• 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...

tyr_13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you believe there should be no laws regarding sex in privacy? Does that include children? Animals? Incest?
 
AvalonXQ said:
Sorry, but that's factually inaccurate.
Santorum disagrees that there is a Constitutional right to privacy preventing local and state governments from regulating birth control. He would not want any legislation about birth control at the federal level, believing it to be a state issue.
This has been clarified many times, most recently in the New Hampshire debate a few days ago.
There's plenty to dislike about Santorum without misrepresenting his views.
Click to expand...
I haven't followed, but what about regulating any drug use?
Does he believe that is also a states rights issue?
 
Robert Prey said:
So you believe there should be no laws regarding sex in privacy?
Click to expand...
Between consenting adults? No.

Robert Prey said:
Does that include children? Animals? Incest?
Click to expand...
Children are not consenting adults. Animals cannot consent. Incest (between consenting adults) is not illegal in most places, though marrige between siblings often is. But that's a health issue, and highly debatable.

And you forgot Ron Santorum's favorite, polygamy. Personally, I see nothing morally wrong with polygamy between consenting adults, but the legal ramifications are tremendous. You'd need a whole new set of "division of property" laws when one or more spouses wanted out. That's a can of worms it is probably best not to open.
 
Tricky said:
Between consenting adults? No.


Children are not consenting adults. Animals cannot consent. Incest (between consenting adults) is not illegal in most places, though marrige between siblings often is. But that's a health issue, and highly debatable.

And you forgot Ron Santorum's favorite, polygamy. Personally, I see nothing morally wrong with polygamy between consenting adults, but the legal ramifications are tremendous. You'd need a whole new set of "division of property" laws when one or more spouses wanted out. That's a can of worms it is probably best not to open.
Click to expand...

Seems easy enough to understand. I wonder why it's still so hard for the Santorums of this word to grasp this concept.
 
Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's the same with Newt Gingrich telling the narrative that it is bigoted against the Catholic Church when they expect the church's adoption agencies to accept gay parents, or saying pharmacists should be able to deny dispensing medications they find morally objectionable. The Catholic Church even broke its association with a hospital because the hospital performed an abortion to save the life of the mother.

Think about it, these extremists believe the mother and infant should have been left to both die as part of God's will or a test of faith that God would save them in the end perhaps.

If you can't treat potentially good parents equally because you don't like a particular difference in belief, does the Catholic church allow Hindus to adopt, or atheists? Where do you draw the line?

Well in this society, we drew it long ago, minorities have rights. And if you don't like someone's behavior, we are not a Ron Paul Libertarian society, you don't get to treat people in certain commercial transactions (including an adoption agency) based on your personal bigoted beliefs. And it is the Catholic Church that needs to get out of the adoption business, they are the bigots, not the other way around.

Of course when you give biased people a narrative they can rationalize by, they will. This baloney we are somehow giving gays "special" rights as opposed to "equal" rights easily sells.
 
Robert Prey said:
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."
Click to expand...
Where did you pick up that nonsensical narrative we don't grant "group" rights? Ever hear of the EEOC?
Overview
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
Click to expand...

If the individual is a member of the group, you can't discriminate. You have a bizarre way of twisting the world to fit a strange reality.
 
There are people who just think differently about these things, yeah duh, but I'm not sure how or if there is even a way to negotiate a middle ground.

My favorite example is the debate I had with someone about tolerance. I was accused of being a hypocrite because i was not tolerant of their intolerance. To them, it was an aha moment which ended the discussion in their favor.
 
AvalonXQ said:
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.
Click to expand...

That whole states rights thing is another excuse to pretend the right wing is for small government. How stupid we should be better off as a loosely united 50 countries. Garbage.
 
DavidJames said:
There are people who just think differently about these things, yeah duh, but I'm not sure how or if there is even a way to negotiate a middle ground.

My favorite example is the debate I had with someone about tolerance. I was accused of being a hypocrite because i was not tolerant of their intolerance. To them, it was an aha moment which ended the discussion in their favor.
Click to expand...
I totally agree that people are sincerely viewing the world differently.

That's why I try to look at how people are explaining their beliefs and not just look at the difference in beliefs. If you ask Santorum why he thinks it's not OK for gays to marry but it is OK for atheists to marry, his rationale falls apart. I'm sure I can find some 'sin' that atheists regularly commit, like not keeping the Sabbath Holy. So why is it OK if an atheist marries?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I totally agree that people are sincerely viewing the world differently.

That's why I try to look at how people are explaining their beliefs and not just look at the difference in beliefs. If you ask Santorum why he thinks it's not OK for gays to marry but it is OK for atheists to marry, his rationale falls apart. I'm sure I can find some 'sin' that atheists regularly commit, like not keeping the Sabbath Holy. So why is it OK if an atheist marries?
Click to expand...
I think LZ Granderson often writes pretty good stuff. His most recent piece is germane and a good read.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's the same with Newt Gingrich telling the narrative that it is bigoted against the Catholic Church when they expect the church's adoption agencies to accept gay parents, or saying pharmacists should be able to deny dispensing medications they find morally objectionable. The Catholic Church even broke its association with a hospital because the hospital performed an abortion to save the life of the mother.

Think about it, these extremists believe the mother and infant should have been left to both die as part of God's will or a test of faith that God would save them in the end perhaps.

If you can't treat potentially good parents equally because you don't like a particular difference in belief, does the Catholic church allow Hindus to adopt, or atheists? Where do you draw the line?

Well in this society, we drew it long ago, minorities have rights. And if you don't like someone's behavior, we are not a Ron Paul Libertarian society, you don't get to treat people in certain commercial transactions (including an adoption agency) based on your personal bigoted beliefs. And it is the Catholic Church that needs to get out of the adoption business, they are the bigots, not the other way around.

Of course when you give biased people a narrative they can rationalize by, they will. This baloney we are somehow giving gays "special" rights as opposed to "equal" rights easily sells.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that it is bigotted to ask the Catholic Church adoption agencies to accept gay parents. But why is it wrong for a Catholic adoption agency to try to place the children in homes that match their beliefs. If a pregnant Catholic girl is looking for a catholic family to raise her child is that wrong?

I have five adopted children and I can attest that sometimes the "birth mother" (for want of a better word) is very specific in what she is looking for in prospective adoptive parents.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I don't agree that it is bigotted to ask the Catholic Church adoption agencies to accept gay parents. But why is it wrong for a Catholic adoption agency to try to place the children in homes that match their beliefs. If a pregnant Catholic girl is looking for a catholic family to raise her child is that wrong?
Click to expand...
It is not wrong to have a gut feeling that way, but it is wrong to try to bring it about. It is unfair to the child to restrict the adoption of the child based on a belief that the child does not share. It is unfair to parents who are waiting for a child and there is one available, but the adoption agency tells them, "Sorry, you're not Catholic". It is wrong to try to manipulate the beliefs of a child that you have released responsibility for. And it is selfish.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I don't agree that it is bigotted to ask the Catholic Church adoption agencies to accept gay parents. But why is it wrong for a Catholic adoption agency to try to place the children in homes that match their beliefs. If a pregnant Catholic girl is looking for a catholic family to raise her child is that wrong?

I have five adopted children and I can attest that sometimes the "birth mother" (for want of a better word) is very specific in what she is looking for in prospective adoptive parents.
Click to expand...
If these adoption agencies only dealt with Catholic mothers you would have a point. That is not the case, just like Catholic hospitals don't just treat Catholic patients.

Catholic Charities Adoption; "about"
Catholic Charities USA's members provide help and create hope for more than 7.8 million people of all faiths each year.
Click to expand...
 
Tricky said:
It is not wrong to have a gut feeling that way, but it is wrong to try to bring it about. It is unfair to the child to restrict the adoption of the child based on a belief that the child does not share. It is unfair to parents who are waiting for a child and there is one available, but the adoption agency tells them, "Sorry, you're not Catholic". It is wrong to try to manipulate the beliefs of a child that you have released responsibility for. And it is selfish.
Click to expand...
I see no reason a mother giving up an infant for adoption shouldn't have a say in who adopts the child. But when the agency restricts parents for religious reasons rather than parenting reasons it is wrong.
 
Tricky said:
It is not wrong to have a gut feeling that way, but it is wrong to try to bring it about. It is unfair to the child to restrict the adoption of the child based on a belief that the child does not share. It is unfair to parents who are waiting for a child and there is one available, but the adoption agency tells them, "Sorry, you're not Catholic". It is wrong to try to manipulate the beliefs of a child that you have released responsibility for. And it is selfish.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is selfish to try to get what you believe is the best for your child. Sometimes that is a determining factor in "releasing responsibility" .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom