CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › And I always thought incest was worse than being gay...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

And I always thought incest was worse than being gay...

post #1 of 43
4/22/03 at 3:51am
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/santorum.gays.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/santorum.gays.ap/index.html</a>

Listen, I don't want to bash the party just for the sake of it, but Republicans really have to make sure there leadership does not always say what they believe to the press.
Reply
post #2 of 43
4/22/03 at 4:56am
The funny thing is, in that photo, he looks totally gay.
Reply
post #3 of 43
4/22/03 at 10:27am
Warning: I got no sleep and my coffee is still percolating....

Yet another Republican who needs a Louisville Slugger makeover.
Reply
post #4 of 43
4/22/03 at 10:52am
The whole gay thing is going to get him in hot water.
While off the official topic, I'd like to ask the Chud folk why bigamy/polygamy are still illegal. You can't marry multiple women (or men), but you can sleep around with as many people as you want. Really, you can live with as many sex partners as you want, and nobody will do a thing, but when you marry some of them to consumate the relationship, the state comes down on you.

Realize that I would never want to be a polygamist, because one wife is more than enough of everything for me, but I am curious why the law is like this.
Reply
post #5 of 43
4/22/03 at 10:53am
Quote:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, said in the interview, published Monday.
Ummm... I didn't realize that adultery was against the law.
Reply
post #6 of 43
4/22/03 at 10:54am
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
The whole gay thing is going to get him in hot water.
While off the official topic, I'd like to ask the Chud folk why bigamy/polygamy are still illegal. You can't marry multiple women (or men), but you can sleep around with as many people as you want. Really, you can live with as many sex partners as you want, and nobody will do a thing, but when you marry some of them to consumate the relationship, the state comes down on you.

Realize that I would never want to be a polygamist, because one wife is more than enough of everything for me, but I am curious why the law is like this.
My guess is that it probably has to do with filing taxes more than anything at this point.
Reply
post #7 of 43
4/22/03 at 11:02am
This guy has just found himself smack dab in the middle of a major shit storm, and I'm glad to say it will only get worse for him. Also, do you realize that the Supreme Court case in question involves two people being arrested for commiting sodomy in their own home!?
This society of ours can be such a fucking embarrasment sometimes.
Reply
post #8 of 43
4/22/03 at 11:11am
Quote:
The Hour of BewilderDaveB-east:
Quote:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, said in the interview, published Monday.
Ummm... I didn't realize that adultery was against the law.
It is here in Utah!

Utah State Code 76-7-103. Adultery.
(1) A married person commits adultery when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his spouse.
(2) Adultery is a class B misdemeanor.
Reply
post #9 of 43
4/22/03 at 11:13am
Everything's illegal in Utah.
Reply
post #10 of 43
4/22/03 at 11:17am
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
The whole gay thing is going to get him in hot water.
While off the official topic, I'd like to ask the Chud folk why bigamy/polygamy are still illegal. You can't marry multiple women (or men), but you can sleep around with as many people as you want. Really, you can live with as many sex partners as you want, and nobody will do a thing, but when you marry some of them to consumate the relationship, the state comes down on you.

Realize that I would never want to be a polygamist, because one wife is more than enough of everything for me, but I am curious why the law is like this.
Sorro's interested in a game of Mormon hold 'em, huh? I know, I'm just kidding.

Anyways, I don't really care. If people want to have an orgy of husbands and wives, go ahead.

However, I think the real problem could be the Alan Stanwyk factor. People who marry multiple partners, without the knowledge of the significant others. Someone could get married, & take part of the private airline fortune of a rich wife. If polygomy is legal, Mr. Stanwyk could simply then divorce his rich wife & take half of her money. He could do this all over the country and be within the law. A bastard of course, but perfectly legal.
Reply
post #11 of 43
4/22/03 at 11:26am
That's why we'd have an army of Fletchs, just waiting for the Stanwyks of the world.

While I may not be interested in Mormon Hold'em (never heard of it referred to as that), my ancestors certainly were!
Reply
post #12 of 43
4/22/03 at 12:06pm
Quote:
The Hour of BewilderDaveB-east:
Quote:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, said in the interview, published Monday.
Ummm... I didn't realize that adultery was against the law.
I think it's illegal most everywhere in the US, much like many of the older laws that aren't enforced but which are still in the books. I saw a short article the other day about a small town in California who actually took the time to remove their law once they realized it was still on the books, but then you run the risk of appearing to condone adultery. Politically speaking, it's probably best for those in power to just ignore that the laws are still there and continue to let things stay the course rather than take the chance at appearing to condone the action by taking the time to remove the law.
Reply
post #13 of 43
4/22/03 at 12:11pm
Quote:
Ned Fats:
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/santorum.gays.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/santorum.gays.ap/index.html</a>

Listen, I don't want to bash the party just for the sake of it, but Republicans really have to make sure there leadership does not always say what they believe to the press.
Damn..........

I'm a hard core Republican, and THIS guy is an assclown. In this case, I say, "Devin, grab your slugger and let the beating commence....."

Reply
post #14 of 43
4/22/03 at 12:25pm
If adultery is technically illegal in most states, could a cuckold or cuckold-ette press charges in addition to or instead of filing for divorce? It seems like something a lot of people, if vengeful enough, would probably take advantage of.

Maybe one of the lawyer types here could address that?
Reply
post #15 of 43
4/22/03 at 12:26pm
Why would you press criminal charges for something that is only a misdemeanor? If it was a felony, that'd change things.

(edited to move only)

Reply
post #16 of 43
4/22/03 at 4:25pm
More on <a href="http://uk.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=64467&group=webcast" target="_blank">Santorum</a>:

Quote:
The third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, conservative Rick Santorum (Pa.), plans to introduce so-called "ideological diversity" legislation that would cut federal funding for thousands of American colleges and universities if those institutions are found to be permitting professors, students and student organizations to openly criticize Israel, which Santorum considers to be an act of "anti-Semitism."

Santorum wants to rewrite the federal funding formula under Title IX of the Higher Education Act to include "ideological diversity" as well as sexual equality in education as a perquisite for federal funding.

Joining Santorum is another Senate conservative GOP stalwart -- and a leading pro-Israel ideologue -- Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.) who has his own scheme to call for a federal commission -- critics call it a "tribunal" to be established under Title IX to "investigate" anti-Semitic incidents on American campuses.

This is no "conspiracy theory." It's a fact -- but not one that is getting much attention except in a few high-level circles. Although the average American student or college professor has not heard of the Santorum-Brownback scheme, Wayne Firestone, director of the Center for Israel Affairs for the Hillel Foundation, says that "Everywhere I go, this is the lead topic. This is drawing a lot of interest."

<a href="http://uk.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=64467&group=webcast" target="_blank">READ MORE</a>
Reply
post #17 of 43
4/22/03 at 6:47pm
Here's what he said:
Quote:
"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," Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, said in the interview, published Monday.
Actually, it's a statement of fact.

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home then you do have the right to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery. And rightly so in my opinion.

Somebody read something into his statement, it seems, that wasn't there.
Reply
post #18 of 43
4/22/03 at 7:16pm
It's a statement of "fact" if it's not given context. If you follow the link to the related article, you get the entire quote:

Quote:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," the Pennsylvania lawmaker said in a recent interview, fuming over a landmark gay rights case before the high court that pits a Texas sodomy law against equality and privacy rights.

"All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," Santorum said. "And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."
So, yes, if I read the first paragraph only, he might be saying that a ruling by the Supreme Court extending the right to privacy in one's own home to cover consensual gay sex could be extended further to cover the other things listed. But when I read the whole statement, I realized he equates consensual gay sex with incest, etc. I then realized he's a narrow-minded, right-wing extremist who is more than willing to shove his personal and religious beliefs down the throats of his fellow Americans. (No pun intended.)
You should realize that too. Unless you already did and you're cool with this gentleman deciding which sex acts you may conduct in the privacy of your own home, and with whom.
Reply
post #19 of 43
4/22/03 at 7:18pm
Quote:
Kronos, Last of the Barbary Pirates:
Actually, it's a statement of fact.

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home then you do have the right to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery. And rightly so in my opinion.

Somebody read something into his statement, it seems, that wasn't there.
That's a bit of a legal stretch, innit?

Establishing the right to consensual sex doesn't mean you establish the right to multiple marriages, or ILLEGAL sex (sex with a family member or an underage minor, or adulterous sex).

That's like saying because you have the right to drive due to being licensed and legally owning the property of a car, then you also have the right to speed while driving, murder while driving, or destroy property while driving.

Consensual sex is the basis for many of those other things, but they have stipulations attached that clearly differentiate them.

Reply
post #20 of 43
4/22/03 at 7:26pm
But it's true that those things are none of the government's business and neither are they a contitutional question, right?
Reply
post #21 of 43
4/22/03 at 7:29pm
Oh yeah, the "(gay)" part was added by the author of the article to give or create context.
Reply
post #22 of 43
4/22/03 at 7:34pm
Quote:
The third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, conservative Rick Santorum (Pa.), plans to introduce so-called "ideological diversity" legislation that would cut federal funding for thousands of American colleges and universities if those institutions are found to be permitting professors, students and student organizations to openly criticize Israel, which Santorum considers to be an act of "anti-Semitism."
Wow. This guy's a total buffoon.

What is it with the American government and their love affair with Israel anyway?
Reply
post #23 of 43
4/22/03 at 7:40pm
Quote:
Kronos, Last of the Barbary Pirates:
But it's true that those things are none of the government's business and neither are they a contitutional question, right?
Currently, it's not a Constitutional issue, but if we're going to leave the law up to the interpretation of foools like this, perhaps it should be (in the form of an amendment).

Not an easy answer here, but it's easy to see that his rethoric is nothing but harmful and ignorant.
Reply
post #24 of 43
4/22/03 at 7:41pm
Well that's true always.
Reply
post #25 of 43
4/22/03 at 7:45pm
Quote:
Kronos, Last of the Barbary Pirates:
Oh yeah, the "(gay)" part was added by the author of the article to give or create context.
Wouldn't it be even worse without the addition of "gay"? Basically, he's saying that any sex in the privacy of your own home that is not heterosexual, married sex can be the business of the government.

(edited for typo.)

Reply
post #26 of 43
4/22/03 at 7:51pm
I'd really like to read about the "Ideological Diversity" bill on a site that isn't quite so intensely biased. The headline of this particular story reads:

Quote:
Congress To Pass "Ideological Diversity" Legislation Schools Which Do Not Teach Pro-Israel Views To Lose Federal Funding

Republican members of the Senate are planning to introduce police-state- style "thought control" legislation designed to prohibit criticism of Israel on American college campuses.
As for Santorum, he may very well be a homophobe. However, I'd like to read the whole interview. Just to play an annoying semantic game, one might point out that the things he mentions would indeed be "antithetical" to a "traditional family" (though not, perhaps to a stable or healthy one).

I guess I'm going to go search for more on these stories. The more you know...

Reply
post #27 of 43
4/22/03 at 7:55pm
Quote:
Paddy Whiskey:
Quote:
Kronos, Last of the Barbary Pirates:
Oh yeah, the "(gay)" part was added by the author of the article to give or create context.
Wouldn't it be even worse without the addition of "gay"? Basically, he's saying that any sex in the privacy of your own home that is not heterosexual, married sex can be the business of the government.

(edited for typo.)
Now that's just completely outside the realm of reality in relation to the above statement. Read it again.
Reply
post #28 of 43
4/22/03 at 8:01pm
Whoa...he already stepped down.
Reply
post #29 of 43
4/22/03 at 8:03pm
Wow, really?

Link?
Reply
post #30 of 43
4/22/03 at 8:04pm
Radio
Reply
post #31 of 43
4/22/03 at 8:05pm
Interesting.

Well, good. I'm glad.
Reply
post #32 of 43
4/22/03 at 8:23pm
Quote:
Kronos, Last of the Barbary Pirates:
Whoa...he already stepped down.
Ummmmmm... I'm not seeing this anywhere. It's not up on the CNN, MSNBC, or Fox websites. Nothing on CNN on TV, and right now (7:20) Fox is running a story on the incident that ends with Santorum's assurance that he doesn't intend to step down.
Reply
post #33 of 43
4/22/03 at 8:26pm
Not good. This trend of government/media complex ruining people when something they say is taken out of context or perhaps being misinterpreted is destructive as all hell. It is destructive during a left-wing administration and it's destructive during a right-wing administration.
Reply
post #34 of 43
4/22/03 at 8:27pm
Hey, I could be wrong. But the headline at the top of the hour was "Santorum steps down from his leadership position..."
Reply
post #35 of 43
4/22/03 at 10:16pm
Perhaps I misunderstood your point, Kronos. I took it to mean the writer inserted "gay" in order to make a point that wasn't actually there. That's why I remarked the way I did, i.e. if Santorum were remarking on consensual sex without the context provided by the writer, then Santorum's statement truly would support the ultimate invasion of personal privacy. The bottom line is that Santorum is no fan of personal privacy rights where such protection doesn't jibe with his own religious/personal beliefs.
And by the way, I agree with Micah completely. The things which Santorum equated with consensual (gay) sex should be looked at individually, in light of more than just a constitutional right to privacy. I know that you know that any time a privacy right is asserted, it is scrutinized in light of many factors and considerations. It was wrong for him to make such a broad generalization.
Reply
post #36 of 43
4/22/03 at 11:38pm
Oh, but wait! It gets worse!

Fuck the AP reporter's editorial shenanigans; this mental flyweight is perfectly disturbing without any help at all. Get a load of this (which I copied from CNN's <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/santorum.excerpts.ap/index.html" target="_blank">transcript</a>:

Quote:
AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?

SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP: What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year olds, or 5-year olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.
Add victims of pedophile priests to the list of people soon to be pissed at Rick Santorum. What a fucking fool!
Reply
post #37 of 43
4/23/03 at 12:18am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Kronos, Last of the Barbary Pirates:
Not good. This trend of government/media complex ruining people when something they say is taken out of context or perhaps being misinterpreted is destructive as all hell. It is destructive during a left-wing administration and it's destructive during a right-wing administration.
Funny, because I never see you defending the left wing admin, but thats cool dude.

I think that a politician is a politician, they should have the brains not to say stupid shit that can be taken out of context. This isn't John Rocker, this is the 3rd ranking member of the Senate. There is always the possibility that these people mean what they say, just like Jesse Jackson meant what he said when he called New York heimitown (no idea of the spelling). Kronos, you may not believe this, but there are still a lot of racist and homophobic people left in this world. It is hard to tell until you attend a university like my own, where one out of every 2 frat guys has a confederate flag on there SUV.
Reply
post #38 of 43
4/23/03 at 2:43am
Quote:
Ned Fats:
Quote:
Kronos, Last of the Barbary Pirates:
Not good. This trend of government/media complex ruining people when something they say is taken out of context or perhaps being misinterpreted is destructive as all hell. It is destructive during a left-wing administration and it's destructive during a right-wing administration.
Funny, because I never see you defending the left wing admin, but thats cool dude.

