Some thoughts on Santorum's comments

[Ilmater]

I agree with what Santorum said, though I disagree with the sodomy law. Here's a more detailed opinion that I think is extremely valid:

Link

 

[RyanM]

They TOTAL freaking irony of the whole thing is that taken OUT of context, his opinion is total valid. But taken in context, he's a freaking idiot.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Same sex relationships aren't exactly pro-family (biologically at least), but there should never be any legislation against two grown consensual men who are just after their pursuit of happiness. I'm not going to love my wife any less some day because there are men who are married somewhere. Rights to adopt? I don't know, I haven't given that one a whole lot of thought. I'm sure Santorum's comments are taken out of context, but if he believes in legislating against homosexuality, than I wouldn't support him.

 

[Bulk Beef]

And on that note...

 

[Ilmater]

I agree with ConclamoLudus, but there's nothing in that statement that says he's for the law. He's absolutely right that if privacy extended to the bedroom, all of those things would, technically, be legal. Period. There is no debate about it. The law that makes consentual sodomy between two, grown men a crime is the law that needs to be changed.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: sward666
And on that note...

He makes an especially good point here:

"To suggest that my comments, which are the law of the land and were the reason the Supreme Court decided the case in 1986, are somehow intolerant, I would just argue that it is not," Santorum said.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I agree with ConclamoLudus, but there's nothing in that statement that says he's for the law. He's absolutely right that if privacy extended to the bedroom, all of those things would, technically, be legal. Period. There is no debate about it. The law that makes consentual sodomy between two, grown men a crime is the law that needs to be changed.

Actually, if you read the text of the interview, he does appear to be in favor of laws restricting things like homosexuality. He seems to feel that we have too much personal freedom and it needs to be reigned in as gay people are somehow undermining the social fabric of America. The following bit illustrates this.

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Rights to adopt? I don't know, I haven't given that one a whole lot of thought.

The way I look at it, atleast in terms of adoption is this. The American family unit has gone to $hit. We as a society accept divorce as being almost normal, something that is expected. Almost half of all marriages in the US end in divorce. Add unmarried, single parents to the equation and the result is the absolute dissolution of the American family unit. I think a lot of conservatives can agree with me on that much. So my point is, if a gay couple can provide a child with a secure home, where they are loved by two parents, where there is someone waiting for them when they come home from school, where they have unconditional love, why not? I don't think the child would become gay just because his or her parents are. If they are responsible, they will show the kid that he or she is not expected to emulate their lifestyle. I say better two gay parents that can teach a kid strong values and bring him or her up to be a good person than a single straight person who is a bad parent.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I agree with ConclamoLudus, but there's nothing in that statement that says he's for the law. He's absolutely right that if privacy extended to the bedroom, all of those things would, technically, be legal. Period. There is no debate about it. The law that makes consentual sodomy between two, grown men a crime is the law that needs to be changed.

Actually, if you read the text of the interview, he does appear to be in favor of laws restricting things like homosexuality. He seems to feel that we have too much personal freedom and it needs to be reigned in as gay people are somehow undermining the social fabric of America. The following bit illustrates this.

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

While I think he's wrong in his views of sodomy, he is talking about something that is still considered illegal. If we really think sodomy is ok, then it should be legalized. Complaining about this is like complaining about people criticising marijuana smokers.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Rights to adopt? I don't know, I haven't given that one a whole lot of thought.

The way I look at it, atleast in terms of adoption is this. The American family unit has gone to $hit. We as a society accept divorce as being almost normal, something that is expected. Almost half of all marriages in the US end in divorce. Add unmarried, single parents to the equation and the result is the absolute dissolution of the American family unit. I think a lot of conservatives can agree with me on that much. So my point is, if a gay couple can provide a child with a secure home, where they are loved by two parents, where there is someone waiting for them when they come home from school, where they have unconditional love, why not? I don't think the child would become gay just because his or her parents are. If they are responsible, they will show the kid that he or she is not expected to emulate their lifestyle. I say better two gay parents that can teach a kid strong values and bring him or her up to be a good person than a single straight person who is a bad parent.

I would unfortunately agree that two gay parents aren't NEARLY the worst thing a child could have growing up. Its a touchy subject though. Sadly, and this is just the way society acts, this child would be harassed throughout their childhood and well into their teenage years, and at a young age wouldn't understand why? There's all kinds of arguments about that. But then again, there's nothing in our constitution that guarantees children won't harass one another while they are growing up.

A very close friend of mine's father came out of the closet and divorced his mother while he was a Freshman in High School. Needless to say, there are some issues in the family...That was about 10 years ago.

 

[Insane3D]

The problem here is gay marriage and sodomy laws are two totally different things. He said the one would lead to the other, which seems to be a bit off base in my opinion. Gay marriage is a touchy issue because it involves things like special rights and privleges that married couples get, and that marriage is a legally recognized institution. He argues that if you repel sodomy laws, you open the door to getting gay marriages approved, and I disagree. There are many states right now that do not have sodomy laws on the books, and conversly don't recognize gay marriage. IMO, to argue one will result from the other is false. Sodomy laws, plain and simple, tell Americans what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own home. The government has no place to tell us what we can and can't do in our bedrooms, unless minors are involved. To have a law on the books that, while unlikely, could have police come into someone's bedroom and arrest consenting adults for simply doing what they both want is unconstitutional, and ridiculous IMO.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
The problem here is gay marriage and sodomy laws are two totally different things. He said the one would lead to the other, which seems to be a bit off base in my opinion. Gay marriage is a touchy issue because it involves things like special rights and privleges that married couples get, and that marriage is a legally recognized institution. He argues that if you repel sodomy laws, you open the door to getting gay marriages approved, and I disagree. There are many states right now that do not have sodomy laws on the books, and conversly don't recognize gay marriage. IMO, to argue one will result from the other is false. Sodomy laws, plain and simple, tell Americans what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own home. The government has no place to tell us what we can and can't do in our bedrooms, unless minors are involved. To have a law on the books that, while unlikely, could have police come into someone's bedroom and arrest consenting adults for simply doing what they both want is unconstitutional, and ridiculous IMO.

I agree.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
The problem here is gay marriage and sodomy laws are two totally different things. He said the one would lead to the other, which seems to be a bit off base in my opinion. Gay marriage is a touchy issue because it involves things like special rights and privleges that married couples get, and that marriage is a legally recognized institution. He argues that if you repel sodomy laws, you open the door to getting gay marriages approved, and I disagree. There are many states right now that do not have sodomy laws on the books, and conversly don't recognize gay marriage. IMO, to argue one will result from the other is false. Sodomy laws, plain and simple, tell Americans what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own home. The government has no place to tell us what we can and can't do in our bedrooms, unless minors are involved. To have a law on the books that, while unlikely, could have police come into someone's bedroom and arrest consenting adults for simply doing what they both want is unconstitutional, and ridiculous IMO.

I don't think he's saying that. He's saying that if you say that there should be a law that dictates privacy in the bedroom, then you make all of these other things legal. He's dead right. Now, whether or not the rest of those things should be legal or not is a different debate. You clearly disagree with him on THEIR legality. But that doesn't change the fact that sodomy, incest, polygamy and other things are illegal. He was saying that if one of them is legal because of some implied right to privacy in the bedroom, then all of them MUST, at that point, become legal. Think about what you would say as a lawyer if this case was thrown out because those two men have privacy in the bedroom. Let's say that, as a lawyer, you have to prosecute a polygamist. All his lawyer has to say is, "See, your honor, there is privacy in the bedroom, so if he's with many women, the court isn't allowed to be there or know about it." Case closed.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

I don't think he's saying that. He's saying that if you say that there should be a law that dictates privacy in the bedroom, then you make all of these other things legal. He's dead right.

You're missing the point. 2 men having sex begins and ends in the bedroom. Incest and polygamy do not.

 

[Insane3D]

But that doesn't change the fact that sodomy, incest, polygamy and other things are illegal.

Sodomy is only illegal in certain states...like Texas. In most states, there are no longer any sodomy laws on the books.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Dubya don't 'low no Saddam-izin' here in Tejas.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Rights to adopt? I don't know, I haven't given that one a whole lot of thought.

The way I look at it, atleast in terms of adoption is this. The American family unit has gone to $hit. We as a society accept divorce as being almost normal, something that is expected. Almost half of all marriages in the US end in divorce. Add unmarried, single parents to the equation and the result is the absolute dissolution of the American family unit. I think a lot of conservatives can agree with me on that much. So my point is, if a gay couple can provide a child with a secure home, where they are loved by two parents, where there is someone waiting for them when they come home from school, where they have unconditional love, why not? I don't think the child would become gay just because his or her parents are. If they are responsible, they will show the kid that he or she is not expected to emulate their lifestyle. I say better two gay parents that can teach a kid strong values and bring him or her up to be a good person than a single straight person who is a bad parent.

its not as simple as divorce being easy. women now have more freedom and power which leads to divorce.

solution? barefoot and pregnant.


hehehe

u see, more and more women are becoming highly educated. 60+ % of the bach. degrees are earned by women already. it keeps climbing. esp if they marry early and don't have children, they can easily leave if it turns to sh*t. educated women also probably have loftier expectations in marriage.

they also expect more from marriage, levels of intimacy and sexual fulfillment not expected by previous generations.

solution is to lock people into unhappy marraiges sweet!

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

But that doesn't change the fact that sodomy, incest, polygamy and other things are illegal.

Sodomy is only illegal in certain states...like Texas. In most states, there are no longer any sodomy laws on the books.

I already knew this, but it IS illegal in Texas, which is what I was referring to.

I also want to add that it is a state's right to make sodomy illegal. States frequently make laws based on prevailing morality and they're usually held up at the federal level as a state's right.

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Ilmater

I don't think he's saying that. He's saying that if you say that there should be a law that dictates privacy in the bedroom, then you make all of these other things legal. He's dead right.

You're missing the point. 2 men having sex begins and ends in the bedroom. Incest and polygamy do not.

First off, that is ridiculous. Being gay is a lifestyle. Secondly, as far as I know sodomy laws aren't on the books solely to punish gays, they're also on the books in case someone were to rape someone else and only violate them in this way. Otherwise, it might not be punishable as it doesn't fall under the umbrella of "normal" sex.

No, I'm not missing the point. For the second or third time now, while he may be incorrect in some of the things he says, I'm not defending his arguments there. All I'm saying is that this part of his statement - the one that most people are focusing on - is correct:

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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.

This is all I'm arguing. Read that exact line forgetting all of the other things. THAT is the line I'm referring to.

 

[Insane3D]

I also want to add that it is a state's right to make sodomy illegal. States frequently make laws based on prevailing morality and they're usually held up at the federal level as a state's right.

I disagree. It is not a state's right to tell anyone what they can and can't do in their bedroom. Just because the "prevailing morality" in that state may be against it, doesn't mean the one's that aren't are criminals. There are no victims.

First off, that is ridiculous. Being gay is a lifestyle.

That is your opinion, and not that accurate in my opinion. Let me ask you this if you are so sure being gay is a "lifestyle". I assume you are attracted to women and not men..correct? If you made a decision to, do you really think you could just all of a sudden convince yourself you were attracted to men and not women? What sex you are attracted to is almost purely biological, and can't be changed. These people don't just wake up one day and choose to be gay...

Secondly, as far as I know sodomy laws aren't on the books solely to punish gays, they're also on the books in case someone were to rape someone else and only violate them in this way. Otherwise, it might not be punishable as it doesn't fall under the umbrella of "normal" sex.

Incorrect. If you are raped in that way...it is just that..rape. Sodomy laws are not on the book for that, they are simply on the books to say to people that if they have that type of sex in their bedroom, it is illegal because we (being the state with sodomy laws) think it isn't moral. If you are raped in that way, the person responsable would be charged with rape. Also, I would assume a sodomy law would make it illegal for a consenting man and woman to engage in that type of act as well would it not? A butthole is a butthole is a butthole...

This is all I'm arguing. Read that exact line forgetting all of the other things. THAT is the line I'm referring to.

Let's go over some definitions first...

Bigamy

The criminal offense of marrying one person while still legally married to another.

Polygamy

The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time.

Please tell me what sodomy, or the laws regarding it, have to do with marriage laws? How would getting rid of sodomy laws open the door to these type of marriages if they were repealed? They are totally unrelated.

As far as adultery, I'm not quite sure just how illegal that is. If we threw people in jail because they had an affair, we would have no room in our jails and quite a few of the people who protect sodomy laws would be in there too.

As far as incest goes, I think it should be illegal, but I don't understand how repealing sodomy laws would have any affect on that as well?

 

[przero]

Freedom of speech.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: przero
Freedom of speech.

He can say what he wants, but being an elected official who has a direct hand in the legislative process means he has to live with the consequences.

 

[przero]

We all have to live with the consequences of what we say. Ask Natalie manes.