Rick Santorum in the Hot Seat Again for Gay Marriage Stance

Santorum is right. You cannot look at just “gay marriage”. You have to look at the consequences of allowing “gay marriage”. Polygamy cannot be stopped from being recognized as “normal” if “gay marriage” is. They have the same argument.

Rick Santorum proudly broadcasted his extreme opinions in Iowa, foolishly presuming that they would seem popular in other states, almost all of which are more moderate. His lecturing voters and getting booed for days indicates that he is not presidential.

That’s it Rick. Keep reminding the voters what BIGOTS you Republicans are!

““From a legal standpoint, he’s kind of right. The word privacy is nowhere in the Constitution,” Robert Traynham, who worked for Santorum when he was a senator, said in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. ” – - – WRONG. Santorum is no where near “kind of right,” neither from a legal standpoint or from a logic standpoint. Whether or not the Constitution specifically mentions privacy as a right is totally irrelevant. I guess Traynham has never read the 9th Amendement which quite clearly states that the Constitution does not have to expressly mention (i.e. enumerate) a right for people to have and retain a right. Traynham also misunderstands the fundamental purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution DOES NOT grant rights to the people. The Constitution PROTECTS rights the people already have by restricting the government from unreasonably interfering with rights the people already have. It also grants rights and authority and responsibilities to the government. Amendment IX clearly states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

President Obama is on record as opposing gay marriage. What now?

Well, maybe Santorum doth protest too much because HE’S living a lie and is gay himeself.

“Posted by: Tim Simms | January 6, 2012, 2:12 pm 2:12 pm

Santorum is right. You cannot look at just “gay marriage”. You have to look at the consequences of allowing “gay marriage”. Polygamy cannot be stopped from being recognized as “normal” if “gay marriage” is. They have the same argument.”
—————————————–

Reworded: Because your argument fails to step back to the original cause.

Santorum is right. You cannot look at just “gay marriage”. You have to look at the consequences of allowing MARRIAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE, A MAN AND A WOMAN. Polygamy cannot be stopped from being recognized as “normal” if ANY MARRIAGE is. They have the same argument.

“Posted by: Tim Simms | January 6, 2012, 2:12 pm 2:12 pm

Santorum is right. You cannot look at just “gay marriage”. You have to look at the consequences of allowing “gay marriage”. Polygamy cannot be stopped from being recognized as “normal” if “gay marriage” is. They have the same argument.”

Tim…Let me fix your post for you….

Santorum is right. You cannot look at just “gay marriage”. You have to look at the consequences of allowing MARRIAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE (MAN AND WOMAN). Polygamy cannot be stopped from being recognized as “normal” if MARRIAGE is. They have the same argument.

ROBERT: “Santorum is right. You cannot look at just “gay marriage”. You have to look at the consequences of allowing “gay marriage”. Polygamy cannot be stopped from being recognized as “normal” if “gay marriage” is. They have the same argument.” – - – NO, you and Santorum are both wrong. First off, that is a sllippery slope fallacy. Any argument that depends upon a logical fallacy is fundamentally irrational and thus worthless at its core. Second, they do not have the same argument. They would only have the same argument if the law allowed SOME groups of people to practice legal polygamy but not other groups. For example, if the law allowed Mormons to practice polygamy but not other religions then THAT would be discrimination and then they would have the same argument. As long as the law prohibits EVERYONE from practicing legal polygamy then there is no discrmination under the law. Also, people are not born polygamists and there is no objective empirical evidence to support that claim. Polygamy is a socially learned belief, behavior, and practice – just like monogamous marriage is a socially learned practice. There is however a mountain of evidence to support the argument that some people are born gay. Whether or not the evidence is sufficient to convince some people is their choice. None-the-less, the available evidence is quite compelling.

Just because the Constitution apparently grants all US citizens the intrinsic right to pursue happiness , that fact doesn’t in any way give ax murderers or child molesters ( or gay folks ) a de facto legislative pass to go freely do what makes them happy . Pretty simple concept .

Marriage is not a man made institution, marriage is a God made and ordained institution.

