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

[Lowpro]

...and manual sex is entirely safe.

Reminded me of this scene:

 

[AvalonXQ]

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.

This argument isn't about absolutes; it's about temptation and sympathy.

So, a married man might be tempted to have sex with a man or a woman not his wife. If such sex is readily available and such behavior is culturally acceptable, then the married man is more likely to give into temptation. If the sex is not readily availabel and/or such behavior is culturally reviled, then the married man might not give into temptation.

The availability and acceptance of sugary processed foods and 3,000-calorie menu options contributes to obesity. The availability and acceptance of cheating on the basis of homosexual identity (be true to yourself!) or oversexed culture (everybody does it!) contributes to marital infidelity.

A culture hostile to family values will have fewer healthy, functioning families.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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.

This is exactly correct. Thank you for expressing it so well.

 

[Lowpro]

This argument isn't about absolutes; it's about temptation and sympathy.

So, a married man might be tempted to have sex with a man or a woman not his wife. If such sex is readily available and such behavior is culturally acceptable, then the married man is more likely to give into temptation. If the sex is not readily available and/or such behavior is culturally reviled, then the married man might not give into temptation.

The availability and acceptance of sugary processed foods and 3,000-calorie menu options contributes to obesity. The availability and acceptance of cheating on the basis of homosexual identity (be true to yourself!) or oversexed culture (everybody does it!) contributes to marital infidelity.

A culture hostile to family values will have fewer healthy, functioning families.

Infidelity doesn't clog arteries -.-

If infidelity caused actual harm beyond hurting someone's feelings really really badly, then maybe it's worth taking it seriously. But what is so damned special about a married man having sex with many women who aren't his wife. Sure it's scummy, but it doesn't do any harm other than people getting pissed off about it, and pissing people off ain't too much of a problem.

But you yourself think it's a problem. That developing a culture of wanton sex is somehow...wrong. Well let me tell you something, some dude who can pork 4 different women every night can STILL raise a child well, can still provide for a family, and can be just as model a citizen and a father if it wasn't for some ridiculous subjugation of a lifestyle in favor of a traditional idea that (while I hasten to put words in your mouth...) you think is fine to manifest in zeitgeist and law. Sorry, but that's just not right for you to do.

You don't know what a healthy family is, and I damn well will tell you that a traditionalist family like the one Santorum worships is not the perfect family. In case you didn't know, families have had problems since the ideas of what a family was existed. It's never had a golden age; that's just romanticism. If you care about what is healthiest for a family, how bout you stop demanding there be a thumb pressed against them to conform in a way in which they just might not be happy. If a family wants to be traditional, a family WILL be traditional, because people enjoy being happy last I checked. If a man wants to be promiscuous and STILL have a family, he can absolutely do it and have a healthy family. I've seen it pulled off.

 

[RandFan]

This argument isn't about absolutes; it's about temptation and sympathy.

I've no idea what this means.

So, a married man might be tempted to have sex with a man or a woman not his wife. If such sex is readily available and such behavior is culturally acceptable, then the married man is more likely to give into temptation. If the sex is not readily availabel and/or such behavior is culturally reviled, then the married man might not give into temptation.

A man might be tempted to gamble, drink or smoke if these things are readily available. So, make it harder to drink, smoke or gamble?

The availability and acceptance of sugary processed foods and 3,000-calorie menu options contributes to obesity. The availability and acceptance of cheating on the basis of homosexual identity (be true to yourself!) or oversexed culture (everybody does it!) contributes to marital infidelity.

Data? What are the risks? Let's look at the facts and not appeal to intuitions.

A culture hostile to family values will have fewer healthy, functioning families.

I'm sorry Avalon but this is a platitude. Allowing gambling, smoking, drinking, eating fattening foods, etc., isn't hostile to "family values".

So, help us advance the discussion? Can you provide us with data?

Start here. The nations with the highest rates of well being, by your logic, would be those who have stringent laws against vice, right? So, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., should be highest, right?

 

[AvalonXQ]

If infidelity caused actual harm beyond hurting someone's feelings really really badly, then maybe it's worth taking it seriously. But what is so damned special about a married man having sex with many women who aren't his wife. Sure it's scummy, but it doesn't do any harm other than people getting pissed off about it, and pissing people off ain't too much of a problem.

Hurting people really really badly isn't worth taking seriously?

Cheating on your spouse isn't actually harmful to a family?

I sincerely hope you're not married.

 

[AvalonXQ]

A man might be tempted to gamble, drink or smoke if these things are readily available. So, make it harder to drink, smoke or gamble?

I'm pretty sure the "family values" folks want to do all of this, yes. Although I've never understood why they don't come down just as hard on unhealthy foods. Maybe because American Christian culture gives food-based gluttony a free pass for some reason.

 

[TheSapient]

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.

So not only is it wrong to support Santorum, it should also be illegal?

 

[RandFan]

I'm pretty sure the "family values" folks want to do all of this, yes. Although I've never understood why they don't come down just as hard on unhealthy foods. Maybe because American Christian culture gives food-based gluttony a free pass for some reason.

You are probably correct.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Nah, that Catholics had their shot in the 60's.

Time to give the Mormons a go.

 

[Lowpro]

Hurting people really really badly isn't worth taking seriously?

It's worth taking seriously, but not by you and definitely not by the government. It's none of their business to define what is healthy for a family when they don't even know what the hell that means, nor do you have any evidence that makes a family worth keeping healthy. If you ACTUALLY believed this, you wouldn't propose a traditional family, you'd say "Do what makes you happiest*" but you aren't. You're saying that it's more important to force people into a traditional family, and that is not always conducive to a good experience. My family is traditional, and I would absolutely condone my father leaving my mother. I also know broken families that are doing fine with the father, the mother, and the children still comminicating, just not living together because they cannot stand each other (The mother is also is a relationship with another man but they won't get married. It's purely a sexual relationship, and they're both HAPPY!)

Cheating on your spouse isn't actually harmful to a family?

Of course it's harmful but it's JUST as harmful if I died, or I just left without cheating. And that's not even THAT HARMFUL. You get more harm if I stuck around and beat my wife or kids because I'm unhappy. You get MORE HARM if the mother can't keep herself happy because I left because SHE'S got problems in the first place.

You want to pin this on cheating?! Maybe I cheated because I'm not happy with my family, but there is NO REASON that because I'm not happy, I cannot be allowed to make myself happy, even at the expense of a "health of the family" I can cheat all I want and still love my kids, my wife, my relationships. I can be absolutely Brady Bunch happy, and not be married either. What I'm saying Avalon is that while YOU think you've determined what makes a family healthy, it isn't going to work for everyone. And if it doesn't work for everyone, you'd be a real bastard to say "screw it, you'll have to deal with it because I feel that I am right enough"

You'll have to deal with other people all the time who don't conform to your ideals. Tough it out, you cannot force it on anyone. And you DAMN well can't try to swindle everyone else into believing you're right too.

I sincerely hope you're not married.

And I sincerely hope you aren't either if you think it's fine to subjugate people who aren't happy due to your ideals.

If you think it's worth defining a traditional marriage as a method to reduce anguish (because the harm isn't even physical at this point) then why do so many traditional families STILL feel anguish? Sorry, but no law can protect you from the human condition known as "feeling bad"

*Kinda has a Constitutional ring to it, doesn't it...

 

[Shalamar]

Why does it seem like that the hard christian right want only bigger government, but want to curb or remove freedoms.

In this case, they want the government to regulate what consenting adults can do in private. Is sex really that icky or bad to them that they want to make sure that no-one has sex, unless it is for procreation only? Do they hate freedom, especially sexual freedom that much?

I am Married. We have no children. We are not planning on having children. We have sex. Hell, we had sex before we were married. Is this a crime we should be punished for?

 

[LashL]

This argument isn't about absolutes; it's about temptation and sympathy.

So, a married man might be tempted to have sex with a man or a woman not his wife. If such sex is readily available and such behavior is culturally acceptable, then the married man is more likely to give into temptation. If the sex is not readily availabel and/or such behavior is culturally reviled, then the married man might not give into temptation.

The availability and acceptance of sugary processed foods and 3,000-calorie menu options contributes to obesity. The availability and acceptance of cheating on the basis of homosexual identity (be true to yourself!) or oversexed culture (everybody does it!) contributes to marital infidelity.

A culture hostile to family values will have fewer healthy, functioning families.

You seem to be assuming that people engaging in sexual activities with people other than their spouses/significant others are "cheating". Are you not aware that consenting adults the world over also engage in sexual activities with people other than their spouses/significant others consensually? Are you not aware that they participate in threesomes and foursomes and moresomes with the full knowledge and consent of their spouses/significant others? I fail to see how anyone is harmed by this.

 

[Ausmerican]

I'm pretty sure the "family values" folks want to do all of this, yes. Although I've never understood why they don't come down just as hard on unhealthy foods. Maybe because American Christian culture gives food-based gluttony a free pass for some reason.

Thanksgiving made gluttony patriotic.

 

[Hawk one]

You seem to be assuming that people engaging in sexual activities with people other than their spouses/significant others are "cheating". Are you not aware that consenting adults the world over also engage in sexual activities with people other than their spouses/significant others consensually? Are you not aware that they participate in threesomes and foursomes and moresomes with the full knowledge and consent of their spouses/significant others? I fail to see how anyone is harmed by this.

Not to mention that in a culture that's less sexually inhibited, actually cheating - that is, someone having sex with someone else than their spouse without that spouse's knowledge and approval - might well go down instead of up. Because the couple will be open to talk and discuss their own sexual emotions and desires, and that in turn will lead to greater sexual compatibility, as well as increased mutual respect.

And then there is the fact that sometimes, that compatibility goes away (what with sexual desires being rather hormonal and physical, and our hormones and bodies not always doing what we expect them to do...) One of the partners may lose their attraction to certain acts that the other wants, or maybe loses the libido altogether. Now, the two "allowed" options here are basically to either break up quickly, or to stick together for other reasons (which often tend to be children). The first one is pretty harsh if the connection is based on more than sex, and the second one has tendencies to lead to an increased resentment between the couple, and the increased misery will then be spread around to people around them. Including the children. Won't the moral high grounders think of the children?!?!?!

So what is the third option? To sit down and discuss if it might not be a better idea that one of the partners get their sexual wants and needs served to elsewhere. To allow for a different sexual partner, but to keep all the other parts of the relationship intact.

Sure, there is definitely a risk of jealousy involved, and both of the partners must reckognise their own feelings about this happening, and be willing to say that this doesn't work after all. However, with discussions based on respect for each other's desires and feelings, it allows for an option that may well end up being the right solution. It's no guarantee that there won't be any resentment built up, but on the other hand there is pretty much a guarantee that resentment will build up if this option's not being discussed.

And -if- the solution works, and thus saves the relationship, then everyone's happy. Including the children, who now has a better chance of their parents not growing hateful towards one another until it blows up in a messy break-up. Or even if they eventually break up anyway, odds are better that it will be on less hostile terms.

Not to mention that if such things are not discussed, then one of the spouses may find someone else to have a sexual relationship anyway, and the worst part of that isn't the act itself, it's that trust has been broken, respect has been betrayed. The worst part of cheating are the lies, and the selfishness that motivates those lies.

So to re-iterate: A sexually open couple will be more likely to respect each other's desires, they will be less likely to actually start cheating on another, and they will be more likely to stay together in a healthy relationship.

So why should we not condone the exploration of this path?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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)...

While you are correct to say the majority of HIV infections have been spread through heterosexual intercourse, less through homosexual acts and illegal IV drug use, Ryan White was infected from hemophiliac blood products collected in the US during the height of the homosexual HIV epidemic here.

Just want to keep to the facts. RP is still spouting a lot of bull here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

So do you have evidence that the "availability of casual sex" can be controlled by government intervention?

I don't like to use the laughing dog anymore but in this case I'm tempted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This argument isn't about absolutes; it's about temptation and sympathy.

So, a married man might be tempted to have sex with a man or a woman not his wife. If such sex is readily available and such behavior is culturally acceptable, then the married man is more likely to give into temptation. If the sex is not readily availabel and/or such behavior is culturally reviled, then the married man might not give into temptation.

The availability and acceptance of sugary processed foods and 3,000-calorie menu options contributes to obesity. The availability and acceptance of cheating on the basis of homosexual identity (be true to yourself!) or oversexed culture (everybody does it!) contributes to marital infidelity.

A culture hostile to family values will have fewer healthy, functioning families.

Geese, what an attitude, the devil Jezabel made him do it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Geese, what an attitude, the devil Jezabel made him do it.

Made it significantly easier to decide to do.

Cheating's not a simple topic. I can understand the desire to live in a society that vilifies cheating rather than glorifying it.

 

[RandFan]

Made it significantly easier to decide to do.

Cheating's not a simple topic. I can understand the desire to live in a society that vilifies cheating rather than glorifying it.

I live in a society that tolerates diversity and is honest enough to admit that humans cheat even when you pretend otherwise. You still haven't explained why the harm from cheating is somehow different than the harm from recreational driving. You also haven't dealt with the real problems of denying women reproductive rights.

In any event, you would do much better in a Muslim nation.