff, to say the least.

So, while kicking it with my sister is something that really needs to not come close to happening, and while my personal opinion is that it is pretty nasty for anyone, I am certainly in no position to judge what two consenting adults do. I have no idea what their particular situation is. With 6b people on earth, it's inevidable that there will be a large number of family member falling in love. No matter how much we try, burning them at the stake is not going to prevent it.

Quote:
Lastly, on a completely side note, does anyone else find it strange that we are discussing privacy law and at the same time many universities are passing laws attempting to curb professor and student relationships? What are the feelings here on what these obviously consenting adults are doing?

Nick

Like anything wholly contained in the university setting, this is a topic that has a lot of philisophical debate within it. In order to have a good grasp of it you have to know what the opposing attitudes really are, and they are very complex. The only reason I know about it is because a patron I helped a couple years ago did some research on it and I ended up reading a lot of the articles. It's really a complex issue, and not at all related to what we are discussing. Just to get you started, the university teacher/student sexual relatioship is one that has been philosophized about to death. There is a whole history of material written about it that encompases the entire debate.
post #80 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Hello???



How the **** do you NOT get a homophobic tone from that?

EDIT: Ah. Privacy Law. Let's see if Rick's argument has merit.

I heard the word "gay" was added by the reporter. Just saying.

And I'm not "defending" anything, really. So don't damn me TOO much. But I am saying that the gay lobby and Professional Handwringing Brigade salivate over stuff like this because they can jump on it and ride it out for all its worth.

And no, I don't know why that last sentence sounded so sexual.



Just more hysterics from one of the most coddled, obnoxious, "see it OUR way or..." groups around.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rick Santorum