• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

Upchurch said:
So, he has no problem with homosexuals so long as they never act like homosexuals and believes that it would be proper for society to make it illegal for homosexuals to act homosexual. How is that not prejudice against homosexuals?
Click to expand...

Because it would also be illegal for heterosexuals to act homosexual. See? Equality for all. :cool:
 
Homosexual acts aren't a people after all...I wonder what homosexual businesses are considered...
 
Last edited:
More:

  • Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
  • Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
  • Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
  • Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Click to expand...
 
Robert Prey said:
I think we can agree that you'd like to change the subject from racism to something else. But I doubt if you can find any evidence of "prejudice" against homosexuals either.
Click to expand...
He has no problem with states' banning homosexual acts. Alabama and Texas would, in his mind, be free to make any homosexual act a felony if they so choose.
 
Keep in mind that he isn't just talking about homosexual acts. He said, "acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships." Knowing that he defines those acts as procreative sex, that means he would also outlaw most forms of contraception, manual sex, oral sex, and heterosexual anal sex. I wonder where masturbation would fall.
 
TheSapient said:
Can you explain how this is NOT racist?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...a-abortion-stance-remarkable-for-a-black-man/
Click to expand...

If Santorum were black, he might get away with it. Obama does. (sez R.P.) ;)

Robert Prey said:
Oh, [Obama] is getting away with a ton of stuff a white president would not get away with.
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
I don't think so. But why beat a dead horse? Obama has won the birther issue by putting out a highly dubious certificate debunked by numerous experts, But the public is tired of the issue, so why beat a dead horse? Fact is, Donald has repeatedly said he just doesn't know. But we do know that Obama has somehow shielded all of his academic records from public scrutiny. And he gets away with it. Why? Because he is Black? (or sort of Black, uh somewhat).
Click to expand...
 
tyr_13 said:
Keep in mind that he isn't just talking about homosexual acts. He said, "acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships." Knowing that he defines those acts as procreative sex, that means he would also outlaw most forms of contraception, manual sex, oral sex, and heterosexual anal sex. I wonder where masturbation would fall.
Click to expand...

No Kama Sutra?
 
Upchurch said:
Too easy:

So, he has no problem with homosexuals so long as they never act like homosexuals and believes that it would be proper for society to make it illegal for homosexuals to act homosexual. How is that not prejudice against homosexuals?
Click to expand...

Because RP thinks it´s prejudice in favor of homosexuals?
 
Chaos said:
Because RP thinks it´s prejudice in favor of homosexuals?
Click to expand...

Y'know, I've actually run into this recently on a Facebook discussion.

I have a surprising number of childhood and collage friends who have become religious leaders of various flavors. One is a super fundamentalist Biblical literalist type. He and a small number of his church-goers did their best to convince me that discriminating and persecuting gays was actually expressing love for them. Apparently, you have to treat people like crap in this life so they will be happy in the next, or some such BS.
 
Walter Ego said:
TheSapient said:
Can you explain how this is NOT racist?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/rick-santorum-obama-abortion-stance-remarkable-for-a-black-man/
Click to expand...

If Santorum were black, he might get away with it. Obama does. (sez R.P.) ;)

Robert Prey said:
Oh, [Obama] is getting away with a ton of stuff a white president would not get away with.
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
I don't think so. But why beat a dead horse? Obama has won the birther issue by putting out a highly dubious certificate debunked by numerous experts, But the public is tired of the issue, so why beat a dead horse? Fact is, Donald has repeatedly said he just doesn't know. But we do know that Obama has somehow shielded all of his academic records from public scrutiny. And he gets away with it. Why? Because he is Black? (or sort of Black, uh somewhat).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Oh, RP is a hoot. He reminds me a bit of my dear old dad, who once, with a straight face, made one of the most self-defining statements ever:
"Every time you turn around some damn {n-word} is screaming 'racist'."

If he were alive and on these boards, I'd nominate him for the pith award.
 
Upchurch said:
More:
Click to expand...


Nothing racist or discriminatory about any of that. Under our Constitution, there is no such a thing as "group rights" only individual rights. "Group Rights" amounts to discrimination, or rather reverse discrimination. One might justly accuse such people of being "Heterophobes."
 
Upchurch said:
Too easy:

So, he has no problem with homosexuals so long as they never act like homosexuals and believes that it would be proper for society to make it illegal for homosexuals to act homosexual. How is that not prejudice against homosexuals?
Click to expand...

I don't see you point at all. RS has stated he is against laws that violate privacy, but as a Constitutionalist, believes that laws regarding sex are the province of the States.
 
Robert Prey said:
I don't see you point at all. RS has stated he is against laws that violate privacy, but as a Constitutionalist, believes that laws regarding sex are the province of the States.
Click to expand...

That's a disingenuous oversimplification of what he says. He also believes the state should have laws that violate privacy in order to regulate sex acts. Now that's not how he worded it, but it is what he said.
 
Robert Prey said:
I don't see you point at all. RS has stated he is against laws that violate privacy, but as a Constitutionalist, believes that laws regarding sex are the province of the States.
Click to expand...

Laws regarding sex acts in private are laws invading privacy. You have now stipulated absolutely that Santorum hates privacy.
 
jj said:
Laws regarding sex acts in private are laws invading privacy. You have now stipulated absolutely that Santorum hates privacy.
Click to expand...

He certainly did not.
As I understand it, Santorum does not believe there is a Constitutionally-protected right to privacy. He does not believe that there should be federal laws that either protect and violate privacy. He has also stated that he would not support State laws that violate privacy, but believes it's a state law issue.

Believing that a certain area is a state law issue is not the same as endorsing a certain viewpoint in that area. I believe that "crimes against person and property" is a state law issue -- each state defines crimes like assault, robbery, burglary, and murder. I believe this is as it should be, and would not support a federal law attempting to define for the whole country what is or isn't manslaughter. That doesn't mean I'm pro-manslaughter or pro-theft just because I don't believe it's the federal government's job to make laws about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom