Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rick Santorum's Homophobia

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 12:53:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We all know that like many people, Rick Santorum is against gay marriage, but his views actually go much further than that.

"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."
http://www.foxnews.com...

Santorum is in favor of allowing the states to bring back anti-sodomy laws.

Here is the full quote:

"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."

So not only does he support the right of states to institute anti-gay laws, he also defends the practice.

Here is another quote:

"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right," Santorum said. "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world."
http://www.lonerepublic.com...
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 1:17:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Probably should go to the politics section, but oh well.

I am a social conservative and I disagree with the idea of bringing back sodomy laws. It is a worthless exercise anyways. It will never pass. And while I think homosexuality is immoral, I do not think the government should interfere in the private rights of citizens.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 11:57:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 1:17:59 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Probably should go to the politics section, but oh well.

I am a social conservative and I disagree with the idea of bringing back sodomy laws. It is a worthless exercise anyways. It will never pass. And while I think homosexuality is immoral, I do not think the government should interfere in the private rights of citizens.

Thanks for your opinion. While I am not a social conservative, I would like social conservatives to understand that Santorum is not just a social conservative. He is much more radical than that.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 12:48:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The only danger of "destroying the basic unit of society" is moronic behaviour by people in charge. I can't believe this guy gets votes in a western democratic republic.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 1:08:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 12:53:34 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
We all know that like many people, Rick Santorum is against gay marriage, but his views actually go much further than that.
Nothing wrong with being against gay marriage it's like being against square circles.

"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."
So you are in favor of bigamy, polygamy, incest, child sex?

Santorum is in favor of allowing the states to bring back anti-sodomy laws.
Don't see a problem with that. It's not like it stopped people from buggering bung holes before.

So not only does he support the right of states to institute anti-gay laws, he also defends the practice.
The laws don't say anything about gays and last I checked, women have bung holes too. Fail. Anti sodomy laws were rarely enforced and served the purpose of setting a moral standard.

You have failed to show that Santorum is afraid of homosexuals and that anti sodomy laws are anti gay.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 1:58:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 12:48:36 PM, unitedandy wrote:
The only danger of "destroying the basic unit of society" is moronic behaviour by people in charge. I can't believe this guy gets votes in a western democratic republic.

Luckily, he's not actually electable. He's just around to make Mitt Romney look like a somewhat reasonable candidate.
Debate.org Moderator
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:22:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution:

Well, Ricky, let's just take a look at the Constitution. 3rd Amendment states that soldiers cannot commandier one's home. Why? Because it's an invasion of privacy. 4th Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. Why? Because of your right to privacy. 5th Amendment protects you from self-incrimination. Why? Because you have a right to your privacy. Why ELSE would those laws be on the books if privacy was not the preeminent stance?

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.:

Wow, this is the most dangerous man in America right now when it comes to civil liberties and the Constitution in general.

"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right," Santorum said. "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.":

Those CRAZY libertarians and their WELL-SUPPORTED Constitutional outlook running amok again!

That's EXACTLY how traditional conservatives view the world. Santorum is a NEO-conservative (neo meaning NEW). These notions of trampeling the Constitution underfoot is certainly not the stance of any Republican until after "Mr. Conservative" Barry Goldwater was defeated.

This guy is the absolute worst of the worst when it comes to Republican nominees. He embodies everything that went wrong in the Republican party, and he wants to rewrite history to boot. This is why mass droves of people defected from the party, because the party lost its way.

This man is an idiot.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:30:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:22:14 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution:

Well, Ricky, let's just take a look at the Constitution. 3rd Amendment states that soldiers cannot commandier one's home. Why? Because it's an invasion of privacy. 4th Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. Why? Because of your right to privacy. 5th Amendment protects you from self-incrimination. Why? Because you have a right to your privacy. Why ELSE would those laws be on the books if privacy was not the preeminent stance?

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.:

Wow, this is the most dangerous man in America right now when it comes to civil liberties and the Constitution in general.

"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right," Santorum said. "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.":

Those CRAZY libertarians and their WELL-SUPPORTED Constitutional outlook running amok again!

That's EXACTLY how traditional conservatives view the world. Santorum is a NEO-conservative (neo meaning NEW). These notions of trampeling the Constitution underfoot is certainly not the stance of any Republican until after "Mr. Conservative" Barry Goldwater was defeated.

This guy is the absolute worst of the worst when it comes to Republican nominees. He embodies everything that went wrong in the Republican party, and he wants to rewrite history to boot. This is why mass droves of people defected from the party, because the party lost its way.