I think that a politician is a politician, they should have the brains not to say stupid shit that can be taken out of context. This isn't John Rocker, this is the 3rd ranking member of the Senate. There is always the possibility that these people mean what they say, just like Jesse Jackson meant what he said when he called New York heimitown (no idea of the spelling). Kronos, you may not believe this, but there are still a lot of racist and homophobic people left in this world. It is hard to tell until you attend a university like my own, where one out of every 2 frat guys has a confederate flag on there SUV.
That's why I'm an Independent Conservative. I don't follow Party dogma.

As to the last point...I'm very glad I live in California just for the reason you state...but that's outside the realm of this discussion.

And as for Santorum...if he truly meant what was said after the author had inserted thier own interpretation via parenthetic expression, then he's an asshole.

If he meant it the way it's written...then somebody has read an awful lot into his words and it's at this point I fear for this Nation. When seemingly good men are destroyed by those who misinterpret their words there is a virus growning in the government/media complex.

Me? I didn't actually hear the statement and only read it. When I saw that there was a word added not by the speaker -Santorum- but by the author my stomach balls up. It is wrong to give news copy with editorial opinion inserted surreptitiously yet seemingly appropriate to the agenda being forwarded...whatever that may be.
Reply
post #39 of 43
4/23/03 at 2:01pm
Thread Starter 
"That's why I'm an Independent Conservative. I don't follow Party dogma."

You keep on telling us that, but everytime a Republican is critisized you defend, and any time a Democrat is lampooned you usually join in.
Reply
post #40 of 43
4/24/03 at 2:43am
Thread Starter 
I finally read the entire interview and in some ways Kronos was right, the quotes were taken out of context. But, when read within the context they are just as frightening. What it really comes down to, is the Government allowed to legislate the acts relating to someone's sexual orientation. Santorum says that he has no problem with "being homosexual" but with acting on being homosexual. I disagree. I believe that the right to privacy should allow people to screw each other in the ass as long as it is consensual. That may sound vulgar but it is really what is at stake. In a standard homosexual relationship no one is hurt, nobody (well maybe the guy who is taking it in the ass, but that is a totally different story, and I already feel bad for bringing it up). I don't think incest is covered under the constitution because a third person could be hurt, a child who is born to two people who are related can be born with birth defects. I also did not think we would want to go back to the days that people were prosecuted for adultery, yeah it's wrong but I don't think the Government should have any hand in it. Polygamy is more a legal issue, and I don't really believe it has anything to do with the right to privacy.
Reply
post #41 of 43
4/24/03 at 11:06am
Married polygamy is a legal issue, just like married homosexuality is a legal issue. What you do in the bedroom outside of the bounds of marriage (for the most part) cannot be regulated without violating the privacy rights set up in Roe v. Wade and that other case that came before it and set the groundwork. The exception to this is when it involves minors, because of the legal protections they enjoy (and rightly). No matter what the decision is on this case, there is no way the government will be allowed to put cameras in people's homes to make sure they are complying with the law, so to some degree it is a moot point.
Reply
post #42 of 43
4/24/03 at 1:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
Married polygamy is a legal issue, just like married homosexuality is a legal issue. What you do in the bedroom outside of the bounds of marriage (for the most part) cannot be regulated without violating the privacy rights set up in Roe v. Wade and that other case that came before it and set the groundwork. The exception to this is when it involves minors, because of the legal protections they enjoy (and rightly). No matter what the decision is on this case, there is no way the government will be allowed to put cameras in people's homes to make sure they are complying with the law, so to some degree it is a moot point.
Except from what I've read this guy might want to do exactly that. He believes the states should be able to regulate what kind of sex people are having.
Reply
post #43 of 43
4/25/03 at 11:00am
Maybe it's just the spin I've heard, but it sounds a lot like Justice White's opinion in a 1986 privacy case whos name I can't remember. I can't imagine that Santorum would be that stupid. Then again, he is a politician.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › And I always thought incest was worse than being gay...