DANk_WESON45: ““…which quite clearly states that the Constitution does not have to expressly mention (i.e. enumerate) a right for people to have and retain a right. “——————–It doesn’t even come close to representing that ignorantly naive viewpoint . Are you 12 or 13 ? Ever heard of “legal precedent”? Your opinion of what you think the 9th Amendment means is refuted every day in the USA on a quotidian basis as well . States routinely limit all kinds of rights for persons . States are the ones who the Constitution says has the end say vis a vis any specific personal rights that are NOT clearly enumerated in the Constitution . Look it up , educate yourself.” – - – ROFLMAO. Someone has a severe reading comprehension problem. Not only did I look it up, I freaking quoted it!!! Here, I will quote it again for you. Amendment IX states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That means just because the Constitution expressly enumerates some rights that does not necessarily mean the people don’t retain other non-enumerated rights. OR, just because the Constitution does not enumerate a specific right nobody – not another person, not a state government, and not the Federal government – shall construe that lack of enumeration as necessarily meaning the people do not retain a non-enumerated right. Ergo the fact that the Constitution does not enumerate privacy as a right is irrelevant. The 9th Amendment explicitly states not to construe its enumeration of some rights and that lack of enumeration of privacy as meaning that the people do not retain the right of privacy. If you can’t understand that then you need more grammar lessons. After some basic grammar lesson maybe a political science or Constitutional law class will help a lot while you are at it. Finally, legal precedents cannot trump the Constitution. They can only trump other laws below the Constitution – which is the Supreme law of the land per Article VI Clause 2. It is the Constitution that trumps all other law.

I would turn the tables on Spreading Rick and say that religions are responsible for more problems in this world. They are a choice and so if you choose one religion, you are the same as a child molester, rapist, murderer and terrorist. After all, Christianity is one religion and so since people like rick make a choice to be in that religion, than they are just causing the destruction of the world and human civilization. Don’t like this argument Rick – well, it is the same argument you are trying to make as you obliterate the freedoms of the constitution of the United States.

I don’t like the man, but you cannot fault him for stating what he truly believes. Isn’t that what we want from candidates when they are campaigning? Isn’t that how we choose who we want to vote for/against? At least he states his beliefs outright. So many who run for office say what they THINK their audience wants to hear.

I explained it clearly enough , and while your opinion might sound nice to you , the fact remains that every day in the USA , your “opinion” of what it true is refuted by what actually occurs . State laws routinely limit ( or embrace ) personal rights of all sorts outside of what the Constitution implies or outright guarantees in writing , Arizona and it’s immigration laws and California and it’s pro-marijuana laws are prime examples of this obvious and inescapable fact . Keep telling yourself how smart and right you are ; it’s simple , convenient and very personally pleasing I can tell .
Have a nice life .

DWKINGLSY: ““Polygamy is a socially learned belief, behavior, and practice” ————You have any empirical proof of that , or do you just like to hear yourself pontificate endlessly about your conveniently made-up-as-needed opinions?” – - – ROFLMAO Sure, just pick up any cultural anthropology text or sociology text that covers the social institution of marriage and the many ways in which different cultures and societies have practiced the institution throughout history. I imagine a Women’s Studies text covers the subject also. Or you can do an Internet search for the many papers that have been written on the topic.

The bottom (legal) line largely is : shared taxpayer benefits going to a gay spouse. Civil unions of gays is one thing , but marriage is altogether not the same. There is a thing in legalese called “historical precedent ” and there is NO historical legal precedent for homosexual MARRIAGES in the USA , EVER . Not during the Revolutionary War , not during the Lincoln administration , not during ww2 . Never , until just recently . If gays want to live together that’s fine ,and there should be no obstacles to that whatsoever , but as far as the law ( and govt. benefits / taxes are involved ) then gay couples should be considered as they’ve always been , i.e. 2 SEPARATE tax forms , not one .

Wow, Rick went from obscure, sweater vest wearing reactionary to a stereotypical homophobe in a matter of hours!

It is simply amazing to watch a human being devolve so quickly.

B-K KnightRider–but’s that’s just your opinion that he’s absurd. Your just another opinion just like the ones against and for gay marriage. Same old hot air comming from you. Maybe if you took the personal attacks and childish remarks from your comments people would actually take you seriously. People have every right to decide if they are for or against gay marriage. If it’s left up to a vote people have the right to vote the way they want.

Maybe Santorum should seek out someone who should be well versed in the art of polygamy and ask the OTHER Christian, Mitt Romney (?).

“B-K KnightRider–but’s that’s just your opinion that he’s absurd. Your just another opinion just like the ones against and for gay marriage. Same old hot air comming from you. Maybe if you took the personal attacks and childish remarks from your comments people would actually take you seriously. People have every right to decide if they are for or against gay marriage. If it’s left up to a vote people have the right to vote the way they want.”

Many of you are hooked-up on the gay thing but there is truly a lot more to this character! He is against contraception (it leads to things), dismantaling the food stamp program (it will help solve the obesity problem), on and on… That’s why I call him Sanitarium because that is where he belongs!!!

But the story is different in New Hampshire, a state where gay marriage is legal and which boasts a much more moderate set of Republicans. —this is why I LOVE living in the NorthEast. The land of reason, and science an logic. Honestly. Look at the stats on ANYTHING – education, teen pregnancy, health, etc. We solve so many of societies problems better, than any other place i nthe country. That is what happens when you use logic and your brain.

WRYVIEW: “I don’t like the man, but you cannot fault him for stating what he truly believes. Isn’t that what we want from candidates when they are campaigning? Isn’t that how we choose who we want to vote for/against? At least he states his beliefs outright. So many who run for office say what they THINK their audience wants to hear.” – - – I don’t fault him for stating what he believes. I fault him for HOW he states what he believes because of the way he depends upon fallacious thinking and fallacious claims. More importantly, I fault him for the way he is willing to force his RELIGIOUS BELIEFS upon everyone else through the force of law.

DAN_WESSON45: “I explained it clearly enough , and while your opinion might sound nice to you , the fact remains that every day in the USA , your “opinion” of what it true is refuted by what actually occurs . State laws routinely limit ( or embrace ) personal rights of all sorts outside of what the Constitution implies or outright guarantees in writing , Arizona and it’s immigration laws and California and it’s pro-marijuana laws are prime examples of this obvious and inescapable fact . Keep telling yourself how smart and right you are ; it’s simple , convenient and very personally pleasing I can tell . Have a nice life .” – - – Good grief. You really have a serious reading comprehension problem, and you really don’t understand this. I NEVER said the government cannot limit our rights. Indeed, I clearly said exactly the opposite. The government has the right/authority to limit our rights – as long the government does not unreasonably limit our rights in a manner that is unconstitutional. Limiting our rights in a Constitutional manner IS NOT the same as denying or disparaging our rights – regardless of whether or not the Constitution expressly enumuerates a right it is limiting.

TOYOUMAYBE: “B-K KnightRider–but’s that’s just your opinion that he’s absurd. Your just another opinion just like the ones against and for gay marriage. Same old hot air comming from you. Maybe if you took the personal attacks and childish remarks from your comments people would actually take you seriously. People have every right to decide if they are for or against gay marriage. If it’s left up to a vote people have the right to vote the way they want.” – - – WRONG. Learn to read. I did not state HE is absurd. I stated the example given was absurd. I further stated that particular example was an example of the reduction to absurdity fallacy – per the definition of that kind of fallacy. What personal attacks? I have attacked the claims people made and cited their fallacious claims as examples of their fallacious thinking. I have attacked hehaviors, not persons. And what “childish remarks”? Evidence/examples?

My God, who in their right mind would want to be married to more than one woman at the same time? Isn’t one exhausting enough? If it wasn’t for the fact that my wife is a great cook and knows how to bait a hook and perfectly polish my bass boat, I’d divorce her yesterday.

Even though I believe redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is inevitable – and doesn’t bother me a bit.

I think those of you refusing to answer the question about polygamy need to sit down and meet the challenge being posed here.

Answer the question – and if you can’t think about why you can’t.

You either support it or you are against it.

If you support it – why is it that you have secret beliefs you can’t bring to light and discuss in public?

If you don’t support it – why is it that you enforce your morality on other people and ask Santorum to discuss his viewpoint while being unable to do the same yourself – hypocrisy.

For the record, I support polygamy too.

The right of gays to marry is simple. Two adults in love should be able to marry.
So Santorum, we are not talking about polygamy, just two adults have the freedom to choose who they love and marry them.

@LIBRARIAN53

You are refusing to talk about polygamy, that’s different from there not being a reason to do so.

If those two adults you grant the right to marry, want to marry a third person, your morality says its wrong, and you intend to impose your moral decision on those two adults, plus a third.

The question posed to you, that you didn’t answer, is why?

DAN_WESSON45: “In sociobiology and zoology, polygamy is used in a broad sense to mean any form of multiple mating.”=============No need to say thanks, I just hope you learned something.” – - – Well, I already knew I tend to be a purest and literally apply definitions as my first impulse, so that doesn’t count. I also already knew that because of the vagaries of the semantics of language it is possible for two people to make two different claims and for both of them to be correct up to a point when they are applying two different definitions to the same word. Yes, I learned of another hypocritical example of how conservatives don’t mind redefining a word when it serves their purposes. Why aren’t you up in arms over how sociobiologists and zoologists improperly misuse and effectively redefined polygamy? According to Webster, polygamy is a “marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time — compare polyandry, polygyny.” So, strictly speaking, animals cannot engage in polygamy. So I also learned I correctly applied Webster’s definition in my argument. But you were also correct due to how sociobiologists and zoologists loosely apply the term polygamy to animal behavior. Consequently, my criticism of your statement was a little too harsh so I apologize for that. I also learned that when sociobiologists and zoologists need to label animal behavior they don’t necessarily always use most accurate human analogue. I think the way they use polygamy instead of promiscuity to label multiple mating is inaccurate. But if that is what they do that is what they do. I prefer a higher degree of precision with descriptive labels if a word with a more accurate definition is available.

Why is it that people want to link religion and politics? Politics and religion are antagonistic, they are oxymora. The daily tactics of politicians are lying, cheating and stealing. Why does religion want to be associated with those characteristics? (Unless they are doing the same, but that’s another argument)

The USA is a secular republic. The vast majority of the USA’s people are religious and/or have a religious background, and the country’s spirit is unquestionably christian. But the govt is secular as the founding fathers and some influential church leaders of the time had insisted. One of the great fears of the time was to prevent the corruption of govt from influencing the church. And the opposite holds true as well – the govt wanted to prevent religious influence from it’s affairs. With the likes of Santorum, who disregards the Constitution and wants to impose his will on the people, it is quite possible we could see a theocracy in our country. Other countries with similar forms of theocratic govt include Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

What we are seeing with these ‘religious’ candidates is a coordinated attack against the people of the USA, claiming to be deeply steeped in faith while at the same time living a politician’s life of lying, cheating and stealing.

REAL12343: “The only thing good about gay marriages is they can’t multiply, they are mutants and there bread stops in each generation.” – - – WRONG. Gays can and do reproduce. Even if none of them did it would not change anything. Because homosexuality is a natural variation of complex human genetics and physiology about 5%-10% of people are born gay. So, gays will always be around pretty much like they have always been around.

Well JOHN1513, according the standard you establish with the two quotes you cite it is a perversion for infertile couples to have sex regardless or whether or not they are married. AND it is a perversion for any infertile person to have sex if he or she is infertile.

REAL12343, take a hold of yourself and for God’s sake, cover that thing before someone baits their hook with it! Ron white was right, “you can’t fix stupid”!

.” I think the way they use polygamy instead of promiscuity to label multiple mating is inaccurate.”——————The first two words of this sentence are the big problem , i.e. trying to “think ” about things beyond one’s intellectual comfort zone.

“I prefer a higher degree of precision with descriptive labels if a word with a more accurate definition is available.”——————————-Guess what ? Your personal opinion about which word is more correct / precise is exactly like most of the other unsubstantiated tripe you spew out , i.e. biased , illogical opinionated personal b/s unsubstantiated by any real empirical evidence extant anywhere . First you claim animals can’t have polygamous relationships because they aren’t human and can’t be married , and that more importantly and more correctly they are just in fact ” promiscuous “. Then when confronted with direct professionally and widely accepted irrefutable evidence to the contrary , you start spinning like a sophomoric top . I’m done , don’t know why I lowered myself to your level to begin with .

The comments drew a sharp rebuke even from conservatives. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, assailed his explanation as “regrettable” and “wrong” —-this woman is not a conservative, she is a RINO. I bet the majority of adult Americans, except for indoctrinated youth agree with Rick Santorum. If marriage is allowed between 2 men or 2 woman how do we accomodate the bisexual?

Tony, me thinks Santorum’s right leg is short because he definitely leans a lot more to the right! I bet you didn’t know the when he was a kid he had no fiends and therefore was forced to play with himself instead. Maybe that’s why he had his pocket liners removed. if you doubt me, just watch his hands when you next see him in the news. Hands in pockets and grinning should be the clue!

It’s hilarious watching the GOP village idiots try to form a rational thought. LOL!

why are you giving a negative connotation in accomodating the bisexual but not homosexual? Hypocrisy. If I told you then I’d have to pull my skeleton out of the closet, since its so small, there’s only room for one..remember Dorothy, you can always find more than a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Does that answer your question? !

Straying from the Judeo Christian principles this country was built upon only can lead us to a slippery slope and downfall. Embracing gay marriage is just the beginning. Acording to the UK Telegraph- 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing “sexual services” at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Every law established is based on ones moral vision of what they view a soiciety should look like whether it is the belief of marriage between a man and a woman or if it is laws against rape or even green legislation imposed by the EPA. For anyone to attack ones ideas or vision are the true bigots and are closed minded. If you do not like that persons vision you simply do not vote for the person but personal attacks demostrate the lack of civility and inteligence. Whether or not you like his views it is nice to see a person being honest for once and not full of lies like we saw with Obama.

“Religious liberty is now trumped because … the courts have created a ‘super’ right that’s above a right that’s actually in the Constitution, and that’s of sexual liberty. And I think that’s a wrong, that’s a destructive element,” he said in an editorial board interview with the Des Moines Register in August.

On Thursday, he continued that line of argument, comparing gay marriage to polygamy.

“So anyone can marry anybody else? So if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people … so you can be married to five people. Is that O.K.?” Santorum questioned a student in Concord, N.H.

DAN_WESSON45: ““I prefer a higher degree of precision with descriptive labels if a word with a more accurate definition is available.”——————————-Guess what ? Your personal opinion about which word is more correct / precise is exactly like most of the other unsubstantiated tripe you spew out , i.e. biased , illogical opinionated personal b/s unsubstantiated by any real empirical evidence extant anywhere .” – - – ROFLMAO still. First off, your inability to engage in critical thinking and your significant reading comprehension problem are showing again by the way you misquote me. You stated that I claimed “animals can’t have polygamous relationships because they aren’t human and can’t be married.” Well, that is not what I wrote. Your mischaracterization of my statement is patently false. I did not state anything about animals not being human or that they “can’t be married.” What I actually wrote was, “According to Webster, polygamy is a “marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time — compare polyandry, polygyny.” So, strictly speaking, animals cannot engage in polygamy.” In other words, I was not claiming animals cannot engage in polygamy because they are not human, nor that they can’t get married. I simply meant animals cannot engage in polygamy because animals do not practice the institution of marriage, thus they do not have spouses, and thus they do not meet the necessary conditions for polygamy to occur. According Webster being in a marriage AND thus having a spouse AND having multiple mates in conjuction (i.e. simultaneously) is both a necessary and sufficient condition for polygamy to occur. As for me not supposedly not having any extant empirical evidence… Do you even understand the meaning of extant empirical evidence? Ah, do you understand that there are these books called dictionaries? And that in those books called dictionaries one can find the denotative meaning of words? Consequently, dictionaries function as an objective standard. Dictionaries are extant books, and thus the definitions (i.e. objective standards for the meaning of words) within them are also extant. I took the extant empircal evidence of a definition from Webster’s and then logically applied that standard to animals. If I was so biased and illogical then please, rationally explain the flaw in my analysis. If you it I can rewrite my argument in the form of a deductive argument. I did not originally present it in such a format because I assumed you could figure that out for yourself simply by following the grammar. Did I overestimate your skills with grammar, logic, and critical thinking? It sure looks like I did.

According to my Bible, Solomon had 700 wives & 300 concubines and is listed as among “God’s Righteous”. So, Ricky: What’s your “moral” problem with polygamy?