This man is an idiot.

THE THREAD HAS NOW BEEN WON, GOOD DAY TO YOU ALL.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:34:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 1:08:15 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
"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."
So you are in favor of bigamy, polygamy, incest, child sex?

Well, remember, Santorum is not just against gay marriage, he in favour of laws banning gay sex.

I don't see how gay sex is comparable to incest and child sex. Gay sex is not harmful to any of the participants, incest and child sex are.

Non-official polygamy is not illegal. You can choose to have a relationship with multiple women if you choose.

Santorum is in favor of allowing the states to bring back anti-sodomy laws.
Don't see a problem with that. It's not like it stopped people from buggering bung holes before.

Why don't you see a problem with that?

So not only does he support the right of states to institute anti-gay laws, he also defends the practice.
The laws don't say anything about gays and last I checked, women have bung holes too. Fail. Anti sodomy laws were rarely enforced and served the purpose of setting a moral standard.

Who says the government has the right to force people to be moral? Doesn't that take away free will? Isn't that just too much power to give to the government? Don't you think they might misuse their power? Doesn't that trample over people's personal freedoms? And who will get to decide what is right and wrong?

You have failed to show that Santorum is afraid of homosexuals and that anti sodomy laws are anti gay.

Sodomy refers to non-penile/vaginal copulation acts. That is gay sex right there.

I never claimed that Santorum is afraid of Homosexuals.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:34:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
THE THREAD HAS NOW BEEN WON, GOOD DAY TO YOU ALL.:

Indeed. And to Rick, I say....
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:38:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Who says the government has the right to force people to be moral? Doesn't that take away free will? Isn't that just too much power to give to the government? Don't you think they might misuse their power? Doesn't that trample over people's personal freedoms? And who will get to decide what is right and wrong?:

It's really quite comical to see the hypocrisy in action. This is the kind of guy who has no compunction in calling the USSR, North Korea, and Iran "evil" countries because their governments enforces its own moral code. But he can't make the connection that he wants to implement the same draconian policies.

What a piece of sh*t. F*ck Santorum in the face with a gigantic, homosexual c*ck.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:39:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even though I dislike Santorum as a citizen, as someone interested in political philosophy, I think he poses needed challenges to our society.

Some people think homosexuality is immoral, others don't. What do you do? The one's who think it is immoral cannot sit by idly and let others partake in it, because well, that would make them complicit in the act.

It raises the classic problem, how do you create a society of free citizens when they are profoundly divided by incompatible religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines? The answer: you can't. The fact that Santorum blatantly accepts that is, I think, something good about him. The idea of "tolerance" is simply unsustainable. Religious and moral truths are POSSIBLY right. And those who believe them believe they are right. You can't argue with that. I don't think he's the idiot liberals think he is.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:43:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I hate to defend Rick Santorum in any way, but his attack on sodomy laws actually pretty accurately depicts Scalia and Thomas' dissents in Lawrence v. Texas.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:47:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:43:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
I hate to defend Rick Santorum in any way, but his attack on sodomy laws actually pretty accurately depicts Scalia and Thomas' dissents in Lawrence v. Texas.

Yea that's what I've been trying to tell people. Santorum's views are well within academic and the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:48:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:39:47 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
Even though I dislike Santorum as a citizen, as someone interested in political philosophy, I think he poses needed challenges to our society.

Some people think homosexuality is immoral, others don't. What do you do? The one's who think it is immoral cannot sit by idly and let others partake in it, because well, that would make them complicit in the act.

It raises the classic problem, how do you create a society of free citizens when they are profoundly divided by incompatible religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines? The answer: you can't. The fact that Santorum blatantly accepts that is, I think, something good about him. The idea of "tolerance" is simply unsustainable. Religious and moral truths are POSSIBLY right. And those who believe them believe they are right. You can't argue with that. I don't think he's the idiot liberals think he is.

Actually we have created such a society. Its called the United States of America.

I don't see any reason to consider homosexuality to be immoral. And just because you let others partake in private acts that you disagree with does not mean you are complicit, it means you are civilize.

So do you think the government should keep people from smoking, gambling, buying gas guzzlers, spending too much, eating too much, not exercising enough, divorcing, etc.

And by the way, Jesus was against divorce. Just thought you might want to know.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:54:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:48:01 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/27/2012 2:39:47 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
Even though I dislike Santorum as a citizen, as someone interested in political philosophy, I think he poses needed challenges to our society.

