Santorum Wants to Enslave People Who Have Unconventional Sex

[Lars]

Sodomy isn't protected by the Constitution, and as per the 10th Amendment, all powers not reserved to the Federal Government, are reserved to the States and people. The Federal Government has no authority to regulate sexual acts, or get involved in state regulation of said acts. So Federal Laws prohibiting sodomy would be unconstitutional while Federal Intervention in say Texas or Alabama banning sodomy is unconstitutional as well. And I don't see where Santorum supports enslavement. He says he supports state laws against sodomy and legal penalties for engaging in such acts. By the OP's logic, any sort of prison or jail term is slavery, thus any legal penalty involving prison or jail terms is unconstitutional. What are you advocating? Anarchy?

 

[Smash_Hits]

Y'know, when people continuously fail to jump at your command, a reasonable person might conclude he isn't in command.

But you just press on.

People can change. We hear that all the time when Robert Byrd is being discussed.

Santorum hasn't changed. He has never recanted any of the statements that he made.

Can you find any statements backing that up?

You don't have to prove negatives. Unless you can give me any explicit statements in which Santorum addresses his past idiocy, I'm right. He has never formally rejected his past beliefs.

 

[daveman]

Santorum hasn't changed. He has never recanted any of the statements that he made.

Can you find any statements backing that up?

You don't have to prove negatives. Unless you can give me any explicit statements in which Santorum addresses his past idiocy, I'm right. He has never formally rejected his past beliefs.

You're really not very good at this.

You made a claim -- that he still holds that position -- so you need to back it up. It should be easy for you, if you're right. Just find something recent.

Otherwise, all you have left is your opinion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Given that Santorum wants to make sodomy a crime, it follows that he supports enslavement of those who break the law.

He can 'want to make sodomy a crime' all day every day.
My point is/was that he doesn't have the power and/or authority to make it so.
It would never pass, so relax.




As a sidebar: Unless the UCMJ has been amended since my enlistment it's already a crime in the military.

The problem isn't that he can't do it; the problem is that he wants to do it. I don't want somebody as bigoted as him in any office.

You've already been folded up and tossed out, sonny. You wouldn't want ANYONE with an R next to his name in office.
I don't know where the idea that notions of good and bad were bigoted comes from.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sodomy isn't protected by the Constitution, and as per the 10th Amendment, all powers not reserved to the Federal Government, are reserved to the States and people. The Federal Government has no authority to regulate sexual acts, or get involved in state regulation of said acts. So Federal Laws prohibiting sodomy would be unconstitutional while Federal Intervention in say Texas or Alabama banning sodomy is unconstitutional as well. And I don't see where Santorum supports enslavement. He says he supports state laws against sodomy and legal penalties for engaging in such acts. By the OP's logic, any sort of prison or jail term is slavery, thus any legal penalty involving prison or jail terms is unconstitutional. What are you advocating? Anarchy?

In the lib universe you either have a right to something or it is prohibited. There is nothing else. This lack of understanding unfortunately pervades their attempts at debate, rendering them hilariously ignorant.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
You're really not very good at this.

You made a claim -- that he still holds that position -- so you need to back it up. It should be easy for you, if you're right. Just find something recent.

Otherwise, all you have left is your opinion.

Actually, you're not very good at this. If Santorum hasn't recanted his statement, then the original statement stands. How do you find (even by Google) a recantation when one has not been made?

 

[daveman]

[
You're really not very good at this.

You made a claim -- that he still holds that position -- so you need to back it up. It should be easy for you, if you're right. Just find something recent.

Otherwise, all you have left is your opinion.

Actually, you're not very good at this. If Santorum hasn't recanted his statement, then the original statement stands. How do you find (even by Google) a recantation when one has not been made?

It's really quite simple. All he has to do is find a recent statement that says the same thing as the 8-year-old one.

 

[The Rabbi]

[
You're really not very good at this.

You made a claim -- that he still holds that position -- so you need to back it up. It should be easy for you, if you're right. Just find something recent.

Otherwise, all you have left is your opinion.

Actually, you're not very good at this. If Santorum hasn't recanted his statement, then the original statement stands. How do you find (even by Google) a recantation when one has not been made?

You again.

If you want to maintain that Santorum still holds this view then you would need to show more recent statements to that effect.
Personally I hope he does. He makes a very good conservative case for such laws.

 

[bodecea]

[
You're really not very good at this.

You made a claim -- that he still holds that position -- so you need to back it up. It should be easy for you, if you're right. Just find something recent.

Otherwise, all you have left is your opinion.

Actually, you're not very good at this. If Santorum hasn't recanted his statement, then the original statement stands. How do you find (even by Google) a recantation when one has not been made?

It's really quite simple. All he has to do is find a recent statement that says the same thing as the 8-year-old one.

Has he said anything to indicate he has changed his position since 8 years ago?

 

[bodecea]

[
You're really not very good at this.

You made a claim -- that he still holds that position -- so you need to back it up. It should be easy for you, if you're right. Just find something recent.

Otherwise, all you have left is your opinion.

Actually, you're not very good at this. If Santorum hasn't recanted his statement, then the original statement stands. How do you find (even by Google) a recantation when one has not been made?

You again.

If you want to maintain that Santorum still holds this view then you would need to show more recent statements to that effect.
Personally I hope he does. He makes a very good conservative case for such laws.

Has Santorum said anything in the last 8 years to indicate he has CHANGED his mind?

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, you're not very good at this. If Santorum hasn't recanted his statement, then the original statement stands. How do you find (even by Google) a recantation when one has not been made?

It's really quite simple. All he has to do is find a recent statement that says the same thing as the 8-year-old one.

Has he said anything to indicate he has changed his position since 8 years ago?

Has he said anything to affirm his position of 8 years ago?

Don't worry. I've never seen that carpet munching was a criminal offense anywhere so you're safe.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
You're really not very good at this.

You made a claim -- that he still holds that position -- so you need to back it up. It should be easy for you, if you're right. Just find something recent.

Otherwise, all you have left is your opinion.

Actually, you're not very good at this. If Santorum hasn't recanted his statement, then the original statement stands. How do you find (even by Google) a recantation when one has not been made?

It's really quite simple. All he has to do is find a recent statement that says the same thing as the 8-year-old one.

But if he hasn't made a statement, then you can assume he has not changed his stance..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sodomy isn't protected by the Constitution…

But the right to privacy and equal protection is.

…and as per the 10th Amendment, all powers not reserved to the Federal Government, are reserved to the States and people.

And as per McCulloch v. Maryland, states do not have the authority to ignore or nullify Federal statutes.

The Federal Government has no authority to regulate sexual acts, or get involved in state regulation of said acts. So Federal Laws prohibiting sodomy would be unconstitutional while Federal Intervention in say Texas or Alabama banning sodomy is unconstitutional as well.

Wrong.

In Lawrence v Texas the Court ruled laws banning ‘sodomy’ violate the 14th Amendment. Any Federal or state law banning ‘sodomy’ is consequently un-Constitutional.

And I don't see where Santorum supports enslavement. He says he supports state laws against sodomy and legal penalties for engaging in such acts.

And by doing so Santorum is advocating Americans’ rights be violated.

By the OP's logic, any sort of prison or jail term is slavery, thus any legal penalty involving prison or jail terms is unconstitutional. What are you advocating? Anarchy?

Whatever one wishes to call it, it is wrong to imprison someone for engaging in a Constitutionally protected act.

 

[daveman]

Actually, you're not very good at this. If Santorum hasn't recanted his statement, then the original statement stands. How do you find (even by Google) a recantation when one has not been made?

It's really quite simple. All he has to do is find a recent statement that says the same thing as the 8-year-old one.

Has he said anything to indicate he has changed his position since 8 years ago?

I have no idea. Do you have anything?

I expect not, because all we hear is the 8-year-old statement.

 

[bodecea]

It's really quite simple. All he has to do is find a recent statement that says the same thing as the 8-year-old one.

Has he said anything to indicate he has changed his position since 8 years ago?

Has he said anything to affirm his position of 8 years ago?

Has he said anything to indicate that he has CHANGED his position?

Don't worry. I've never seen that carpet munching was a criminal offense anywhere so you're safe.

Ah..the going personal gambit.....means you failed.

 

[bodecea]

It's really quite simple. All he has to do is find a recent statement that says the same thing as the 8-year-old one.

Has he said anything to indicate he has changed his position since 8 years ago?

I have no idea. Do you have anything?

I expect not, because all we hear is the 8-year-old statement.

Has he said anything to indicate he has CHANGED his position on this issue?

 

[The Rabbi]

Has he said anything to indicate he has changed his position since 8 years ago?

I have no idea. Do you have anything?

I expect not, because all we hear is the 8-year-old statement.

Has he said anything to indicate he has CHANGED his position on this issue?

Has he said anything to indicate he maintains those positions?
We could do this all night.

Do you hold exactly the same views you did 8 years ago?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I have no idea. Do you have anything?

I expect not, because all we hear is the 8-year-old statement.

Has he said anything to indicate he has CHANGED his position on this issue?

Has he said anything to indicate he maintains those positions?
We could do this all night.

Do you hold exactly the same views you did 8 years ago?

Oh, ok. Good.

That means we can ignore everyone who constantly brings up Michelle Obama's partial birth abortion letter - that was 6 years ago. And Obama's "voting present" - also, that was 6 years ago, I guess that means we can't talk about that either.

Obama's "fetuses dying in the closet"? Too old, we can't talk about that anymore... We're running out of time on Reverend Wright too, and "57 states", and "re-distribution of wealth"

I guess you guys better start looking for new lines.

 

[The Rabbi]

Has he said anything to indicate he has CHANGED his position on this issue?

Has he said anything to indicate he maintains those positions?
We could do this all night.

Do you hold exactly the same views you did 8 years ago?

Oh, ok. Good.

That means we can ignore everyone who constantly brings up Michelle Obama's partial birth abortion letter - that was 6 years ago. And Obama's "voting present" - also, that was 6 years ago, I guess that means we can't talk about that either.

Obama's "fetuses dying in the closet"? Too old, we can't talk about that anymore... We're running out of time on Reverend Wright too, and "57 states", and "re-distribution of wealth"

I guess you guys better start looking for new lines.

Yeah, change the subject when you lose. Good strategy. At least the strawman business will be strong.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Has he said anything to indicate he maintains those positions?
We could do this all night.

Do you hold exactly the same views you did 8 years ago?

Oh, ok. Good.

That means we can ignore everyone who constantly brings up Michelle Obama's partial birth abortion letter - that was 6 years ago. And Obama's "voting present" - also, that was 6 years ago, I guess that means we can't talk about that either.

Obama's "fetuses dying in the closet"? Too old, we can't talk about that anymore... We're running out of time on Reverend Wright too, and "57 states", and "re-distribution of wealth"

I guess you guys better start looking for new lines.

Yeah, change the subject when you lose. Good strategy. At least the strawman business will be strong.

I've got no dog in this fight.

Just wanted to clear up the "new rules". If 8 years is so long that it doesn't matter for Sanitary Napkin, then the same must be true of Obama, right?