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

[Lowpro]

Without condoms???!!

But... but... that would spread disease! Robert is against sex that spreads disease. That's why he only approves of lesbian sex. (Yes, it's true. Lesbians have lower incidence of AIDS/HIV than heterosexual people. That must mean it's not just okay, it should be the only legal kind, right Robert?)

I for one welcome that change Tricky. Really, if I put my heterosexual lifestyle sex within their lesbian lifestyle sex, we can split the health problems down the middle (lesbian sex, while healthier, is discriminatory after all )

 

[Lowpro]

Too bad for Ryan White.

He probably got it from a heterosexual who contracted AIDS from heterosexual intercourse (statistically it's FAR more logical that I'd bet your life that it's the case)

Look Robert, you're obviously trying to wrap u AIDS with homosexuals, because of COURSE we want to get rid of AIDS, but YOU seem to want to get rid of AIDS and get rid of homosexuals, because you're lumping them into the same argument.

Again...balls sir...balls. Don't let the facts get in the way of your ideals, right?

 

[AvalonXQ]

As many as want to engage. It's sex. Not sure why anyone would give a **** what other people do with their bodies.

Spouses and children of the person who's going out engaging with others certainly have a reason to care.

Many people oppose promiscuity in the culture because it promotes infidelity. The availability of casual sex wrecks families. I believe Santorum has made this argument and some point.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Spouses and children of the person who's going out engaging with others certainly have a reason to care.

Many people oppose promiscuity in the culture because it promotes infidelity. The availability of casual sex wrecks families. I believe Santorum has made this argument and some point.

Well, that's decidedly not a free-market stance.

 

[Tricky]

Spouses and children of the person who's going out engaging with others certainly have a reason to care.

Many people oppose promiscuity in the culture because it promotes infidelity. The availability of casual sex wrecks families. I believe Santorum has made this argument and some point.

Sometimes it wrecks families and, sometimes polyandrous families are perfectly happy. I'd have to see some hard statistics on the divorce rates of polyandrous couples vs. monogamous (and monoandrous) couples to make such a conclusion. However, even if this is the case, there is still the issue of personal freedom. Many people do many things that "wreck" families. Do you want them all to be illegal? We tried prohibition, you know.

And children still aren't consenting adults. While wrecked families are tragic for children, it is still true that children cannot decide what their parents do. I doubt seriously that you are suggesting they should have such power.

 

[AvalonXQ]

And children still aren't consenting adults. While wrecked families are tragic for children, it is still true that children cannot decide what their parents do. I doubt seriously that you are suggesting they should have such power.

I'll admit that I generally disagree with Santorum in this area. BUT, I'm not sure it's necessarily unreasonable to curtail parents' freedom when it comes to activities that negatively affect their children.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Avalon, I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm genuinely curious--what is the "availability of casual sex->promiscuity->our precious children's lives ruined" argument used against in general? Abortion? Or is it used against contraception or something?

 

[Travis]

Heck if you let the kids decide their parents will never have sex at all. Because what an icky thing to think about!

 

[Tricky]

I'll admit that I generally disagree with Santorum in this area. BUT, I'm not sure it's necessarily unreasonable to curtail parents' freedom when it comes to activities that negatively affect their children.

Which activities? If a parent breaks the law (such as abusing his children or using illegal drugs) something can be done, but what do you do if a child tries to forbid his parent to drink? What if the kid insists that Dad quit his travelling job? Or his dangerous job/hobby? These and other things have the strong potential for negatively affecting their children. There are many tragedies out there, and maybe some could be avoided, but not without seriously trampling individual rights. It makes no logical sense to choose one of these things to regulate and not the others.

 

[RandFan]

Spouses and children of the person who's going out engaging with others certainly have a reason to care.

Many people oppose promiscuity in the culture because it promotes infidelity. The availability of casual sex wrecks families. I believe Santorum has made this argument and some point.

It all comes down to two important points. Relative risk liberty. Driving is one of our most risky behaviors. We could outlaw recreational driving. Gambling, drinking, smoking, skiing, etc. Many of the things we like to do are inherently risky. What do you propose to do about those risks? We know that social stigma is disastrous and we know, thanks to prohibition, that legislating behavior causes more problems than it could ever hope to solve. I'm all for educating people about risks but beyond that, I despise Santorum precisely because he wants me to live in a world of a Christian version of Sharia law. No. Not while I live and breathe.

 

[RandFan]

I'll admit that I generally disagree with Santorum in this area. BUT, I'm not sure it's necessarily unreasonable to curtail parents' freedom when it comes to activities that negatively affect their children.

When Sonny Bono died in a skiing accident it negatively affected his children. When a father and mother die while on a car trip to the beach it negatively effects their children (especially if the children die in that accident). When smoking causes cancer and takes the life of a father or mother it negatively effects the children. When a father loses the family home because of gambling that hurts the children.

It's tragic, but don't give away what is plain and precious for something you can't achieve anyway. Drugs are illegal but it still doesn't keep mothers and fathers from affecting the lives of their children by taking drugs. And Santorum thinks that he can keep people from having sex? Seriously?

Santorum's view of the world is hopelessly and dangerously naive. If we hadn't lived through prohibition and if we didn't have sociological data that education and precaution are better at preventing suffering than legislating behavior I could put up with his brand of totalitarianism. It is his arrogant and willful ignorance that is inexcusable and, IMO, has no place as a candidate for national office. This is America, you are allowed to wallow in ignorance but don't force it on the rest of us. This is also the 21st century for crying in the dark. We actually have social scientists that actually have looked at the facts and age old intuition has been trumped by empirical fact.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Avalon, I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm genuinely curious--what is the "availability of casual sex->promiscuity->our precious children's lives ruined" argument used against in general? Abortion? Or is it used against contraception or something?

In the real world, I've most often heard it used as an argument against homosexuality.

More generally, the argument is about permissable societal attitudes towards sex -- appropriate sexual flaunting, public sexuality, availability of casual sex, etc. For some, contraception and abortion play into that (that is, they contribute to more permissive attitudes towards sex by removing some of the consequences), but not for all.

 

[fishbob]

Africa still has the largest population growth on the planet. Despite having the highest death rate, Africa still maintains the largest growth rate.

Great.
More misery and loss per capita than anywhere else in the rest of the world, thanks again to the kind of social stigma and ignorance Robert and Jude are preaching.

 

[RandFan]

In the real world, I've most often heard it used as an argument against homosexuality.

More generally, the argument is about permissable societal attitudes towards sex -- appropriate sexual flaunting, public sexuality, availability of casual sex, etc. For some, contraception and abortion play into that (that is, they contribute to more permissive attitudes towards sex by removing some of the consequences), but not for all.

When Las Vegas advertises for its casinos then that plays into a permissive attitude toward gambling. When liquor companies advertise their products, when they show people having a good time, they play into permissive attitudes about drinking. One of the riskiest things you can do is get behind the wheel of a car. Yet car companies advertise how easy and comfortable it is to take your family on vacation. That plays into the permissive attitude toward recreational driving by removing some of the consequences.

It's called life.

This isn't Saudi Arabia. We accept that freedom carries risks. There is no evidence that legislation ever effectively prevented people from having sex. Hell, people figured out a way around chastity belts. Let's accept that as humans we have base desires and sometimes make poor choices that sadly affect other people. We often eat too much, drink too much, stay up too late and in general we take inappropriate risks. Okay, yeah, we shouldn't but big brother ISN'T going to help. So, kick him in the nuts and tell him to **** off. Then lets educate and try to encourage each other to be better people and accept that bad things are going to happen and try to mitigate the harm. It's called personal responsibility. Something the GOP just hasn't got a handle on yet.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Poverty explains the birth rate, not sexual mores.

That wasn't a comment on sexual morality just a fun fact. RandFan added that even though we have experienced STD's like AIDS our populations still continue to rise. I believe it was Robert Prey who was insinuating that homosexuality or non-heterosexual behaviors may lead to a rise in STD’s, subsequently RandFan responded with his comment. I then added the fact that Africa has both the largest birth and death rate on the planet. I figured that it could be of some use to the conversation. In other words, I wasn't arguing about sexuality morality. In fact, I wasn't arguing at all.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

In the real world, I've most often heard it used as an argument against homosexuality.

More generally, the argument is about permissable societal attitudes towards sex -- appropriate sexual flaunting, public sexuality, availability of casual sex, etc. For some, contraception and abortion play into that (that is, they contribute to more permissive attitudes towards sex by removing some of the consequences), but not for all.

But if it's applied toward homosexuality, doesn't that imply that if any man is ABLE to go have sex with another man, he's going to? As in they can't control themselves? As in it's not choosing to be gay, which seems to be another staple of the anti-homosexuality argument? That's very confusing to me.

 

[bikerdruid]

You know very well.

yes, but nothing that is exclusively queer sexual acts.
as i said before, there are many queers, myself included, who do not have anal sex.
oral sex is much safer than even vaginal sex, and manual sex is entirely safe.

so just what are you referring to?

 

[L.Y.S.]

There are also straight people who like to engage in anal sex as well, just throwing that out there.

 

[Lowpro]

Spouses and children of the person who's going out engaging with others certainly have a reason to care.

Many people oppose promiscuity in the culture because it promotes infidelity. The availability of casual sex wrecks families. I believe Santorum has made this argument and some point.

It is not the government's job to curtail the health (not even biological health, but the perceived health from the skewed view of the "traditional family") of a family, sorry. And especially sexual promiscuity. The harm is so far indirectly involved that the argument is stupid. DRIVING is far more dangerous, can effectively eliminate the parent (or parents) from the family FAR more than sexual promiscuity EVER could, and yet I got my license at age 16.

Avalon, please explain why your correlation here should be taken more seriously than outlawing casual driving. I'm serious, I'm not taking the piss out of you. I want you to try to develop the argument so that you yourself can see how STUPID it really is.

 

[RandFan]

One more thing...

Santorum's position isn't just hopelessly naive, it's cynically harmful to women. Birth control has liberated women in a way nothing else has. And of course the patriarchy hates that. Santorum would see to it that there would be more unwanted pregnancies. We shouldn't allow Santorum and his ilk to sidetrack us and take our focus from what is really at stake here which is the rights of women to have control over their reproduction. For that reason more than any other Santorum deserves a healthy does of sand to the face.

"...the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.” --Hitchens

If you don't get it then compare nations that ensure women reproductive rights and nations that don't.