Rick Santorum - Page 3

Do I smell straw in here? You wouldn't be trying to restate my argument in a weaker manner so as to knock it down would you?

No Trumptman believes it logically consistant to say that if the Supreme Court rules that due to a right to privacy, the government cannot legislate what goes on between consenting adults in their bedroom, that this ruling would apply to both homosexuality, incest, and several other acts.

Nick

What's interesting about this Texas law that Santorum is referring to is that it specifically singles out same-sex sodomy. The Georgia law, that the Supreme Court upheld in Bowers v. Hardwick, did not refer specifically to same-sex sodomy, and that might have helped it from being overturned. It made it illegal for a woman to give a man a blowjob, for example. Damn.

And, wow, I didn't know Hassan was gay. I mean, that's OK, of course, but, wow. That's interesting.

Actually Hassan posted that he was hetero. He even said it was a "disclaimer."

He made a statement about homosexuals with regard to heterosexuals and then added at the end, of which I am one. Someone misunderstood the subject and assigned it to homosexual instead of heterosexual.

The reason I know or care? I quoted the part of the text that happened to have the disclaimer in one of my replies.

Nick

Why can you not give consent if money is involved? What is wrong with prostitution if it involves two consenting adults? I'm sure you would support the one night state that was just a physical release for both parties. Why does this change if the parties exchange some money at the end? I'm just asking because there are plenty of adulterous type relationships that end up involving money in some regard. Does it equal prostitution if I end up giving my adulterous partner a security deposit for her apartment? If I give her the down payment for a car? The example I cited mentioned college. However in a much more subtle context there are plenty of instances where monetary relationships happen to follow closely alongside sexual ones. How do you sort them out?

What if the Dad hadn't wanted to pay for college, but after several go abouts decided to pay for it, "out of the goodness of his heart?"

As for the animals, they don't have the same rights as a legal human minor. You couldn't butcher and sell by the pound a human child. You can with a cow. Since the cow is considered property why couldn't you do whatever the heck you want with it as long as it is not considered cruelty. You could even put the animal to death which you could not do with a human child.

I don't think it is as clean cut as you care to make it.

Nick

As I understand it, that's the issue here - equal protection. If you want to outlaw sodomy, fine (or at least, constitutional), but you can't outlaw only some people's sodomy.

Two points:
1. Is Rick Santorum really a bigot, or just misquoted? RTFI. Unedited text of interview. Was he baited? Yeah, a little. But he said a whole lot more, and way more explicitly, than he had to. He spelled out his position real nice. If you think gay sex is OK, then you think men should be able to fvck and marry dogs.

2. Gays have a long way to go in organizing their political voice. I mean, attack blacks and lose your job. Attack Jews, lose your job. Attacks gays...get re-elected. You can't tell me that there's THAT many more anti-gay right-wingers than anti-black and anti-jew right wingers. But not even the NYTimes is calling for Santorum's head.

I can't answer for der kopf, but the animal situation has a few twists and turns that make it an icky topic (in multiple ways). I wonder, for instance, if it is ever not cruelty. An animal can give less consent than a child, but then again, many animals don't always seem to picky (get my parents' dog really excited and he might start humping just about anything). And it really is repulsive to many people. But what about all of the other ways folks violate animals. Sticking your arm in a cow's ass and a pole in its vagina to artificially inseminate it is standard practice, but if you get kicks off it you could go to jail. It's really a wierd one.

But in the end it is not an act between two consenting adults.

As for prostitution, I see no reason why it should be illegal. While there probably little chance I will ever have sex with one (in the strict sense, though I have dated gold diggers for short periods of time), past work of mine has brought me into close contact (no, not sexual contact) with quite a few. I am thoroughly convinced that if it was regulated like any other industry, it wouldn't be long before life is safer for a lot of people involved in it. Prostitution is not going away, and arresting people for it does nothing to make people's lives better.

