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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Another one by homosexual conservative Andrew Sullivan. It definitely substantiates the first article's title because Santorum is a theocratic radical.
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 ?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well you see Shawn, I have to comment on what you add to the discussion. Since you add no IDEAS, just name calling and headlines, that is what I comment on. When you care to post something else, I will gladly comment on something else.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
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.
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"
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
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
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
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.
Originally posted by alcimedes
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
"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks!"
Grrrrrr. I hate people who hate.
I didn't know you were a gay-basher and a homophobe.
well, i have to find something to do when i'm not at a good 'ol book burning.
flame on!
Originally posted by alcimedes
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.
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.
Originally posted by BRussell
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.
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...
legislating morality is stupid.
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!
Originally posted by alcimedes
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.
AMEN.
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.
Originally posted by tonton
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 ?
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
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!
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
Originally posted by tonton
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.
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
Originally posted by trumptman
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
Stuck on headlines again.
THEOCRATIC RADICALISM.
Originally posted by trumptman
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.
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.
Nick
Tolerance of Intolerance is NOT okay.
I used NOT again.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Stuck on headlines again.
THEOCRATIC RADICALISM.
Well you see Shawn, I have to comment on what you add to the discussion. Since you add no IDEAS, just name calling and headlines, that is what I comment on. When you care to post something else, I will gladly comment on something else.
Nick