"Some perfectly valid questions for Mr. Santorum"

Theophylact · April 24th, 2003, 10:38 AM

From Atrios:

Quote:

1) Were you a virgin on your wedding night?

2) Have you ever committed adultery?

3) Have you ever committed an act of sodomy?

4) If it were up to you, would Mary Cheney be in jail now? Would you give that answer personally to her father?

5) If it were up to you, would Congressman Kolbe (R-AZ) be in jail right now?

6) What is your honest opinion of [name and link deleted for the sake of seemliness]?

surreal · April 24th, 2003, 11:01 AM

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 said in the AP interview.

deleted
ACK! I'm going to report myself to a moderator!

surreal, your comment was uncalled for! Deleted.

osprey4 · April 24th, 2003, 12:12 PM

The fact that he made a good legal point is completely lost on the PC Nazis.

surreal · April 24th, 2003, 01:04 PM

And what was that point and who are PC Nazis?

caddmannq · April 24th, 2003, 01:52 PM

Someone sent me a swastika for my birthday, so I guess I've just been appointed to the PC Nazis.

In spite of that, you will never convince me that homosexualty, bigamy, incest, adultry, promiscuity, lesbianism, or any other similar deviant behaviour is natural, acceptable, desireable, lawful, sacred, protected, or worthy of anything except contempt.

Just ask yourself this question: Would I want my children to do this stuff? Or my parents?

If you can honestly answer "yes", please go drive off a bridge and make the world a better place.

osprey4 · April 24th, 2003, 02:27 PM

He wasn't trying to equate the morality (or immorality) of these practices. By in large, our society recognizes homosexual conduct as perfectly acceptable (for better or worse), but would not find the other things he mentions to be acceptable.

All he was saying is that if the Supreme Court decides that homosexual conduct is protected by virtue of a consitutional right of consenting adults to do carry on in the privacy of their own home, does this right also protect those who practice incest, polygamy, etc.?

Edit: "PC Nazis" are those who make political hay of any comment that might potentially offend a segment of society.

surreal · April 24th, 2003, 02:29 PM

I didn't see that as a question more of a statement. Which then I find taking the issue of consent to absurdity. Making a mockery of the whole situation.

Knothead · April 24th, 2003, 02:41 PM

It is none of my, or anyone else's business what consenting adults do in private.

The truly SICK people in a case like this are the ones who deliberately "make hay" over somebody else's practices.

Keywords:

Consenting Adults

In Private

J-Excel · April 24th, 2003, 02:43 PM

IMO premarital sex was the first rung on the ladder of sexual deviant behavior. That was pushed to the point of majority acceptance. The next rung was homosexuality. That has been pushed to the point of majority acceptance. What's the next rung? Polygamy? Consentual sex with minors? I think that's the point he was trying to make.

People that fully accept homosexuality as normal behavior might find that offensive, but then people that have fully accepted polygamy as normal behavior might find arguments against it offensive too.

Theophylact · April 24th, 2003, 03:51 PM

Quote:

IMO premarital sex was the first rung on the ladder of sexual deviant behavior

You've got an odd idea of "deviant", since it applies to something that most people do and have always done.