Wow. We wholly agree again. Man, we should have more conversations about people's privacy rights. They actually make me think you are sane (and probably vice versa)!

But you must admit that the analogies he's [Santorum] drawing are certainly charged. I mean, there's a difference between his examples of what's protected under "privacy" and, for instance, if he'd said that it protects kissing children on the head and petting cute and fuzzy kittens.

Cheers
Scott

Let's take this a step at a time...


A basic lead-in for a "slippery slope" kind of argument. Not necessarily wrong, but often invalid and merely a scare tactic. The merit of a slippery slope argument depends on whether actual cause-and-effect relationships exist, and how well typically subjective risk assessments can be made more objective.

Where, if anywhere, a Supreme Court decision about homosexuals leads depends on the nature of the particular decision, the precedents that it creates, overturns, or strengthens, and how those particulars could be applied to the particulars of other legal issues. I'm rather doubting that Mr. Santorum has publicly elaborated his case to that level of detail yet.


If you're already married under current laws, then by law you've already chosen to enter a binding agreement to forego additional marriages. It's hard to see how any decision regarding homosexual relationships gets around that.

But do new marriages have to be so limited by law? Perhaps the particulars of a Supreme court decision regarding homosexuality would have bearing here, perhaps they wouldn't.

Merits of current law and constitutional interpretation aside, I don't see how the number of husbands or wives someone chooses to have -- or what gender they are for that matter -- is anybody else's business.

You wrote in a latter post [b]"...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."[b]

Putting mustard on your fries (French or Freedom) is a rebellion against the long-standing uniqueness of the marriage between fries and ketchup. What's it to you? What right do you have to impose an obligation on other people to refrain from any relationship that doesn't serve to glorify your relationships?

If you want your marriage to be special, make it special yourself. Create the meaning of the relationship yourself. Why legally mandate that everyone else has to live, or not live, in certain ways so that the world provides the stage setting you think you need to put your marriage in a certain light?


Adultery goes back to my previous comments.

Incest... seems to me that the laws against this can have basis, or can at least be argued to have basis, quite independent of any legal case in favor of protecting homosexuality. If the incest in question is adult/child, clearly there is a basis in protecting children from abuse. If the incest in question is adult/adult, a basis can be established -- though it certainly isn't comprehensive to all situations -- on the genetic health of any offspring.

Of course, the real foundation of most laws regarding sexual conduct are that a bunch of people think of thing and go "Eeewww! Yuuuck!", get mad at anyone else who doesn't react the same way, and, with or without bothering to rationalize their reactions in legal terms can quite often get their emotional and religious biases codified into enforceable laws.


At this point, Mr. Santorum is clearly just babbling meaningless rhetoric.

Cut this shit out. It's not a catfight. It's a discussion where people DISAGREE WITH YOU. Wow! DEAL WITH IT.

First, I have to confess to not plowing through the whole thread and reading every point.

In short, though, I do not believe this is equatable with what Lott said. He truly was talking about legal context...essentially saying if the Supreme Court indicates that Texas cannot enforce its sodomy laws, then one can easily argue that Texas, and therefore other states cannot enforce OTHER laws, such as those pertaining to bigamy and incest. In other words, it sets a precedent indicating that as long as you are in your own home, it doesn't matter what you do...AT ALL. That's not true.

Whether or not the gay rights crowd likes it, homsexual acts ARE equated with bigamy and incest under our laws. I'm not saying they should be, but they basically are.

In context, I agree with his point. I do think the way he put it left a little to be desired. Then again, I hear it wasn't the most "up front" interview, so to speak.

I'd certainly feel a lot better if privacy were specifically written into the Constitution, but it isn't. We do, however, have:

A) The Ninth Amendment


If the 9th means anything at all, I think it's certainly reasonable for the courts to consider privacy one of these unenumerated rights, and to enforce that right through their decisions and the legal precedents they set.

B) The Fifth Amendment


Nothing clear-cut here, but I'd say this: Privacy is certainly an aspect of liberty, and the Constitution clearly enshrines liberty as value not to be tampered with lightly.

