Rick Santorum Proven Right

[DGS49]

Will you "Progressives" finally admit it?

My Mann Rick was ridiculed copiously for pointing out that if there was a "constitutonal right" for sexual deviants to get married, then there would be no remaining impediment to incestuous or polygamous "marriages."

And here we are.

If you follow the "reasoning" of all of the lower court cases, it is simply a matter of, What harm does it do? So I ask you, what harm does it do to society if a mature, loving, legally competent brother and sister want to get married? Father and adult daughter? What about four or five Fundamentalist Mormons (4 female, one male) who want to tie the (Gordian) knot?

Under the current reasoning, no law prohibiting such unions can stand. Furthermore, if, say Utah goes it's own way on this, all the other states and the Federal government are bound to recognize those marriages.

Those who have been paying attention to this know that the USSC declined to recognize such a right when ruling on DOMA. But by the time these cases end up at the Highest Court in the Land, there will be so much inertia that they dassn't rule against the right to marry whoever you want.

Rick will accept your heartfelt apologies.

 

[DriftingSand]

Shhhh. Someone might hear you making sense.

To add to your other "harmless" examples:

1) 50 year old adult man and a 16 year old boy (Harvey Milk style).
2) 3 adult men, 1 adult woman, and 17 year old girl.
3) 65 year old grandfather and 20 year old granddaughter.

The list, of course, goes on and on. If the argument works for the LGBT community it can "legally" be applied to many unusual, odd, abnormal circumstances and there can be no argument against it.

NAMBLA will be the next special interest group "demanding" equal rights under the new law.

 

[DGS49]

To be completely candid, Rick may have mentioned relationships between humans and domesticated animals - which mention inflamed the LGBQRIPZXT community, but I digress...

Carry on.

 

[DriftingSand]

To be completely candid, Rick may have mentioned relationships between humans and domesticated animals - which mention inflamed the LGBQRIPZXT community, but I digress...

Carry on.

"Do you, Donkey, take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?" "Hee haw."

"You may now place the ring on her hoof and may kiss the ass."

 

[jillian]

Another theocrat loon thread?

Don't you all get bored ranting about things that are meaningless to your lives all the time?

 

[rightwinger]

Santorum is a dinosaur. His views about homosexuality are archaic and our society has moved past them. Gay marriage is now a fact of life in a large percentage of the country. The world did not end, the slippery slope to incest, polygamy and bestiality never happened.

Gay marriage is accepted by society and the all the arch conservatives can do is fume

 

[DriftingSand]

Another theocrat loon thread?

Don't you all get bored ranting about things that are meaningless to your lives all the time?

Naw ... it's fun.

 

[jillian]

Another theocrat loon thread?

Don't you all get bored ranting about things that are meaningless to your lives all the time?

Naw ... it's fun.

What's fun? You trolling?

 

[TheOldSchool]

This thread stinks as much as a fresh puddle of santorum

 

[Avorysuds]

Will you "Progressives" finally admit it?

My Mann Rick was ridiculed copiously for pointing out that if there was a "constitutonal right" for sexual deviants to get married, then there would be no remaining impediment to incestuous or polygamous "marriages."

And here we are.

If you follow the "reasoning" of all of the lower court cases, it is simply a matter of, What harm does it do? So I ask you, what harm does it do to society if a mature, loving, legally competent brother and sister want to get married? Father and adult daughter? What about four or five Fundamentalist Mormons (4 female, one male) who want to tie the (Gordian) knot?

Under the current reasoning, no law prohibiting such unions can stand. Furthermore, if, say Utah goes it's own way on this, all the other states and the Federal government are bound to recognize those marriages.

Those who have been paying attention to this know that the USSC declined to recognize such a right when ruling on DOMA. But by the time these cases end up at the Highest Court in the Land, there will be so much inertia that they dassn't rule against the right to marry whoever you want.

Rick will accept your heartfelt apologies.

How very progressive of you to get in the middle of peoples lives with no constitutional authority and dictate who they can marry. I'll bet you and your progressive belief stopped all incest by making something based on your religion illegal.

Ops, it still happens! Guess you get to enjoy your illegal power to tell people if they can get married or not as most Progressives do. because like wit most progressives it's about power, not fixing a problem.

 

[Avorysuds]

Shhhh. Someone might hear you making sense.

To add to your other "harmless" examples:

1) 50 year old adult man and a 16 year old boy (Harvey Milk style).
2) 3 adult men, 1 adult woman, and 17 year old girl.
3) 65 year old grandfather and 20 year old granddaughter.

The list, of course, goes on and on. If the argument works for the LGBT community it can "legally" be applied to many unusual, odd, abnormal circumstances and there can be no argument against it.

NAMBLA will be the next special interest group "demanding" equal rights under the new law.

Not one thing you listed do I feel I should have the power to stop. I mean, we are still talking about marriage correct? I do, I do? Or are we talking about a 1267121 year old pig man forcing an angel 12 year old virgin girl that has never used a swear word in her life to marry him against her will?

The progressive mind will never make sense to me.

 

[Nosmo King]

Rock Ribbed Conservative Li'l Ricky Santorum and his few acolytes of course have their logic all twisted up in their chastity belts.

Bringing bestiality to the table, or pedophilia or incest are weak arguments created by weaker minds. The marriage license issued by the state is essentially a contract that creates a next of kin relationship in the eyes of the law where no such relationship existed before. That dispenses with all that idiotic incest talk. Further, the license is for two consenting adults. So much for bestiality.

All the evidence shows that pedophilia is a crime that occurs among heterosexuals. Conflating pedophilia with homosexuality demonstrates a genuine lack of knowledge of human sexuality.

So the red meat banquet goes on. Li'l Ricky stokes up the knuckle draggers, diminishes his credibility with thoughtful voters, no matter their own politics, and gives voice to those who are willfully ignorant and damn proud of it!

 

[DGS49]

Pedophilia...heterosexuals?

QUICK, CALL THE POPE! He has this crazy idea there has been a problem with priests bugger little boys!

 

[Noomi]

I do not know of any case in which a child was forced to marry an adult. Can you cite one, please?

 

[rdean]

Rick Santorum Proven Right

You mean education really is for "snobs"?

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

This thread stinks as much as a fresh puddle of santorum

I actually like Santorum.

WAIT!!!! The Politician!!! I like Santorum the politician!!! Jesus Christ almighty!!!

 

[TheOldSchool]

This thread stinks as much as a fresh puddle of santorum

I actually like Santorum.

WAIT!!!! The Politician!!! I like Santorum the politician!!! Jesus Christ almighty!!!

Bwahahahahahaha!

 

[DGS49]

I'm not surprised, but there has not been one substantive rebuttal to Rick's notorious statement, to wit, if the states cannot outlaw homosexual "marriages" because there is an unwritten right to marry whomever you like (unless there is a compelling state interest in banning the relationship in question), then states MAY NOT continue to prohibit incestuous marriages or plural marriages, as long as the participants are consenting adults.

As I said above, RICK WAS RIGHT.

And for the record, Rick Santorum was one of the best senators ever to represent Pennsylvania, as indicated by his quick rise through the ranks of both the Senate proper and the republican party. He was (and remains) the victim of the Gay Mafia, which targeted him for pointing out the immorality of homosexual sodomy.

As any observant American knows, to "Progressives," Free Speech only applies to speech with which you agree.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not surprised, but there has not been one substantive rebuttal to Rick's notorious statement, to wit, if the states cannot outlaw homosexual "marriages" because there is an unwritten right to marry whomever you like (unless there is a compelling state interest in banning the relationship in question), then states MAY NOT continue to prohibit incestuous marriages or plural marriages, as long as the participants are consenting adults.

As I said above, RICK WAS RIGHT.

And for the record, Rick Santorum was one of the best senators ever to represent Pennsylvania, as indicated by his quick rise through the ranks of both the Senate proper and the republican party. He was (and remains) the victim of the Gay Mafia, which targeted him for pointing out the immorality of homosexual sodomy.

As any observant American knows, to "Progressives," Free Speech only applies to speech with which you agree.

Rick is a moron and hates fags. There is no denying it

Incest is illegal, Pedophilia is illegal, bigamy is illegal, bestiality is illegal

Homosexuality is not illegal. They are committing no crime by getting married