Rick Santorum

1356714

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 274
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    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.
  • Reply 42 of 274
    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.
  • Reply 43 of 274
    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.
  • Reply 44 of 274
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    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.
  • Reply 45 of 274
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    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?
  • Reply 46 of 274
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    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?
  • Reply 47 of 274
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    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
  • Reply 48 of 274
    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.
  • Reply 49 of 274
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    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
  • Reply 50 of 274
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    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.
  • Reply 51 of 274
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    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.
  • Reply 52 of 274
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    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.
  • Reply 53 of 274
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    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
  • Reply 54 of 274
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    In the fine tradition of the PeTA thread...



  • Reply 55 of 274
    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?
  • Reply 56 of 274
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
  • Reply 57 of 274
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    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
  • Reply 58 of 274
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    ...but I know it when I see it!
  • Reply 59 of 274
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    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.
  • Reply 60 of 274
    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.