While again not written into the Constitution, a basic and long-standing legal principle is that the State should only interfere with individual liberties where there is a compelling public interest to do so.

Does the State have a compelling interest in enforcing the social norms of one group, even when that groups constitutes a majority, on another? In what way does one group of people engaging in homosexual sex infringe on the ability of those who disapprove of such things from refraining from homosexual sex?

It's important to remember that the notion of liberty means freedom even from majority opinion -- unless compelling interest can be shown, liberty trumps democracy.

If I want to wear a red hat, but 90% of the public hates red hats and wants to pass a law against them -- tough. Unless the majority can show that I'm somehow interfering with their ability to not wear red hats, or that my red hat causes them cancer, their mere dislike of my head apparel is moot.

"But what if my children see you wearing that hat? What are they to think? That it's okay to wear red hats!? We must protect our children!" If freedom and liberty mean anything, they have to mean that none of us should be compelled or legally restrained in our actions merely to help enforce a particular environment of opinion or social example. If you don't want your children to ever wear red hats, it's up to you to teach them as best you can by word and example. It's not up to me to protect them from any possible hint of other ways of thinking and acting for your benefit.

Trumptman believes you can legally equate homosexuality with incest.



That's homophobic.

Feeling a little intellectually lazy today?

Give it up, add something to the discussion or go play in your sandbox. You aren't even making a point, just intentionally making a mischaracterization about what I believe regardless of what I have actually typed.

Trumptman believes that when a legal decision says you can't legislate what goes on in someone's bedroom, that means all things that go on in that bedroom.

Trumptman believes Shawn has more intellgence than he is demonstrating with weak posts like this.

Nick

*sigh*

Finals Week. I'm all burned out. That's all I have.

Yeah, but the defendants do argue that the sodomy laws violate privacy, and that Bowers should be overturned. I doubt that will happen, though. My guess is that the Supreme Court will probably retain their Bowers decision that privacy doesn't include the right to engage in sodomy, but they'll say that it violates equal protection. Yay, equal rights for sodomites!

The sad implication of that though is that some states might rewrite their laws so that ALL sodomy, even hetero, is illegal.


BTW, in the oral arguments, the Texas guy was asked why it wasn't illegal for heterosexuals to engage in sodomy. He argued that heterosexual sodomy could lead to procreation.

In other words, men and women should have oral and anal sex because, while they're at it, they might decide to give regular sex a try, too.

BRussell,

Do you know where I could read transcripts of the oral arguments?

I wasn't arguing against this, just saying that he was being logically consistant.

However the libertarian side of me wonders why the right to privacy would only triumph with social agenda items and not with income. Thus if I believe that drug use is wrong, it is fine for you to have a right to privacy and do what you want with drugs. However it is also my right to keep private my income earned while not using drugs. Likewise I should not be compelled to turn over my income to support you when you destroy your life abusing drugs.

I would say the 5th amendment here applies even more so for private property and income than for medical and sex acts.

Nick

You said oral arguments in a discussion of sodomy.

huhuhuhuhu.

BRussell always knows where to get good oral... (arguments)


Nick

Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:


I'd say an explicitly stated power of taxation might explain the difference here.

I suppose for everyone there would come a point where taxation would be viewed as confiscatory and beyond reasonable public interest. For some libertarians and conservatives, that feeling might even starting kicking in at about 0.5%.

Given that there is a clearly stated constitutional power of taxation, however, you'd be hard pressed to extract an argument that any specific tax rate was too high in a constitutional sense, or that the only "fair" tax system was a flat rate system, etc.

In addition, it is stated that, among other reasons, these taxes may be collected to "provide for the...general Welfare of the United States". There's no reason to suppose that this notion of "general Welfare" can't include the kinds of social programs and other public spending that drive many conservatives and libertarians crazy.

Going by this, I'd say that levels of taxation, and how those taxes are spent, are properly in the realm of democratic forces and not a matter in conflict with enshrined, protected liberties.

By the way, I say this as a person who pays enough in taxes every year that I should be able to have my own personal government employee for the money.

Not that it matters, but I'm quite potently, if not dangerously, heterosexual.

Although I met the footballer Graham le Saux and thought him boyish and rather attractive.


This is very annoying.

I can't get past the first few bunch of super idiotic posts in this thread to catch up


can you believe this kind of idiotic logic: read this question and put it simply:
if you can see a man and a woman having sex why can't they be brother and sister?


It is idiotic to assume that two men having sex is similar to or in any way equated with incest, bigamy or polygamy.
Its hetero-sexual hysteria that panics at the fear of teh loss of their safe zone

Two people who are not related should be allowed to share pleasure with each other through sex if they so choose it is no place for GOVERNMENT

can't you conservatives see that the Government should have no ability to tell me who I can or cannot share my body with . . .

Just for the record (before any meatheads further muck stuff up), this "conservative" doesn't give two flying damns what anyone - especially anyone here - does with their bodies. That's not my call to make. So there.



Knock yourselves out, people. I don't make the rules.

So freedom for the money but not the body?

Pfflam, if you read the whole thread you would see that most of us have been discussing the right to privacy and what that entails.

You seem to express displeasure with folks with relations getting it on. Perhaps that is your "safe zone" that you fear the loss of. If privacy rights extend to whatever you care to do in you bedroom with another consenting (or multiple) adult(s) then that moves on well beyond homosexual sex via sodomy. It is not a slippery slope to say that if they don't have the right to legislate it then it applies to more than just that one act that you wish to show tolerance for. It would also apply to make more acts which you might not show toleance for.

The laws that stop incest, bigomy, adultery and polygomy likely have their foundations in the same Christian type thinking. Don't bash her for the homosexual thinking and not expect that the others could be wiped away as well. These acts are well tolerated in other cultures and there is nothing to say that they couldn't be tolerated here if the Supreme Court rules that you cannot legislate sexual mores of any sort because of privacy concerns.

Nick

Is that directed at me and my post? If not, cool. My bad. If so, do you want to make it make sense so I know what you're talking about?

Money?



Like I said, if it's not to me, never mind. It was just right below mine, so...

No. Not a comment to your post. More the Ena types

In a democracy, you do.

Hassan's gay?

I KNEW it!

this indicates that you completely misread my reversal of ena's post. I was revealing his flawed logic
Incest is not merely about sexual acts or love it is about genetics, psychology and the social contract in general . . . Bigamy and polygamy also are not merely about sexual relations.

Adultery, as far as I know is not illegal, we don't cast stones in the US
and some people like to swing, hence they are consenting adulterers: they have that right

That's the danger of living with Liberty: other people might do things with it that you don't like and wouldn't do because of your Christian god . . . but we don't have to live ruled by SHARIAH or some Christian variant of it . . . Yes what I do with my whips and chains and multiple and complexely genedered, transexual etc, partners in the privacy of my own domain is fine and should be legal


and it does not slippery slope into the realms of abuse or sex with animals as Santorum seems to think:

Not only are the gays (like Hassan) angry that Santorum compared them to polygamists, but now the polygamists are angry that Santorum compared them to gays. The guy just can't win.

Stop it or I'll post your e-mail address.

the part that disgusts me most about what Santorum epresents sis 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 actualfact 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

its 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"

I do my part, but if the other side wins or has more support or whatever, I don't "make the rules". I pack up and go "well, next time then...". I don't stand in the streets and scream about it.

Stop it or I'll come round and snog you.

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"

HA! I KNEW it!!!

I mentioned, just a few days ago (after a particularly nutty post of yours) that you seemed to be out of it or off your game. I then said "finals week, Shawn?", not really knowing (just being a smartypants).

Guess I was right.



In any case, good luck. Study hard. The boards will be here when you're done with your exams.