Some people think homosexuality is immoral, others don't. What do you do? The one's who think it is immoral cannot sit by idly and let others partake in it, because well, that would make them complicit in the act.

It raises the classic problem, how do you create a society of free citizens when they are profoundly divided by incompatible religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines? The answer: you can't. The fact that Santorum blatantly accepts that is, I think, something good about him. The idea of "tolerance" is simply unsustainable. Religious and moral truths are POSSIBLY right. And those who believe them believe they are right. You can't argue with that. I don't think he's the idiot liberals think he is.

Actually we have created such a society. Its called the United States of America.

I don't see any reason to consider homosexuality to be immoral. And just because you let others partake in private acts that you disagree with does not mean you are complicit, it means you are civilize.

So do you think the government should keep people from smoking, gambling, buying gas guzzlers, spending too much, eating too much, not exercising enough, divorcing, etc.

And by the way, Jesus was against divorce. Just thought you might want to know.

Actually, the United States is not such a society. Such a society is a logical impossibility. Personally, I think the government should not keep people from doing anything. But I recognize that is a philosophical view that conflicts with other views. I'm not here pretending that my view is somehow better because it is tolerant of other views. No, my view is just as intolerant of others as any other view. I accept that as the condition of a just society.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 3:08:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:54:40 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 3/27/2012 2:48:01 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/27/2012 2:39:47 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
Even though I dislike Santorum as a citizen, as someone interested in political philosophy, I think he poses needed challenges to our society.

Some people think homosexuality is immoral, others don't. What do you do? The one's who think it is immoral cannot sit by idly and let others partake in it, because well, that would make them complicit in the act.

It raises the classic problem, how do you create a society of free citizens when they are profoundly divided by incompatible religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines? The answer: you can't. The fact that Santorum blatantly accepts that is, I think, something good about him. The idea of "tolerance" is simply unsustainable. Religious and moral truths are POSSIBLY right. And those who believe them believe they are right. You can't argue with that. I don't think he's the idiot liberals think he is.

Actually we have created such a society. Its called the United States of America.

I don't see any reason to consider homosexuality to be immoral. And just because you let others partake in private acts that you disagree with does not mean you are complicit, it means you are civilize.

So do you think the government should keep people from smoking, gambling, buying gas guzzlers, spending too much, eating too much, not exercising enough, divorcing, etc.

And by the way, Jesus was against divorce. Just thought you might want to know.

Actually, the United States is not such a society. Such a society is a logical impossibility. Personally, I think the government should not keep people from doing anything. But I recognize that is a philosophical view that conflicts with other views. I'm not here pretending that my view is somehow better because it is tolerant of other views. No, my view is just as intolerant of others as any other view. I accept that as the condition of a just society.

America is highly divided on many moral and political issues. Just look at the debates on gay marriage, church and state, abortion, etc.

And there are many societies that are very religiously divided.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

So a nation deeply divided on religion is logically impossible? I guess France does not exist.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 4:13:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:34:06 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/27/2012 1:08:15 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
So you are in favor of bigamy, polygamy, incest, child sex?
I see you didn't answer my question.

Well, remember, Santorum is not just against gay marriage, he in favour of laws banning gay sex.
That's actually incorrect. No where in the law does it mention gay. The only thing that makes any sex "gay sex" is if gays are having it. Ergo, he is not against gay sex, per se.

I don't see how gay sex is comparable to incest and child sex.
I didn't say it was comparable, you just did.

Gay sex is not harmful to any of the participants, incest and child sex are.
That's irrelevant.

Non-official polygamy is not illegal. You can choose to have a relationship with multiple women if you choose.
I didn't ask you if it was illegal, I asked if you were in favor of.

Why don't you see a problem with that?
If certain groups of people want to have high moral standards for their society, I don't see a problem with that.

Who says the government has the right to force people to be moral?
The Constitution.

Doesn't that take away free will?
Not at all. Free will cannot be taken away.

Isn't that just too much power to give to the government?
No, not at all because mostly it is the will of the people and not the government that chooses these things. It's much worse to allow government to control health care, business, etc.

Don't you think they might misuse their power?
They already do, but not in this respect. Like I said it is the will of the people that want to live in a civil society.

Doesn't that trample over people's personal freedoms?
No, not really.

And who will get to decide what is right and wrong?
The same that decide now: the civil society.

