Santorum booed for his positions on same-sex marriage, legal pot (New Hampshire colle

[ScienceRocks]

I dont bring politics into my real life relationships, etc.

But anyone (I know) starts yammering against Gays having equal rights, I'd pretty much smack the ******* taste out of their mouths.

They should have equal rights as human beings, but there activity should remain behind closed doors.

then why shouldnt yours?

Mine makes children and advances civilization...Yours doesn't.

 

[Crackerjack]

They should have equal rights as human beings, but there activity should remain behind closed doors.

then why shouldnt yours?

Mine makes children and advances civilization...Yours doesn't.

So basically any time two people have coitus that does not result in conception, it is somehow wrong?

Wow.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I will never understand why people are so hung up on gay marriage. It seriously has zero impact on my life. I could care less. They are already in relationships with each other and just want the freedom to make it official for some reason. I don't want the government involved in telling anyone who they can or can't marry.

 

[JoeB131]

I dont bring politics into my real life relationships, etc.

But anyone (I know) starts yammering against Gays having equal rights, I'd pretty much smack the ******* taste out of their mouths.

They do have equal rights. They are free to marry any non-relative of the oppossite gender they like, as long as they are not legally married to someone else at the time.

Now, if you want to go to brass tacks, if you make gay marriage legal as a "right", then incestuous or polygamous marriages should also be a "right".

If your standard is "I want to", then how do you argue one is okay and not the other?

But if you want to argue that society has a right to set limits, then you better be ready for them to set limits you don't like.

why is incestuous or polygamous the same as gay? its not. but id be fine w/polygamous anyhow.

How are they 'different'? They are all outside the accepted norms and have serious psychological and medical effects. (Sorry, anal sex just ain't healthy.)

If you want to change the law, change the law, that's fine. But if you argue that marriage is a "civil right", and "I want it" is the only criteria, not the wishes of society at large, then you'd better be ready for all sorts of things to get under the tent with the camel's nose.

 

[JoeB131]

see if this was the case then you wouldn't have what? 7 states who think differently from you.

Six of those states have it becaue judges said so. When the people are asked, they answer is always "No."

See they dont have the same rights and you know this, But you will ignore this because it doesn't fit your motovation. ( see JoeB Vs state of virgina in regards to Newt as evidence of this)

So what if it was? Who the hell are you to say otherwise? If two or more consenting adults want to enter into a contract, who are you to say otherwise?

So you're fine with all the inbred kids that would be produced when you legalize incest?

Oh your not, so i suggest you just mind your own business, and if it goes sour. Well thats why we have lawyers.

Sure Society can set limits, But they can only set limits that dont infringe on our rights. See 14th amendment. Hence why you have courts saying you cant ban gay marriage. I already covered this in response to the Rabbi.

So how is it that this right to Homosexual marriage was hiding in the 14th Amendment and no one noticed it until now?

This counter argument is bullshit. Just admit you dont like gay people, you find them icky and be done with it. I would respect that, not this run around bullshit you people love to shove around all the time like you are being forced to accept them.

Dont accept them all day long for all i care, But understand we have laws and if we are a nation of abide by it. quality then even YOU must

The problem with that kind of thinking is that all we have to do is appoint enough judges, and we can get the opposite results of what you want. That's the problem with judicial activism. Incidently, I also think that Citizen's United, which is a case of Right Wing Judicial Activism was a horrible ruling as well.

Again, if gay marriage is a right, why isn't polygamous marriage a right? Why isn't incestuous marriage a right?

 

[JoeB131]

why is incestuous or polygamous the same as gay? its not. but id be fine w/polygamous anyhow.

How are they 'different'? They are all outside the accepted norms and have serious psychological and medical effects. (Sorry, anal sex just ain't healthy.)

If you want to change the law, change the law, that's fine. But if you argue that marriage is a "civil right", and "I want it" is the only criteria, not the wishes of society at large, then you'd better be ready for all sorts of things to get under the tent with the camel's nose.

I thought you were a level headed dude. You're not.
Gay's "psychological" effects are the ones caused by people like YOU, who are unaccepting of another perfectly legitimate lifestyle.

If the medical effects are bad, for "anal sex," then I guess all the straigh couples practicing such shouldn't be able to get married either, eh? Makes no sense to the argument.

Sorry, I've know a few gay people in my life, and a lot of them, especially the dudes, are not particularly well adjusted. And repeated anal sex is simply not healthy, period. A lot of gay dudes have health problems, even if they manage to avoid AIDS.

Which is fine, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

My question was, why is there a good reason to ban Polygamous and Incestous marriages, but not a good reason to ban gay marriage? If your standard is, "I want it, and the 14th Amendment says I can have it!" then why not let it all hang out?

Now, please note, I didn't throw in bullshit about necrophilia, bestiality and pedophilia, because there are clear issues of consent involved there. I limited my discussion to where everyone involved is a consenting adult.

 

[JoeB131]

polygamy should be legal, incestuous not because the offspring is defective

Okay, what if they get medically certified that they've been sterilized?

Contrarywise, should we ban everyone who might potentially produce "defective" offspring from marrying or having children? Why not mandate all women over 35 get their tubes tied to end Down Syndrome?

You see the problem when you replace "community standards" with "I want it!"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"What about three men?" Santorum challenged. “If she reflects the values that marriage can be for anybody or any group of people, as many as is necessary, any two people or any three or four, marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.”

I’m certain they teach basic principles of Constitutional law at Penn State, Santorum must have missed those classes, not paid attention, or never learned in the first place.

Laws restricting homosexuals from marriage are un-Constitutional because they single-out a particular group of persons for exclusion from a state’s law, in this case laws governing marriage.

Laws banning polygamy, for example, are legal because they’re applied to everyone equally.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah. Ron Paul didn't write his own newsletter. But Santorum is a bigot for supporting the family.

Call it what you want, Santorum is wrong to single-out a particular group of persons for exclusion in violation of the 14th Amendment – it has noting to do with ‘supporting the family.’

So standing up for traditional marriage politically makes you a bigot
and is unacceptable…

No, opposition to equal access to the laws makes you a bigot and is unacceptable.

…while mandating alternative marriage on the population is perfectly great.

There is no ‘alternative marriage,’ the marriage laws stay the same. What’s ‘perfectly great’ is every American having access to those laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Who is harmed by" is a lame argument. That isn't how this works.
Who is harmed by a court ruling that gay marriage is an inalienable right?

Incorrect.

That’s not how the Constitution works. No court is going to rule that gay marriage is an ‘inalienable right’; indeed, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’ to begin with, as the issue is equal access to the laws. And a court did rule that it is un-Constitutional to exclude homosexuals from a state’s marriage law.

All the voters who voted otherwise. It is the suspension of democracy.

Nonsense.

Voters do not determine who will or will not have his civil rights. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

It’s anathema to the doctrine of the rule of law and the principles of a republican form of government.

What if the majority chose to repeal the First Amendment?

It wouldn’t be so much the majority voting to ‘repeal’ the First Amendment, but the majority voting to disallow free expression to unpopular speech. The majority has no authority to preempt one’s civil rights, through referendum or legislative action.

 

[Crackerjack]

I’m certain they teach basic principles of Constitutional law at Penn State, Santorum must have missed those classes, not paid attention, or never learned in the first place.

The scary thing is that he probably did pay attention. He's a Dominionist if there ever was one.

 

[Londoner]

People need to contextualize Santorum's remarks in the context of Big Government Conservatism.

In order to set up the context, you need to do some myth-busting. Myth 1: Conservatives favor small government. Conservatives only oppose Liberal Big Government.

Conservatives favor Big Moral Government and Big Law Enforcement Government and Big Military Government. Conservatives want a government bureaucrat at the foot of every bed, at the opening of every womb, and in the center of every marriage ceremony. Conservatives need Washington to sanctify and protect their moral beliefs. They look to Government contracts and bureaucrats for verification and sanctification of their beliefs. They think that if Washington allows or prevents gay marriage, it means something morally. In their universe Big Government lords over their moral content. In my universe, I don't want a government bureaucrat anywhere near the private morality of free individuals. The state should only intervene when one individual harms another.

Conservatives need Washington to defend their moral beliefs. Most people make their pact with God. Conservatives make their pact with Government, who enforces their pact with God.

As a Liberal, I don't care what Washington says about marriage - and I literally don't care how FREE consenting adults arrange their own sacred moral contracts, provided they don't tell me who to marry or how to interpret my own marriage. As long as they don't interfere with my private life, I could care less what they do. I'm too busy living my life to worry if there are two gay adults living next door. Unlike Conservatives, I don't care what straight or homosexual adults do in the privacy of their own homes - I don't peer out my window, or worried about what others do in the privacy of their own lives. And I don't care what kind of stupid government contract consenting adults get to "sanctify" their love. Why do I not care? Because I don't give the same power to Government contracts that conservatives do. Those contracts don't do not and can not define what is sacred or moral for me.

Conservatives believe deeply in Big Government marriage contracts. They care what Washington says about marriage. They look to Washington for the meaning of marriage. If Washington says marriage is between a man and woman, conservatives are happy. If Washington allows gay marriage, conservatives are outraged. I say, who cares what Washington says. It is not a bureaucrat's job to limit the rights and freedoms of consenting adults provided they don't harm other people. Washington should not decide the sacred content of marriage, rather, they should maximize the freedom and rights and contractual options of the widest number of people, and let adults consenting decide the rest. Washington should have absolutely no say in a free individual's sexuality or religion or gender or race provided that said free individual does not harm anyone else. Washington is not supposed to create or shape the moral environment of the individual. It exists only to defend the homeland and enforce the contracts of free individuals. While I may be personally disgusted by certain physical acts, I don't need nor want Big Government to sanctify or dignify that disgust. I don't need Washington to be my Big Brother - my protector who jealously defends my private sense of moral decency. I don't turn to Washington for my beliefs. Conservatives, on the other hand, require Big Government to protect and enforce their beliefs. They're not happy unless their is a centralized bureaucrat enforcing their private morality on all free individuals.

God help us because these people are one more homeland attack from the kind of rabid Christian moralism that Hitler exploited as Weimar crumbled. A word to the wise: when desperate societies add religion and government imposed morality to the mix, they go in search of evil scapegoats to torture. There is very much a precedent for this - and it always starts with hyper-moral homelanders looking to burn witches or blacks or gays or illegals at the stake. What Conservatives need now is a charismatic leader promising moral renewal. It usually starts with the phrase "Take your country back!" - which is straight out Weimar circa 1930.

 

[tinydancer]

I'd love to talk to Rick and others one on one. We have same sex marriage legislation up here. Nothing has crumbled. I am a conservative. I wish others would listen to me on this.

I know folks from both sides of the gay aisle on this. True movement within the gay community that didn't want marriage and fought against it because they thought those who wanted it were battling against the gay movement.

Others just wanted to be like us with a twist. Two of my best friends have been together for decades.
What do I do? I'm going to let the good Lord sort this out.

 

[tinydancer]

People need to contextualize Santorum's remarks in the context of Big Government Conservatism.

In order to set up the context, you need to do some myth-busting. Myth 1: Conservatives favor small government. Conservatives only oppose Liberal Big Government.

Conservatives favor Big Moral Government and Big Law Enforcement Government and Big Military Government. Conservatives want a government bureaucrat at the foot of every bed, at the opening of every womb, and in the center of every marriage ceremony. Conservatives need Washington to sanctify and protect their moral beliefs. They look to Government contracts and bureaucrats for verification and sanctification of their beliefs. They think that if Washington allows or prevents gay marriage, it means something morally. In their universe Big Government lords over their moral content. In my universe, I don't want a government bureaucrat anywhere near the private morality of free individuals. The state should only intervene when one individual harms another.

Conservatives need Washington to defend their moral beliefs. Most people make their pact with God. Conservatives make their pact with Government, who enforces their pact with God.

As a Liberal, I don't care what Washington says about marriage - and I literally don't care how FREE consenting adults arrange their own sacred moral contracts, provided they don't tell me who to marry or how to interpret my own marriage. As long as they don't interfere with my private life, I could care less what they do. I'm too busy living my life to worry if there are two gay adults living next door. Unlike Conservatives, I don't care what straight or homosexual adults do in the privacy of their own homes - I don't peer out my window, or worried about what others do in the privacy of their own lives. And I don't care what kind of stupid government contract consenting adults get to "sanctify" their love. Why do I not care? Because I don't give the same power to Government contracts that conservatives do. Those contracts don't do not and can not define what is sacred or moral for me.

Conservatives believe deeply in Big Government marriage contracts. They care what Washington says about marriage. They look to Washington for the meaning of marriage. If Washington says marriage is between a man and woman, conservatives are happy. If Washington allows gay marriage, conservatives are outraged. I say, who cares what Washington says. It is not a bureaucrat's job to limit the rights and freedoms of consenting adults provided they don't harm other people. Washington should not decide the sacred content of marriage, rather, they should maximize the freedom and rights and contractual options of the widest number of people, and let adults consenting decide the rest. Washington should have absolutely no say in a free individual's sexuality or religion or gender or race provided that said free individual does not harm anyone else. Washington is not supposed to create or shape the moral environment of the individual. It exists only to defend the homeland and enforce the contracts of free individuals. While I may be personally disgusted by certain physical acts, I don't need nor want Big Government to sanctify or dignify that disgust. I don't need Washington to be my Big Brother - my protector who jealously defends my private sense of moral decency. I don't turn to Washington for my beliefs. Conservatives, on the other hand, require Big Government to protect and enforce their beliefs. They're not happy unless their is a centralized bureaucrat enforcing their private morality on all free individuals.

God help us because these people are one more homeland attack from the kind of rabid Christian moralism that Hitler exploited as Weimar crumbled. A word to the wise: when desperate societies add religion and government imposed morality to the mix, they go in search of evil scapegoats to torture. There is very much a precedent for this - and it always starts with hyper-moral homelanders looking to burn witches or blacks or gays or illegals at the stake. What Conservatives need now is a charismatic leader promising moral renewal. It usually starts with the phrase "Take your country back!" - which is straight out Weimar circa 1930.

For me....It starts with the phrase stop pontificating and shut the **** up. What a pantload!

 

[tinydancer]

Yeah. Ron Paul didn't write his own newsletter. But Santorum is a bigot for supporting the family.

Call it what you want, Santorum is wrong to single-out a particular group of persons for exclusion in violation of the 14th Amendment – it has noting to do with ‘supporting the family.’

So standing up for traditional marriage politically makes you a bigot
and is unacceptable…

No, opposition to equal access to the laws makes you a bigot and is unacceptable.

…while mandating alternative marriage on the population is perfectly great.

There is no ‘alternative marriage,’ the marriage laws stay the same. What’s ‘perfectly great’ is every American having access to those laws.

*sigh* Craps coming. Watch out for Bountiful. And this has enormous ramifications. No joke and not trying to be a smart ass.

But those legal beagles are now going to use gay marriage as a basis for polygamy. Santorum is not off the mark here. Makes me want to cry.

I know so many good souls that just want to be together.

Watch the creeps on Bountiful. This is sad.