My post was very clear Kirkland. In 214 years of history this is the first filibuster used during judicial nominations.
The Democrats haven't actually filibustered anyone, just threatened to. The Republicans, on the other hand, did filibuster in 1968.
Quote:
That is what I am talking about. Understand now?
Fellowship [/B]
I understand that you can see politics outside of the warped lenses of Right Wing Religious Fanatic Groupthink. Anyone who respects Senator "Gays are Trash and I hate them" Santorum is a person whose opinions deserve no weight.
The Democrats haven't actually filibustered anyone, just threatened to. The Republicans, on the other hand, did filibuster in 1968.
I understand that you can see politics outside of the warped lenses of Right Wing Religious Fanatic Groupthink. Anyone who respects Senator "Gays are Trash and I hate them" Santorum is a person whose opinions deserve no weight. [/B]
If you can find me a transcript or a link that shows Santorum said what you have in quotes above I will retract my statement about him. I do realize he has said things that gays find to be troubling but your quote above I have not been made aware of.
What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge. Meanwhile the Dem's are standing against women and nominees that are black and hispanic as well.
Of course when Ashcroft did it, he claimed it was because of the politics of that judge while confirming other black judges. However the left claimed (and still do) that this was proof of racism.
Of course when reversed none of the obstructionists on the left are sexist, or racist, or anything else.
Double standards sure are nice, aren't they?
Nick
That's not irony; it's your own stupidity. Irony is when you think something should happen and something unexpected happens. Stupidity is when you think Democrats support any minority for political office regardless of credentials, ideology, or other factors besides race.
I don't believe the criticism against Ashcroft was that he was being racist, I believe it was that he was being extremely conservative. If you can actually provide evidence of how the left's criticism of John Ashcroft in dealing with judges dealt with racism, then be my guest.
Yes, because the Republicans NEVER blocked appointments to the courts by Bill Clinton... oh wait, I forgot to apply the Right Wing Groupthink Double Standard.
And as for Rick Santorum, there hasn't been such a worthless bucket of scum and puss...
The Democrats haven't said squat about 168 out of 172 appointments to the court by Bush. That's nearly 98 percent... The Democrats have identified these jurists as being sufficiently to the fringe that they do not want them on the bench -- and they have the power and right to block them if they so wish.
...If the GOP isn't deposed soon America will become a one-party fascist police state. Just like they want it to be.
My my.... I suspect he protests too much.
The reality is that once again democrats have jettisoned history and tradition, and created a disastrous new precedent in Senate protocol. True, Senate democrats have not filibustered Bush's district judge appointments (no one ever has), but they made unprecedented use of the filibuster to block Appeals court appointments, the 2nd level judicial positions from which many Supreme Court appointments are made.
Previous judicial controversies were settled either by committee or senate wide vote, and in no case was a nominee, who had a majority senate vote, blocked from confirmation. The use of filibuster to block a Senate majority in favor of a nomination is simply unprecedented. Thus, to date, the White House has noted that during President Bush's first two years in office, "only 53% of appeals court nominees were confirmed compared to a rate of over 90% during the same period for the last three presidencies."
Senate Democrats have taken the position the Senate ought to be an equal partner in picking judges and that nominees who come before the Senate AND that they have a burden of persuading sixty Senators (the number necessary to cut off debate in the Senate), that they are worthy of ascension to the bench.
The Federalist, as well as the prevailing practice in more than two centuries of judicial appointments, made a presumption of fitness as the criteria for presidential judicial nominees and when the Senate rejected nominees, at least all lower court nominees, only when they have been lacking in character or professional legal accomplishments.
The Federalist made clear that the assignment of the ?Advice and Consent? role to the Senate was to prevent the President from using the nomination process to reward unqualified or corrupt family members or cronies, not to prevent him from appointing judges whose political sympathies may differ from that of several Senators.
The modern era of shameless politicization of Supreme Court nominees began with the Democratic ideological assault on Robert Bork, a supremely qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. However, they have now expanded that odious trend, by applying similar tests to appeals court appointments and the use of the filibuster.
One wonders, some years hence, when Republicans do the same, or more, by filibustering both appeals and district court appointments, what the Democrats will whine ? we can't wait
P.S. Some might point out that Abe Fortas, in 1968 was subject of a filibuster. There were a couple of differences: a) the opposition to Fortas was bi-partisan, b) it was not over ideology but character, and c) it was not actually a filibuster, but Johnson wisely withdrew it.
If you can find me a transcript or a link that shows Santorum said what you have in quotes above I will retract my statement about him. I do realize he has said things that gays find to be troubling but your quote above I have not been made aware of.
Link? Transcript?
Fellowship
Dick Santorum compared homosexual relationships to incest, pedophilia, polygamy and even bestiality. He is one of the leaders of the Federal "We Hate Gays and Don't Want Them To Marry" Amendment movement. He has spoken well of reparative therapy (abusing someone until they go back into the closet and no longer publicly admit to being gay). His every action says "Gays are trash and I hate them."
Anyone who opposed the Lawrence Decision is a gay-hating bigot of the first order. It's almost enough to make me wish that Santorum's imaginary Jesus friend was real, so that I could watch him burn in hell for all eternity. Him and everyone who thinks like him.
I understand that you can see politics outside of the warped lenses of Right Wing Religious Fanatic Groupthink. Anyone who respects Senator "Gays are Trash and I hate them" Santorum is a person whose opinions deserve no weight. [/B]
I would love to see the actual quote to which you attribute your hateful rhetoric. Disagreement = hate speech for you.
Santorum compared being gay to being a child molestor, being a person who has sex with animals, being a polygamist, being someone who has sex with a sibling. The only hate speech is that of Santorum, who uses his hatred of gays as a political tool to rally the imbecilic hordes who support him.
Santorum compared being gay to being a child molestor, being a person who has sex with animals, being a polygamist, being someone who has sex with a sibling. The only hate speech is that of Santorum, who uses his hatred of gays as a political tool to rally the imbecilic hordes who support him.
You really twist what people say. Not worth the time..
You fail to link the quotes I asked for. You are a bigot who misrepresents people for your own self interests. You have no regard for others.
It's almost enough to make me wish that Santorum's imaginary Jesus friend was real, so that I could watch him burn in hell for all eternity. Him and everyone who thinks like him.
No, they just don't want them appointed. Why can't you understand that?...
Only the Republicans are making this out to be an issue of race; the Democrats are making this out to be an issue of the nominees' records, and that's why they don't want it to come to a vote. If it could come to a vote, the Republicans have the majority to push them through. It's the Democrats' responsibility to block that vote and prevent them from being appointed as they don't like their voting records. That's just the way it works.
I'm sure you disagree with me, but your post inadverdently makes my point, thanks. See my post to Kirkland.
Your link does not fill the order I requested. You had in "quotes" a statement. I asked you to get me the transcript or link that shows what you had in quotes. You and I both know you made that little line up even though Santorum never said what you have in quotes. You are a man of no integrity so in fact I do NOT expect you to admit your twisting of words to fit your cause.
What I will say is that Trent Lott on the other hand is TRASH and I agree with you on that. Trent Lott as linked in your link above is somebody I have never ever ever ever cared for and in fact have told everyone I speak to what a piece of trash he indeed is. We are in agreement with the issue of Trent Lott.
"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. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.
"After Republicans walked into the Senate chamber together to begin the extraordinary session, Democrats argued that their move was not a show of unity but rather a television stunt orchestrated for Fox News. They pointed to a memo from Manuel Miranda, a staffer for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), which said:
'It is important to double efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time ... Fox News Channel is really excited about this marathon and Brit Hume at 6 would love to open with all our 51 senators walking onto the floor -- the producer wants to know will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show starts so they get it live to open Brit Hume's show? Or if not, can we give them an exact time for the walk-in start?'"
