Santorum Wants to Enslave People Who Have Unconventional Sex

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.

Can you back up your argument? I think not. There is no need for me to give any evidence; I don't have to prove that he hasn't said anything. You have to prove that he has. Learn to debate, genius.

I haven't made any claims, genius. You have.

You claimed he changed he might have changed his views. All I have done was claim he was a homophobe in 2003, and extrapolated from that the fact that he could be a homophobe now. Feel free to prove me wrong.
 
Santorum’s hysterical hyperbole and extremism indicate either a profound ignorance of the basic tenets of Anglo-American jurisprudence or that he’s just crazy. Perhaps both.

Rick Santorum: The Hapless Holy Warrior Starts Another Crusade

Santorum has a social issues record to make the Religious Right cheer. He made a name for himself on the national scene with his attacks on gay rights, most notably in a 2003 interview comparing gay relationships with "man-on-dog" sex. (In the same interview he argued that the Constitution does not protect a right to privacy. Recently he said that allowing loving gay couples to adopt children is "trying to defy nature" and should be illegal, as should gay marriage. He says that the Obama administration's decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court meant that the "free exercise of religion will be eviscerated."

Although, while in the Senate, Santorum supported the occasional pro-choice Republican, he calls Roe v. Wade a "monstrosity" and supports criminalization of abortion, which he says is the reason Social Security is in trouble. He backs right-wing attacks on funding for Planned Parenthood's family planning services, actively taking part in the right-wing propaganda campaign against Planned Parenthood. Santorum has slammed the Griswold decision, in which the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to privacy and overturned a state ban on contraception, as a "constitutional wrecking ball."

Santorum gave Religious Right activists a powerful tool for pushing religion into public school classrooms when he sponsored an amendment to the "No Child Left Behind" law that encouraged the teaching of intelligent design in science classes. The amendment, written in part by the creationist Discovery Institute, became a force behind creationists' bogus "teach the controversy" strategy. Santorum wrote in 2002 that "Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes." Scientists and courts disagree.

Michael B. Keegan: Rick Santorum: The Hapless Holy Warrior Starts Another Crusade

The Hapless Holy Warrior, indeed.
 
Can you back up your argument? I think not. There is no need for me to give any evidence; I don't have to prove that he hasn't said anything. You have to prove that he has. Learn to debate, genius.

I haven't made any claims, genius. You have.

You claimed he changed he might have changed his views. All I have done was claim he was a homophobe in 2003, and extrapolated from that the fact that he could be a homophobe now. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I made no such claim.

People can change. We hear that all the time when Robert Byrd is being discussed.
To which you replied:
Santorum hasn't changed. He has never recanted any of the statements that he made.
You made a claim which you have never backed up. Recent quotes will do nicely.
 
Santorum’s hysterical hyperbole and extremism indicate either a profound ignorance of the basic tenets of Anglo-American jurisprudence or that he’s just crazy. Perhaps both.

Rick Santorum: The Hapless Holy Warrior Starts Another Crusade

Santorum has a social issues record to make the Religious Right cheer. He made a name for himself on the national scene with his attacks on gay rights, most notably in a 2003 interview comparing gay relationships with "man-on-dog" sex. (In the same interview he argued that the Constitution does not protect a right to privacy. Recently he said that allowing loving gay couples to adopt children is "trying to defy nature" and should be illegal, as should gay marriage. He says that the Obama administration's decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court meant that the "free exercise of religion will be eviscerated."

Although, while in the Senate, Santorum supported the occasional pro-choice Republican, he calls Roe v. Wade a "monstrosity" and supports criminalization of abortion, which he says is the reason Social Security is in trouble. He backs right-wing attacks on funding for Planned Parenthood's family planning services, actively taking part in the right-wing propaganda campaign against Planned Parenthood. Santorum has slammed the Griswold decision, in which the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to privacy and overturned a state ban on contraception, as a "constitutional wrecking ball."

Santorum gave Religious Right activists a powerful tool for pushing religion into public school classrooms when he sponsored an amendment to the "No Child Left Behind" law that encouraged the teaching of intelligent design in science classes. The amendment, written in part by the creationist Discovery Institute, became a force behind creationists' bogus "teach the controversy" strategy. Santorum wrote in 2002 that "Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes." Scientists and courts disagree.

Michael B. Keegan: Rick Santorum: The Hapless Holy Warrior Starts Another Crusade

The Hapless Holy Warrior, indeed.

The only hapless one is you, who cannot understand something without it being spoon fed to you on the HuffPoo
 
I haven't made any claims, genius. You have.

You claimed he changed he might have changed his views. All I have done was claim he was a homophobe in 2003, and extrapolated from that the fact that he could be a homophobe now. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I made no such claim.

People can change. We hear that all the time when Robert Byrd is being discussed.
To which you replied:
Santorum hasn't changed. He has never recanted any of the statements that he made.
You made a claim which you have never backed up. Recent quotes will do nicely.

You are not worth my time anymore. I don't have to prove that Santorum hasn't changed. Do I have to prove that the sky where I live isn't red? No, I don't.

I hate to do this, but welcome to my ignore list.
 
Do you have any proof for that assertion?

Do you mean other than the proof I've already posted?

Do you post on other fora? Is that where you posted this proof? Because you've posted nothing of the kind in this thread.

"If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right."

Santorum says that if NY doesn't want laws against sodomy, it's the states right, BUT, he would NOT agree with a state not having laws against sodomy.

That means he is FOR having laws against sodomy.

Santorum’s AP interview
 
"If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right."

Wrong.

The people of a given state do not have the authority to deny others their civil rights. One’s rights are not subject to popular vote.
 
"If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right."
Wrong.

The people of a given state do not have the authority to deny others their civil rights. One’s rights are not subject to popular vote.
"Civil Rights"? How so?
I didn't know I had the 'right' to a blowjob.
I'm going to have to let my wife know about this one
:eusa_hand:
 
"If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right."
Wrong.

The people of a given state do not have the authority to deny others their civil rights. One’s rights are not subject to popular vote.
"Civil Rights"? How so?
I didn't know I had the 'right' to a blowjob.
I'm going to have to let my wife know about this one
:eusa_hand:

How is getting a blowjob the same as marrying somebody of the same sex?

If you don't support gay marriage legislation, then you aren't a conservative.
 
The issue is about equal access to marriage laws, by anyone who wishes to marry – to enter into a legal, binding contract with someone else, recognized by the state and other states per FFC.

This issue is not about creating ‘new rights,’ or civil unions, or irrelevant religious dogma concerning same sex couples.

The 14th Amendment is abundantly clear on the issue:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Amendment indicates No State may ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ that includes marriage law.
 
You claimed he changed he might have changed his views. All I have done was claim he was a homophobe in 2003, and extrapolated from that the fact that he could be a homophobe now. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I made no such claim.

To which you replied:
Santorum hasn't changed. He has never recanted any of the statements that he made.
You made a claim which you have never backed up. Recent quotes will do nicely.

You are not worth my time anymore. I don't have to prove that Santorum hasn't changed.
You do when that's the claim you've made.
Do I have to prove that the sky where I live isn't red? No, I don't.
You do when that's the claim you've made.
I hate to do this, but welcome to my ignore list.
Typical response from someone unable or unwilling to back up his claim.
 
Last edited:
"If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right."

Wrong.

The people of a given state do not have the authority to deny others their civil rights. One’s rights are not subject to popular vote.

Wrong.
There is no civil right to sodomy. There is no civil right to an abortion. That is exactly Santorum's point.
 
"If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right."

Wrong.

The people of a given state do not have the authority to deny others their civil rights. One’s rights are not subject to popular vote.

Wrong.
There is no civil right to sodomy. There is no civil right to an abortion. That is exactly Santorum's point.

Why is there no civil right to sodomy?
 
15th post
"If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right."

Wrong.

The people of a given state do not have the authority to deny others their civil rights. One’s rights are not subject to popular vote.

Wrong.
There is no civil right to sodomy. There is no civil right to an abortion. That is exactly Santorum's point.

That might be Santorum's personal opinion, but the Court's legal opinion disagrees with him. The Court has recognized rights to 'sodomy' and to abortion.
 
"If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right."

Wrong.

The people of a given state do not have the authority to deny others their civil rights. One’s rights are not subject to popular vote.

Wrong.
There is no civil right to sodomy. There is no civil right to an abortion. That is exactly Santorum's point.

Santorum was saying he wouldn't agree with New York legalizing sodomy, which means that he supports sodomy being illegal.

Thus he does support the criminalization of sodomy.
 
The issue is about equal access to marriage laws, by anyone who wishes to marry – to enter into a legal, binding contract with someone else, recognized by the state and other states per FFC.

This issue is not about creating ‘new rights,’ or civil unions, or irrelevant religious dogma concerning same sex couples.

The 14th Amendment is abundantly clear on the issue:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Amendment indicates No State may ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ that includes marriage law.

Gays have exactly the same access to marriage as anyone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom