Lott down Santorum to go

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Sen. Santorum Defends Remarks in Gay Court Case
1 hour, 15 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania on Tuesday ignored calls that he apologize and resign from his Senate leadership post as he defended comments he made comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.
"My comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles," Santorum said in a brief news release issued by his office.
In an interview with the Associated Press published on Monday, Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, discussed a Texas sodomy law now being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites).
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," Santorum was quoted as saying. "You have the right to anything."

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,652 • Replies: 87

No top replies

Re: Lott down Santorum to go

dyslexia wrote:

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

I think Santorum is an asshole, but...

...good observation he made here, although I'm sure he didn't intend it the way I'm taking it.

The government should get out of the business of telling adults what concenting adults may or may not do sexually. It simply is not the business of government -- and frankly, it is nobody's business but the participants.

Bigamy -- what right does the government have in how many spouses you have?

Polygamy -- what right does the government have in how many spouses you have?

Incest - what right does the government have in telling you whom you may screw? As long as it is adult and concentual -- it should be of no concern to the government.

Adultery - what right does the government have in telling you whom you may screw?

0 Replies

well yeah Frank i dont think he knew what he was saying in that regard. perhaps he shot himself in both feet on this one.

0 Replies

Guys--This is PA were talking about here.

This is a place that has been defined as "Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama between them".

And people wonder why the young people leave!

0 Replies

Well gee, Neo, I hail from Philadelphia and my husband from outside Pittsburgh, and I think Pennsylvania is the most beautiful state. Santorum does not represent the best of Pennsylvania, and when you read his words, you know he meant the opposite of what he actually said. I agree with Frank - what he said really means something. Just ask any of us who have fought for the womens' right to choose - another form of getting government out of our private lives.

Funny thing, that. That's where the rabid right wants the government to enter in. Can't accuse them of consistency, can we?

Dyslexia - Lott, Santorum, DeLay. I'm making a list, and I'm making it twice.

0 Replies

I must say, that was a stupid comment. Not so much with the gay angle-- the whole thing.

0 Replies

I certainly agree that one thing that we don't need is the government skulking in our bedrooms. I would say though, that incest is tricky. Often one of the pair in an incestious relationship is often NOT a consenting adult, and there I would definitely draw the line!

0 Replies

mama:

My point is that PA lacks enough people with the energy to make the changes we need to make.

As I said "Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. . . "

0 Replies

understand what you are saying Phoenix however non-consent is a different critter altogether.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I certainly agree that one thing that we don't need is the government skulking in our bedrooms. I would say though, that incest is tricky. Often one of the pair in an incestious relationship is often NOT a consenting adult, and there I would definitely draw the line!

Couldn't agree with you more on that, Phoenix -- but I strictly limited my comments to "consenting adults."

I am willing to allow the government to be very, very thorough in doing whatever it has to do to protect children from sexual predators.

0 Replies

The government has no business telling anyone where to put Peg A, or what are acceptable probing devices for Slot B.

Nevah.
No how.
No way.

I'm disappointed. Up until I heard that remark, I thought he was a neat guy to watch for the future. If his statement represents his feelings, which unless he had a partial stroke while he was talking, it does-- I am no longer interested. It was archaic thought.

0 Replies

I'm confused here--the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of a Texas law that bans sodomy (i.e., same-sex relations), no? So, in a sense, the gov't already IS interfering with people's bedroom activities, at least in Texas. Santorum, if I interpret him correctly, said that if this law is thrown out, then all sorts of other behaviors (which he presumably disapproves of) would also be permitted.

Are we in agreement that this is the issue here?

0 Replies

I am.
Didn't know Santorum approved of the sodomy laws.

0 Replies

Re: incest, I think consent gets way tricky because of the inherent power issues. Say the daughter in a father-daughter incestuous situation is 18. She's an "adult", but...

Siblings is I guess different, though I do find it icky. Even ultra-free-love bonobos (a kind of chimp we were just talking about on Mapleleaf's thread) draw the line at foolin' around with close family members.

0 Replies

Soz- Yeah, but if we would carry this further, we could even say that wife abuse is really a power issue. I know what you are saying, and morally, you are IMO correct, but when someone reaches his/her majority, he/she needs to take personal responsibility.

I think that the government needs to stay out of the sexual affairs of adults. If the 18 yo daughter of the incesuous father is too intimidated to turn in her father, it's a pity, but not the government's business.

As far as polygamy is concerned, having more than one legal spouse is against the law. There is no law against a man having a unofficial "harem" though, as much as it may be distasteful.

0 Replies

The slippery slope fallacy... one has to admire the guy's reasoning skills Wink

Seriously though, this is precisely the kind of thing that turns me off to the GOP.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Yeah, but if we would carry this further, we could even say that wife abuse is really a power issue.

But it is a power issue, no? Why should we hesitate to say that domestic violence is a power issue?

0 Replies

Rick Santorum's interview

Excerpt:

SANTORUM: In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog (emphasis mine), or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality...

????

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately.

???!!!??

0 Replies

He's just acknowledging that the GOP are screwing the pooch Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

Santorum's comments can be broken down as follows:

a) He believes there is no constitutional prohibition on states' regulating the entire range of sexual behavior.

b) He would support and vote for such prohibitions on a wide range of behavior - including, but not necessarily limited to, homosexual sexual relations.

c) He believes that the post-pubescent male victims of sexual abuse and statutory rape by catholic priests were simply engaging in normal consensual homosexual relationships.

Why has point c) not gotten any attention by the media? Points a) and b) are pretty standard stuff from the theocratic sex-obsessed crowd, if disturbing, while c) is quite horrifying. I mean, if Johnny and Daniel Santorum became the victims of sexual abuse by priests would he decide that they were simply participating in normal consensual homosexual relationships?

Eschaton

What he actually said was that the priest abuse cases were simply post-pubescent males having relationships with priests. There were of course pre-pubescent victims as well.

0 Replies

Lott down Santorum to go

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know