Your link does not fill the order I requested. You had in "quotes" a statement. I asked you to get me the transcript or link that shows what you had in quotes. You and I both know you made that little line up even though Santorum never said what you have in quotes. You are a man of no integrity so in fact I do NOT expect you to admit your twisting of words to fit your cause.
The quotes in question were not attributing a quote to Santorum but more of a paraphrase-description-of-the-persons-personality sort of thing. George "One Termer" Bush. Bill "I Want to Rule the World" Gates. Ronald "A Turkey for President" Reagan. Bill "I Can't Keep My Pants On" Clinton.
I never claimed that he said what was in the quotes. It is, however, a reasonable abstraction of that ball of scum's opinion towards gay Americans.
If you're trying to argue that Santorum isn't hateful and bigotted towards gays, you might as well also try to argue that Stalin only had a small problem with dissent.
"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. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.
I have no idea what Santorums personal views are, but the above quote is not particularly reflective. The long-standing debate that began with Roe v. Wade has centered on a "right to privacy" as a standard that overturned existing morals laws that had restricted things done in private. No doubt he is suggesting (as many have) that the privacy standard is not rationale; i.e. that it is based on morality that we have laws on polgamy, adultry, and incest...all of them done in private (or for that matter conspiracy)...
He may truely hate gays, but its not apparent from that quote.
Fellowship, we had a long, long thread on this a while back. The transript is here . The relevant quote is :
Quote:
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.
Of course, this was NOT in the context of talking about gay marriage, but rather in the context of talking about the Texas sodomy law which made every homosexual in Texas liable to thrown in jail.
So let's drop this off-topic topic. Santorum thinks gay sex should be illegal. That's hateful to anyone who doesn't think all gays are going to hell anyway (which, of course is considered hateful itself by anyone who doesn't share that particular religious belief).
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What I will say is that Trent Lott on the other hand is TRASH and I agree with you on that.
The only thing different about Lott is that he gets all misty-eyed at retirement parties and doesn't hold his liquor well.
"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. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.
My personal opinion is that gay sex is a choice. It is a culture. Am I against it? No. Did Santorum make a good point with his statement? I think that he did.
Think about how much of everything is "Culture" based. In France they drive small cars, here in the US we drive bigger cars, trucks, SUV's on average. Think about how the sports culture is deeply rooted with certain cultural norms. Think about how the whole "western" cowboy look with boots and rancher look is a cultural thing. The whole Rap culture. I believe the gay thing is a sexual preference and yes "cultural". Am I saying all Gays are one thing? No. They are not all one thing or one style of "culture" just as Christians come in all sorts. Again it is a choice and a preference. I think what Santorum said is true that some have other preferences listed above. The difference is that "some" gays want their condition to be seen as natural and that "they were born that way" as trumpetman has touched on. Santorum is saying in fewer words that if the "born that way" argument works for gays and must be respected in Law why not then could not others who like young children, or animals or what have you claim the same argument for legal protection of their activities.
Who is to judge? If ok for Gays not ok for others?
I am not taking a position on this matter as I do not know how to judge this. I will say that society has a problem with child molestors. What if one day child molestors group together and claim they were "born that way" Is that the case?
Who is to say? Not me...
I take no position. I believe Santorum asked a question that is hard to answer. It just happened to offend some who call themselves Gay.
Basically the democrats are a minority in the senate. They "have to" fillibuster any nominee they object to. It is the only way to "win" a vote. It how the game is played. The name calling *ahem* is unneccessary and un-christian like *ahem*. No doubt that similar tactics will be used by republicans when they are a minority themselves. And name calling will be unneccesary then too.
Comments
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
My post was very clear Kirkland. In 214 years of history this is the first filibuster used during judicial nominations.
The Democrats haven't actually filibustered anyone, just threatened to. The Republicans, on the other hand, did filibuster in 1968.
That is what I am talking about. Understand now?
Fellowship [/B]
I understand that you can see politics outside of the warped lenses of Right Wing Religious Fanatic Groupthink. Anyone who respects Senator "Gays are Trash and I hate them" Santorum is a person whose opinions deserve no weight.
Originally posted by Kirkland
The Democrats haven't actually filibustered anyone, just threatened to. The Republicans, on the other hand, did filibuster in 1968.
I understand that you can see politics outside of the warped lenses of Right Wing Religious Fanatic Groupthink. Anyone who respects Senator "Gays are Trash and I hate them" Santorum is a person whose opinions deserve no weight. [/B]
If you can find me a transcript or a link that shows Santorum said what you have in quotes above I will retract my statement about him. I do realize he has said things that gays find to be troubling but your quote above I have not been made aware of.
Link? Transcript?
Fellowship
Originally posted by trumptman
What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge. Meanwhile the Dem's are standing against women and nominees that are black and hispanic as well.
Of course when Ashcroft did it, he claimed it was because of the politics of that judge while confirming other black judges. However the left claimed (and still do) that this was proof of racism.
Of course when reversed none of the obstructionists on the left are sexist, or racist, or anything else.
Double standards sure are nice, aren't they?
Nick
That's not irony; it's your own stupidity. Irony is when you think something should happen and something unexpected happens. Stupidity is when you think Democrats support any minority for political office regardless of credentials, ideology, or other factors besides race.
I don't believe the criticism against Ashcroft was that he was being racist, I believe it was that he was being extremely conservative. If you can actually provide evidence of how the left's criticism of John Ashcroft in dealing with judges dealt with racism, then be my guest.
By the way, your post wasn't ironic.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Yes, because the Republicans NEVER blocked appointments to the courts by Bill Clinton... oh wait, I forgot to apply the Right Wing Groupthink Double Standard.
And as for Rick Santorum, there hasn't been such a worthless bucket of scum and puss...
The Democrats haven't said squat about 168 out of 172 appointments to the court by Bush. That's nearly 98 percent... The Democrats have identified these jurists as being sufficiently to the fringe that they do not want them on the bench -- and they have the power and right to block them if they so wish.
...If the GOP isn't deposed soon America will become a one-party fascist police state. Just like they want it to be.
My my.... I suspect he protests too much.
The reality is that once again democrats have jettisoned history and tradition, and created a disastrous new precedent in Senate protocol. True, Senate democrats have not filibustered Bush's district judge appointments (no one ever has), but they made unprecedented use of the filibuster to block Appeals court appointments, the 2nd level judicial positions from which many Supreme Court appointments are made.
Previous judicial controversies were settled either by committee or senate wide vote, and in no case was a nominee, who had a majority senate vote, blocked from confirmation. The use of filibuster to block a Senate majority in favor of a nomination is simply unprecedented. Thus, to date, the White House has noted that during President Bush's first two years in office, "only 53% of appeals court nominees were confirmed compared to a rate of over 90% during the same period for the last three presidencies."
Senate Democrats have taken the position the Senate ought to be an equal partner in picking judges and that nominees who come before the Senate AND that they have a burden of persuading sixty Senators (the number necessary to cut off debate in the Senate), that they are worthy of ascension to the bench.
The Federalist, as well as the prevailing practice in more than two centuries of judicial appointments, made a presumption of fitness as the criteria for presidential judicial nominees and when the Senate rejected nominees, at least all lower court nominees, only when they have been lacking in character or professional legal accomplishments.
The Federalist made clear that the assignment of the ?Advice and Consent? role to the Senate was to prevent the President from using the nomination process to reward unqualified or corrupt family members or cronies, not to prevent him from appointing judges whose political sympathies may differ from that of several Senators.
The modern era of shameless politicization of Supreme Court nominees began with the Democratic ideological assault on Robert Bork, a supremely qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. However, they have now expanded that odious trend, by applying similar tests to appeals court appointments and the use of the filibuster.
One wonders, some years hence, when Republicans do the same, or more, by filibustering both appeals and district court appointments, what the Democrats will whine ? we can't wait
P.S. Some might point out that Abe Fortas, in 1968 was subject of a filibuster. There were a couple of differences: a) the opposition to Fortas was bi-partisan, b) it was not over ideology but character, and c) it was not actually a filibuster, but Johnson wisely withdrew it.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
If you can find me a transcript or a link that shows Santorum said what you have in quotes above I will retract my statement about him. I do realize he has said things that gays find to be troubling but your quote above I have not been made aware of.
Link? Transcript?
Fellowship
Dick Santorum compared homosexual relationships to incest, pedophilia, polygamy and even bestiality. He is one of the leaders of the Federal "We Hate Gays and Don't Want Them To Marry" Amendment movement. He has spoken well of reparative therapy (abusing someone until they go back into the closet and no longer publicly admit to being gay). His every action says "Gays are trash and I hate them."
Anyone who opposed the Lawrence Decision is a gay-hating bigot of the first order. It's almost enough to make me wish that Santorum's imaginary Jesus friend was real, so that I could watch him burn in hell for all eternity. Him and everyone who thinks like him.
Originally posted by Kirkland
I understand that you can see politics outside of the warped lenses of Right Wing Religious Fanatic Groupthink. Anyone who respects Senator "Gays are Trash and I hate them" Santorum is a person whose opinions deserve no weight. [/B]
I would love to see the actual quote to which you attribute your hateful rhetoric. Disagreement = hate speech for you.
You've got to be kidding me.
Nick
Originally posted by Kirkland
Santorum compared being gay to being a child molestor, being a person who has sex with animals, being a polygamist, being someone who has sex with a sibling. The only hate speech is that of Santorum, who uses his hatred of gays as a political tool to rally the imbecilic hordes who support him.
You really twist what people say. Not worth the time..
You fail to link the quotes I asked for. You are a bigot who misrepresents people for your own self interests. You have no regard for others.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Kirkland
It's almost enough to make me wish that Santorum's imaginary Jesus friend was real, so that I could watch him burn in hell for all eternity. Him and everyone who thinks like him.
You have some real issues dude.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
You really twist what people say. Not worth the time..
You fail to link the quotes I asked for. You are a bigot who misrepresents people for your own self interests. You have no regard for others.
Fellowship
Here's an article on Santorum's gay bashing this past summer. There's been a lot more since then. Since then he's helped start the Federal Marriage Amendment, which is little more than an attempt to codify anti-gay hatred directly into the US Constitution.
Originally posted by Fran441
No, they just don't want them appointed. Why can't you understand that?...
Only the Republicans are making this out to be an issue of race; the Democrats are making this out to be an issue of the nominees' records, and that's why they don't want it to come to a vote. If it could come to a vote, the Republicans have the majority to push them through. It's the Democrats' responsibility to block that vote and prevent them from being appointed as they don't like their voting records. That's just the way it works.
I'm sure you disagree with me, but your post inadverdently makes my point, thanks. See my post to Kirkland.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Here's an article on Santorum's gay bashing this past summer. There's been a lot more since then. Since then he's helped start the Federal Marriage Amendment, which is little more than an attempt to codify anti-gay hatred directly into the US Constitution.
Your link does not fill the order I requested. You had in "quotes" a statement. I asked you to get me the transcript or link that shows what you had in quotes. You and I both know you made that little line up even though Santorum never said what you have in quotes. You are a man of no integrity so in fact I do NOT expect you to admit your twisting of words to fit your cause.
What I will say is that Trent Lott on the other hand is TRASH and I agree with you on that. Trent Lott as linked in your link above is somebody I have never ever ever ever cared for and in fact have told everyone I speak to what a piece of trash he indeed is. We are in agreement with the issue of Trent Lott.
With respect,
Fellowship
"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. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...santorum.gays/
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Rick_Santorum.htm
I think it's safe to say he's a bible-thumping conservative.
"After Republicans walked into the Senate chamber together to begin the extraordinary session, Democrats argued that their move was not a show of unity but rather a television stunt orchestrated for Fox News. They pointed to a memo from Manuel Miranda, a staffer for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), which said:
'It is important to double efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time ... Fox News Channel is really excited about this marathon and Brit Hume at 6 would love to open with all our 51 senators walking onto the floor -- the producer wants to know will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show starts so they get it live to open Brit Hume's show? Or if not, can we give them an exact time for the walk-in start?'"
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Your link does not fill the order I requested. You had in "quotes" a statement. I asked you to get me the transcript or link that shows what you had in quotes. You and I both know you made that little line up even though Santorum never said what you have in quotes. You are a man of no integrity so in fact I do NOT expect you to admit your twisting of words to fit your cause.
The quotes in question were not attributing a quote to Santorum but more of a paraphrase-description-of-the-persons-personality sort of thing. George "One Termer" Bush. Bill "I Want to Rule the World" Gates. Ronald "A Turkey for President" Reagan. Bill "I Can't Keep My Pants On" Clinton.
I never claimed that he said what was in the quotes. It is, however, a reasonable abstraction of that ball of scum's opinion towards gay Americans.
If you're trying to argue that Santorum isn't hateful and bigotted towards gays, you might as well also try to argue that Stalin only had a small problem with dissent.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
he did say this...
"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. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...santorum.gays/
I have no idea what Santorums personal views are, but the above quote is not particularly reflective. The long-standing debate that began with Roe v. Wade has centered on a "right to privacy" as a standard that overturned existing morals laws that had restricted things done in private. No doubt he is suggesting (as many have) that the privacy standard is not rationale; i.e. that it is based on morality that we have laws on polgamy, adultry, and incest...all of them done in private (or for that matter conspiracy)...
He may truely hate gays, but its not apparent from that quote.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Your link does not fill the order I requested.
Fellowship, we had a long, long thread on this a while back. The transript is here . The relevant quote is :
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.
Of course, this was NOT in the context of talking about gay marriage, but rather in the context of talking about the Texas sodomy law which made every homosexual in Texas liable to thrown in jail.
So let's drop this off-topic topic. Santorum thinks gay sex should be illegal. That's hateful to anyone who doesn't think all gays are going to hell anyway (which, of course is considered hateful itself by anyone who doesn't share that particular religious belief).
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What I will say is that Trent Lott on the other hand is TRASH and I agree with you on that.
The only thing different about Lott is that he gets all misty-eyed at retirement parties and doesn't hold his liquor well.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
he did say this...
"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. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...santorum.gays/
I know full well what he said.
My personal opinion is that gay sex is a choice. It is a culture. Am I against it? No. Did Santorum make a good point with his statement? I think that he did.
Think about how much of everything is "Culture" based. In France they drive small cars, here in the US we drive bigger cars, trucks, SUV's on average. Think about how the sports culture is deeply rooted with certain cultural norms. Think about how the whole "western" cowboy look with boots and rancher look is a cultural thing. The whole Rap culture. I believe the gay thing is a sexual preference and yes "cultural". Am I saying all Gays are one thing? No. They are not all one thing or one style of "culture" just as Christians come in all sorts. Again it is a choice and a preference. I think what Santorum said is true that some have other preferences listed above. The difference is that "some" gays want their condition to be seen as natural and that "they were born that way" as trumpetman has touched on. Santorum is saying in fewer words that if the "born that way" argument works for gays and must be respected in Law why not then could not others who like young children, or animals or what have you claim the same argument for legal protection of their activities.
Who is to judge? If ok for Gays not ok for others?
I am not taking a position on this matter as I do not know how to judge this. I will say that society has a problem with child molestors. What if one day child molestors group together and claim they were "born that way" Is that the case?
Who is to say? Not me...
I take no position. I believe Santorum asked a question that is hard to answer. It just happened to offend some who call themselves Gay.
Fellowship