Sodomy refers to non-penile/vaginal copulation acts. That is gay sex right there.
That is incorrect. Sodomy is anal sex. Straights can have anal sex as well as gays. All other forms are NOT sodomy. However, some do incorrectly define oral sex as sodomy as well. Regardless, all of these forms are not exclusive to gays; ergo they are not anti gay per se.

I never claimed that Santorum is afraid of Homosexuals.
You said he was a homophobe = FEAR of homosexuals, i.e. afraid of them.

Can you at least answer the questions I posed (like I have answered yours) instead of dodging them? Thanks.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 4:40:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 4:13:46 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I see you didn't answer my question.

I am against those things.

That's actually incorrect. No where in the law does it mention gay. The only thing that makes any sex "gay sex" is if gays are having it. Ergo, he is not against gay sex, per se.

Here is my syllogism.

Rick Santorum is in favor of anti-sodomy laws.
Anti-Sodomy laws ban the main sexual acts gays use.
If sexual acts gays use are banned, gay sex is banned.
Therefore, Anti-Sodomy laws ban gay sex.
Therefore, Rick Santorum is in favor of banning gay sex.

I didn't say it was comparable, you just did.

Where did I say they were comparable?

If certain groups of people want to have high moral standards for their society, I don't see a problem with that.

Wrong, if certain people want high moral standard for themselves, that is ok. If they want to force their moral standards on others then we are back in the middle ages.

The Constitution.

Where?

No, not at all because mostly it is the will of the people and not the government that chooses these things. It's much worse to allow government to control health care, business, etc.

Well what is wrong them with allowing government to control healthcare then? The government is the will of the people right?

They already do, but not in this respect. Like I said it is the will of the people that want to live in a civil society.

Actually it is the will of the people to live in a free society.

No, not really.

A government bureaucrat telling you what you can and cannot do in your own home is not trampling over your personal liberties? Where do you live? Nazi Germany?

The same that decide now: the civil society.

Well you know, this society is becoming less and less Christian every day. And many countries in Europe already view religion as negative because they are so secular. Are you really sure you want them in control of your personal life?

That is incorrect. Sodomy is anal sex. Straights can have anal sex as well as gays. All other forms are NOT sodomy. However, some do incorrectly define oral sex as sodomy as well. Regardless, all of these forms are not exclusive to gays; ergo they are not anti gay per se.

Tell me why anal sex is immoral.

You said he was a homophobe = FEAR of homosexuals, i.e. afraid of them.

Or aversion to homosexuals.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:09:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It raises the classic problem, how do you create a society of free citizens when they are profoundly divided by incompatible religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines? The answer: you can't. The fact that Santorum blatantly accepts that is, I think, something good about him. The idea of "tolerance" is simply unsustainable. Religious and moral truths are POSSIBLY right. And those who believe them believe they are right. You can't argue with that. I don't think he's the idiot liberals think he is.:

So then knowing this there obviously has to be some line of demarcation. He thinks it "harm's society." How? Nobody knows. The arguments are specious at best. The inverse of that is that these sodomy laws are harmful to individuals. To be sure, I say his views are harmful to society, and deeply unAmerican. But, hey, that's just my opinion.

Until someone can reasonably explain why consenting adults can't do what they want in the privacy of their home, there's no earthly reason to lend it any credence.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:43:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
I hate to defend Rick Santorum in any way, but his attack on sodomy laws actually pretty accurately depicts Scalia and Thomas' dissents in Lawrence v. Texas.:

Is the dissenting opinion therefore valid? His moronic stance is that just because there's an expectation of privacy doesn't mean we can start having polygamy and incest. Well, that's interesting. We concurrently cannot murder people in the privacy of our home either. What is necessary to prosecute any crime, is probable cause. So it's an absolutely irrelevant strawman, and if he has a shred of integrity, he would know that. Nobody says that we have to ignore crimes committed in people's homes. What it does mean is that probable cause is necessary to investigate an alleged crime in a home.

Secondly, you heard it straight from his own mouth. Not only does he oppose gay marriage, but he wants to bring back anti-sodomy laws in order to comport American law with levitical law, and thinks that there's no such thing as the right to privacy.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:19:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:47:46 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 3/27/2012 2:43:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
I hate to defend Rick Santorum in any way, but his attack on sodomy laws actually pretty accurately depicts Scalia and Thomas' dissents in Lawrence v. Texas.

Yea that's what I've been trying to tell people. Santorum's views are well within a sophomoric interpretation of the Constitution.:

^fixed^

The guy doesn't think the Constitution supports the right of privacy...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:22:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actually, the United States is not such a society. Such a society is a logical impossibility. Personally, I think the government should not keep people from doing anything. But I recognize that is a philosophical view that conflicts with other views. I'm not here pretending that my view is somehow better because it is tolerant of other views. No, my view is just as intolerant of others as any other view. I accept that as the condition of a just society.:

You do realize that the 1st Amendment was to protect unpopular and often divisive speech, yes? Popular speech is not in need of protection, so obviously the Framers had the forethought to give ear to unpopular opinions.

Nobody said they would create a nation where everyone agreed on all points.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 6:12:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 4:40:24 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
I am against those things.
So you are saying that you are against bigamy, polygamy, incest, child sex. But being against these ALSO allows for freedoms to be taken away from those that are for it. Can you please explain why for each one?

Therefore, Rick Santorum is in favor of banning gay sex.
1) Gays use other sex acts as well.
2) It is for all people gay or straight.
3) These laws are seldom enforced. No one is going to go into your home to see if you are committing sodomy and arrest or fine you. To my knowledge, that's never happened.
4) I seriously doubt Santorum would be able to get any anti sodomy laws passed.

Where did I say they were comparable?
When you made the comparison: "I don't see how gay sex is comparable to incest and child sex. Gay sex is not harmful to any of the participants, incest and child sex are."
Basically, you are the one who brought this comparison up, not I.

Wrong, if certain people want high moral standard for themselves, that is ok. If they want to force their moral standards on others then we are back in the middle ages.
Actually, you're wrong. First of all, the US was founded MUCH later than the Middle Ages, so your comparison is null and void. Secondly, we've had high moral standards in our society and it worked well; much better than now, that's for sure.

Where?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
As opposed to the concocted "right to privacy" which exists NO WHERE in the Constitution.

Well what is wrong them with allowing government to control healthcare then? The government is the will of the people right?
1) Majority of the people do NOT want government health care, ergo the will of the people is not being served.
2) Taking over the health care industry is NOT the proper role of government and a tremendous abuse of power.
3) The current health care law's mandate is unconstitutional.

Actually it is the will of the people to live in a free society.
It is the will of the people to live in a free and CIVIL society. Morality & freedom aren't mutually exclusive.

A government bureaucrat telling you what you can and cannot do in your own home is not trampling over your personal liberties?
You don't have the personal liberty to kill someone in your home; you don't have the personal liberty to have sex with children in your own home, etc. As you can see, the government already has that right. Where do you get the belief that somehow just because you are in your own house you can do anything you want?

Where do you live? Nazi Germany?
Nazi Germany was a National Socialist movement and is more akin to your belief system not mine. They had a national health care system too.

Well you know, this society is becoming less and less Christian every day.
Non sequitur; has nothing to do with what we're talking about. But now that you brought it up, it is the biggest culprit of the moral decay of our society.

And many countries in Europe already view religion as negative because they are so secular.
Sure, but look at them now: they are falling apart economically and morally. Not to mention, that they are less free than we are. Question is for how long if we keep going their way? Not long. However, if you think it's so great in other places...you know what to do.

Are you really sure you want them in control of your personal life?
Anti sodomy laws do not control my personal life anymore than anti rape, anti pedophilia laws do. What does affect my life (personal or otherwise) is all of the regulations and burdens the government places on me and the rest of society.

Tell me why anal sex is immoral.
It is unsanitary, unnatural, vulgar, as well as a sin to many people.

Or aversion to homosexuals.
It's a word made up by the left in an attempt to delegitimize the opposition. He feels that homosexuality is a sin and its legitimization is not constructive to a civil society.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 6:29:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 12:53:34 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
"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."

I'm inclined to agree with him, but at the opposite extreme.
Bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery between consenting adults is not the states business. Why shouldn't a man be allowed to marry 20 women if they all consent to it? Why shouldn't brother and sister be allowed to get their bone on if they consent to it?

It's not about the sanctity of marriage. It's about stupid, irrational hatred of gays.

Mind your own business I say.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 7:47:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 6:12:34 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 3/27/2012 4:40:24 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
I am against those things.
So you are saying that you are against bigamy, polygamy, incest, child sex. But being against these ALSO allows for freedoms to be taken away from those that are for it. Can you please explain why for each one?

Therefore, Rick Santorum is in favor of banning gay sex.
1) Gays use other sex acts as well.
2) It is for all people gay or straight.
3) These laws are seldom enforced. No one is going to go into your home to see if you are committing sodomy and arrest or fine you. To my knowledge, that's never happened.
4) I seriously doubt Santorum would be able to get any anti sodomy laws passed.

Lets be serious here, anal and oral sex are pretty much the main gay sex acts so banning them is pretty much equivalent to banning gay sex. Try telling that to a gay person. "I am banning anal and oral sex which are pretty much all your main sex acts, but don't get me wrong, this is not a ban on gay sex at all."

Of course if vaginal sex was banned you would never think this was a law against heterosexual sex right?

Where did I say they were comparable?
When you made the comparison: "I don't see how gay sex is comparable to incest and child sex. Gay sex is not harmful to any of the participants, incest and child sex are."
Basically, you are the one who brought this comparison up, not I.

Actually I was denying that they were comparable. Great rhetoric, no facts.

Wrong, if certain people want high moral standard for themselves, that is ok. If they want to force their moral standards on others then we are back in the middle ages.
Actually, you're wrong. First of all, the US was founded MUCH later than the Middle Ages, so your comparison is null and void. Secondly, we've had high moral standards in our society and it worked well; much better than now, that's for sure.

Actually our country is about people being left alone by the government and allowed to live their personal lives as they wish. America is not tradtionally about big powerful government, it about a small government that leaves people alone.

Where?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
As opposed to the concocted "right to privacy" which exists NO WHERE in the Constitution.

Well, where is the right to own a home in the constitution? Therefore government can...

Well what is wrong them with allowing government to control healthcare then? The government is the will of the people right?
1) Majority of the people do NOT want government health care, ergo the will of the people is not being served.
2) Taking over the health care industry is NOT the proper role of government and a tremendous abuse of power.
3) The current health care law's mandate is unconstitutional.

The majority of the people do not want anti-sodomy laws either. End of debate, right?

Actually it is the will of the people to live in a free society.
It is the will of the people to live in a free and CIVIL society. Morality & freedom aren't mutually exclusive.

Morality and freedom are not mutually exclusive, forced morality and freedom are.

A government bureaucrat telling you what you can and cannot do in your own home is not trampling over your personal liberties?
You don't have the personal liberty to kill someone in your home; you don't have the personal liberty to have sex with children in your own home, etc. As you can see, the government already has that right. Where do you get the belief that somehow just because you are in your own house you can do anything you want?

As long as you are not violating the rights of someone else in your own home, then government should not bother you.

Well you know, this society is becoming less and less Christian every day.
Non sequitur; has nothing to do with what we're talking about. But now that you brought it up, it is the biggest culprit of the moral decay of our society.

And many countries in Europe already view religion as negative because they are so secular.
Sure, but look at them now: they are falling apart economically and morally. Not to mention, that they are less free than we are. Question is for how long if we keep going their way? Not long. However, if you think it's so great in other places...you know what to do.

Actually economically they are catching up slowly and their crime rate is far lower. The reason they are behind is because WWII happened.

Are you really sure you want them in control of your personal life?
Anti sodomy laws do not control my personal life anymore than anti rape, anti pedophilia laws do. What does affect my life (personal or otherwise) is all of the regulations and burdens the government places on me and the rest of society.

Anti-rape laws ban agression to other people. Gay sex is no such thing.

Tell me why anal sex is immoral.
It is unsanitary, unnatural, vulgar, as well as a sin to many people.

Eating pork is a sin to many people. Not being Christian is a sin to many people.

Why do you think anal sex is vulgar? If they are done privately, why should vulgar things be illegal? Are we going to ban bad language now?

Why do you think anal sex is unnatural? Aren't cars unnatural? Do help us get to places in a way nature did not intend us to.

Why is anal sex any more unsanitary than vaginal sex? And I didn't know it was illegal to be unsanitary.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 2:54:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:17:17 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/27/2012 2:43:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
I hate to defend Rick Santorum in any way, but his attack on sodomy laws actually pretty accurately depicts Scalia and Thomas' dissents in Lawrence v. Texas.:

Is the dissenting opinion therefore valid? His moronic stance is that just because there's an expectation of privacy doesn't mean we can start having polygamy and incest. Well, that's interesting. We concurrently cannot murder people in the privacy of our home either. What is necessary to prosecute any crime, is probable cause. So it's an absolutely irrelevant strawman, and if he has a shred of integrity, he would know that. Nobody says that we have to ignore crimes committed in people's homes. What it does mean is that probable cause is necessary to investigate an alleged crime in a home.

Secondly, you heard it straight from his own mouth. Not only does he oppose gay marriage, but he wants to bring back anti-sodomy laws in order to comport American law with levitical law, and thinks that there's no such thing as the right to privacy.

I'm just pointing out that most of what Rick said isn't wildly out-there. Except for his little levitical bit at the end. Though god only knows what Scalia would say about that.

Scalia gave the same slippery slope argument about incest, polygamy, etc.

Not that I'm saying anything Scalia says is fine.

My favorite scalia quote EVER (paraphrased). When questioned about how the U.S. Court System faired under the Salem Witch Trials:

"Now hold on, those witches got a fair trial."

I wish I could find the source. I heard it during on of his interviews.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 6:08:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 6:12:34 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
As opposed to the concocted "right to privacy" which exists NO WHERE in the Constitution.

Ninth amendment.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 6:33:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 7:47:53 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
Lets be serious here, anal and oral sex are pretty much the main gay sex acts so banning them is pretty much equivalent to banning gay sex.
Well, there are many other "acts" that people can do. Nonetheless, this has never stopped people from engaging in them.

Try telling that to a gay person. "I am banning anal and oral sex which are pretty much all your main sex acts, but don't get me wrong, this is not a ban on gay sex at all."
You fail to mention that cunnilingus, fellatio with a woman, and anal sex with a woman would also be banned. Seems that it affects not just gays. You still fail to address the fact that these laws have never really stopped people from engaging in these acts.

Of course if vaginal sex was banned you would never think this was a law against heterosexual sex right?
Non sequitur. The sex acts banned in your example are EXCLUSIVE to heterosexuals as opposed to anti sodomy laws which affect BOTH gays and straights. Regardless, are you implying that when the anti sodomy laws were in effect it stopped people or gays form engaging in these acts?

Actually I was denying that they were comparable. Great rhetoric, no facts.
I agree with the second part as you have no facts and your rhetoric is poor. Again, another non sequitur in an attempt to change the subject.

Actually our country is about people being left alone by the government and allowed to live their personal lives as they wish.
Wrong again, that would be anarchy.

America is not tradtionally about big powerful government, it about a small government that leaves people alone.
Another non sequitur! Are you claiming that anti sodomy laws make government big? This makes gov't big but the gov't taking over the health care industry does not? Are you serious? Not to mention that when the anti sodomy laws were in effect the gov't was MUCH smaller than it is today! Regardless, that has NOTHING to do with big gov't.

Well, where is the right to own a home in the constitution? Therefore government can...
Are you serious? Are you saying that owning a home is unconstitutional?

You realize that the Constitution says what the gov't CAN'T do to you and it specifically says that you CANNOT be denied property rights WITHOUT due process. You are wrong yet again.

The majority of the people do not want anti-sodomy laws either. End of debate, right?
Man, you are out of touch! Most people would NOT object to anti sodomy laws as well as gay marriage. EVERYWHERE it's been put to vote it has been denied. Also, it need only be the majority in a specific jurisdiction anyways.

Morality and freedom are not mutually exclusive, forced morality and freedom are.
Anarchy is not a civil society.

As you can see, the government already has that right. Where do you get the belief that somehow just because you are in your own house you can do anything you want?
As long as you are not violating the rights of someone else in your own home, then government should not bother you.
Where does it say that in the Constitution? Answer: nowhere; anarchy is not a civil society. Again, you don't have the personal liberty to kill someone who WANTS to be killed in your home; you don't have the personal liberty to have sex with children that want to have sex in your own home; children don't have the right to have consensual sex in the privacy of your own home; you don't have the right to run a meth lab in your own home, etc. Fail yet again.

Actually economically they are catching up slowly and their crime rate is far lower. The reason they are behind is because WWII happened.
Lol! Their economies are in terrible shape MUCH worse than the US.
1) Not all countries in Europe were involved in WW2.
2) They have this success after COUNTLESS civil wars, inquisitions, 2 world wars, etc.
3) Their constitutions are based on the oldest constitution in use: THE US CONSTITUTION.
4) The US saved Europe's collective behind during WW2 and after through the Martial Plan.
5) European crime rates are almost DOUBLE the US!

Epic fail.

Anti-rape laws ban agression to other people. Gay sex is no such thing.
And? I engage in neither so those laws do not affect me.

Eating pork is a sin to many people. Not being Christian is a sin to many people.
And?

Why do you think anal sex is vulgar? If they are done privately, why should vulgar things be illegal? Are we going to ban bad language now?
It is vulgar because it is morally crude. Again, there is no privacy right that magically let's you whatever you want. You are aware that we have freedom of speech right?

Why do you think anal sex is unnatural?
Because the arse is for sitting and sh!tting.

Aren't cars unnatural? Do help us get to places in a way nature did not intend us to.
Another non sequitur! Are there some ant-car laws that are being considered? Or is it that some people want to have sex with a car?

Why is anal sex any more unsanitary than vaginal sex?
You are aware that an anus transports fecal matter, right? You are aware that feces is unsanitary, right?

And I didn't know it was illegal to be unsanitary.
Non sequitur, yet again. I never made the claim that unsanitary things should be illegal. But now that you brought it up, you need to learn about FDA and what it regulates and the fact that it IS illegal to be unsanitary if your actions fall under their jurisdiction. Epic fail.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 7:47:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/28/2012 6:33:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
You fail to mention that cunnilingus, fellatio with a woman, and anal sex with a woman would also be banned. Seems that it affects not just gays. You still fail to address the fact that these laws have never really stopped people from engaging in these acts.

I already told you that anti-sodomy laws do not ban all gay sex. There is no debate about it. All I am arguing that it bans many main gay sex acts, making it an attack on gay rights.

Again, if there was a law banning vaginal sex, would you consider this law anti-heterosexual. Why?

Wrong again, that would be anarchy.

Anarchy is when government allows people do harm to others. Simply giving people personal freedoms is not anarchy.

Another non sequitur! Are you claiming that anti sodomy laws make government big? This makes gov't big but the gov't taking over the health care industry does not? Are you serious? Not to mention that when the anti sodomy laws were in effect the gov't was MUCH smaller than it is today! Regardless, that has NOTHING to do with big gov't.

When you give the government the right to regulate the sex lives of Americans, you are expanding its powers and decreases the liberties Americans have.

Are you serious? Are you saying that owning a home is unconstitutional?

You realize that the Constitution says what the gov't CAN'T do to you and it specifically says that you CANNOT be denied property rights WITHOUT due process. You are wrong yet again.

Where does the constitution say that?

Man, you are out of touch! Most people would NOT object to anti sodomy laws as well as gay marriage. EVERYWHERE it's been put to vote it has been denied. Also, it need only be the majority in a specific jurisdiction anyways.

Wrong, actually it is 64% who are in favor of legal gay relations. Anti-Sodomy laws are aimed at gays, and since these laws ban the main elements of gay sex, these people would not be in favor of anti-sodomy laws.

http://www.gallup.com...

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Answer: nowhere; anarchy is not a civil society. Again, you don't have the personal liberty to kill someone who WANTS to be killed in your home; you don't have the personal liberty to have sex with children that want to have sex in your own home; children don't have the right to have consensual sex in the privacy of your own home; you don't have the right to run a meth lab in your own home, etc. Fail yet again.

Killing a person in your home violates their rights. Having sex with a child gives the child psychological and mental harm. Meth is an addictive substance that destroys people, and addicts them so they cannot stop. Selling people poison that breaks down their self-control toward it is a violation of their rights.

Also people who take meth are far more likely to rob other people to pay for it. Gay sex does not violate the rights of others. These are bad analogies. Pick an example of an action in someone's home that is illegal and does not violate someone else's personal rights.

Lol! Their economies are in terrible shape MUCH worse than the US.
1) Not all countries in Europe were involved in WW2.

All except 1 or 2. Guess what, take a look at their gdps per capita:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

They are not far behind the USA.

The US unemployment rate is lower than most of their's but there are some with comparable rates.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

We did pull ahead during WWII. See the graph below:
http://www.gapminder.org...,,,,

5) European crime rates are almost DOUBLE the US!

http://micpohling.wordpress.com...

Wrong.

And?

Well, we need government to defend morality right?

It is vulgar because it is morally crude. Again, there is no privacy right that magically let's you whatever you want. You are aware that we have freedom of speech right?

Why is it morally crude?

Because the arse is for sitting and sh!tting.

Who says that it is morally wrong to use it for other purposes?

Another non sequitur! Are there some ant-car laws that are being considered? Or is it that some people want to have sex with a car?

Our bodies were not meant to sit all the time. So sitting is unnatural.

Explain to me why gay sex is unnatural.

You are aware that an anus transports fecal matter, right? You are aware that feces is unsanitary, right?

Well, you know that during vaginal sex that the there is a certain amount of fluid being produced by both the male and the female. Plus gays can take precautions to be safe.

If there is no reason to ban something that is insanitary, then why bring it up then?

Could you explain to me why it is the government's job to force people to be moral?