I never said that, so stop setting a fake position attributed to me that you can attack and then pretend to have defeated me; you know, one of those straw thingies.
My position was and is that Santorum was not parsing the ramifications of the Texas sodomy case but making a blatantly antigay remark. That evidence has surfaced to corroborate my interpretation is nice but unnecessary. Dewey, you are frightfully clever but also frightfully naive in understanding the nuances of hate rhetoric. Every black person knows what a white politician is talking about when “urban crime” is mentioned, and every gay person knows that the invidious equivalences to incest and other behaviors made by a politician are not neutral interpretations of law but bigotry.
cjhoworth did not bother to mention any of the Senator’s past words, voting records, and political initiatives in his OP, nor did his link include any such contextual data. His OP basically said “based on these comments, Santorum is a homophobe.” If he wanted his OP to be credible, he should have included that additional contextual information in the first instance.
I honestly can’t believe I’m being criticized for demanding better evidence than that presented by the OP. On a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, you’d think such demands would be encouraged.
All of my posts specifically noted that Santorum may well be a homophobe. Additional evidence has since arisen that leads to that conclusion. But that does not change the fact that the evidence presented in the OP. by itself, was insufficient to corroborate the accusation of homophobia.
Far from saying “lalalala I can’t hear you,” I have from the beginning said that additional evidence could demonstrate the Senator was a homophobe. My only point was that the article linked in the OP did not demonstrate that fact. Why this is a controversial statement is simply beyond me.
I think that, unlike the statements quoted by the article in the OP, those statements could reasonably be construed as homophobic. **
The argument isn’t that “homosexual sex” mustn’t be protected lest it lead to other things; the argument is that a broad “right to consensual sexual activity” must not exist because it necessarily includes other things. Note that this position also means that a wide range of heterosexual practices are not protected by the constitution. Santorum may well be a homophobe, but this particular argument is not homophobic.
ArchiveGuy was right. You are pulling the “La, la, la, la… I can’t hear you.”
Discussing or debating with you is worthless because you are not an honest participant. You ignore facts, ignore arguements that you don’t want to deal with, and belittle those who disagree with you.
I know that you are going to dissect my post and try to show that this makes you right and me wrong.
By the way… don’t patronize me by calling me dear, you pompous ass. I am not your dear, and you have no place being that familiar with me.
Well, then I guess I’m wrong-it’s just that when someone mentions bigamy, I think of con artists who marry one woman, then move on and marry someone else without telling the second woman he’s already married.
Or keeps two wives in different places and they don’t know about each other.
Far from being a “fake position,” you make the same “I know, trust me” argument in your very next paragraph. See below. **
Let’s be absolutely clear on this point: you are saying that, ignoring all other contextual data, including the other quotation from the Santorum interview, that the statement made by Santorum in the article linked in the OP, standing alone, was an antigay remark. Am I correct?
Because if that’s the case I take serious issue with it. If you’re saying that knowing nothing else about Santorum other than the fact he made that one particular quote (other than perhaps that he is a Republican Senator) is sufficient evidence to call the man a homophobe, then you’re casting out an accusation without a sufficient basis.
If, on the other hand, you’re saying “being familiar with Santorum’s voting record and campaign strategies, I believe that those remarks were homophobic,” then that’s a horse of a different color. I hope you can see the difference between the two. **
See, you are making a “because I said so” argument here. What you’re basically saying is that you, as a gay person, have a special sixth sense that allows you to adduce the meaning of certain phrases, even without important contextual information. I mean really – why don’t you just say “it’s a gay thing, you wouldn’t understand?”
As I’ve noted, I’ve made arguments quite similar to the one proffered by Santorum in the OP’s quote. Simply put, if the constitution protects a broad “right to sexual activity,” it necessarily protects a right to adult incest. Making that point does not draw an “equivelance” between incest and homosexual sex: rather, it points out a constitutional reality.
Or would you suggest I a homophobe for making that argument? I oppose the Texas law and think it should be repealed, but don’t think there is a constitutional issue with the law. Do I have to check my brain at the door and forego all legal analysis just to duck the “homophobe” label?
Toots, I will stack my posting record, including my posts in this thread, up against anyone on these boards. I’m not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I think my history here reflects intellectual honesty and vigor. I do not ignore facts or arguments, and I only belittle those who deserve it (read: you).
Really, what fact have I ignored? That Santorum has made other remarks and taken other actions, not present in the OP, that probably indicate homophobia? How can you say I “ignored” that when I specifically noted it multiple times? **
Sorry, cupcake. I didn’t mean to make my wittle shmoopsie-woopsie puddin’ butt upset.
So as long as I’m an anonymous poster on a message board, I can make that statement and be fine, but as soon as I run for office as a Republican and make that statement I’m pandering to the religious right and thus am a homophobe?
(Remember, we’re ignoring contextual information for purposes of your argument – according to you, the additional statements from Santorum were “nice but unnecessary.”)
That, btw, is dead wrong. There are been plenty of examples of same-sex marriages cross-culturally. (Hawai’ian Aikane matings, for instance. I’ll find other cites if wanted).
Y’all might find this Slate article re: Santorum’s comment and the reaction to it interesting. The upshot: The outrage by some gay-rights advocates at being lumped in with incest doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny, and seems awfully hypocritical.
That said, come on. The tone of Santorum’s comments certainly sounded disparaging of homosexuality to me. Was he or was he not connoting, “If you take this legal position, look at all the other terrible things that are allowable under that legal position?”
As the author of the article I linked writes:
I, for one, could not care less what consenting adults are doing sexually in private. Well, unless I’m somehow involved.
At this late stage, Dewey, after reviewing both the statements made in the OP, subsequent follow-ups from that press conference, and more past history, does it at least seem fairly obvious to you now that Santorum is a raging homophobe?
Dewey, I re-read my own OP, and, to a certain extent you’re right. I didn’t read Santorum’s remarks in the link quoted. My morning started with hearing his words as originally quoted, then with reading the article I linked to in my morning newspaper. I assumed it would be identicle to what was in the paper.
My own set of Christian morals means I’m very strictly limited in what I can say about another person, especially about another person I consider a hypocrite and an asshole of the first water. How strictly? That last statement was pushing it. As a result, I deleted a paragraph about his hypocrisy on abortion (irrelevant) and left out his blindness about the circumstances about anyone who is not an upperclass, straight, white, suburban male (thanks to whoever pointed out I left out the “not” last time). Dopers being the efficient people they are, I had no doubt other, more skilled people would be along to finish the job I started. As others have pointed out, he’s got a long track record.
Since I’ve taken off the gloves and ditched the morals, I will say now what I wanted to say 48 hours ago, but didn’t. I won’t say “Fuck you”. Instead, I’ll wish upon him the same fate he has advocated for others. May he never, ever have sex again for as long as he lives. May he have to practice the celibacy he would enforce upon others.
CJ
Anyone know where I can find an Episcopal priest?! :sigh:
That argument is not disparaging of homosexuality in and of itself. Indeed, in some ways it indicates acceptance of homosexuality, as in “I personally think homosexuality is morally OK, but the argument presented in favor of constitutional protection for homosexual sex leads inevitably to constitutional protection of other, less savory practices, so I must oppose that constitutional interpretation.”
N.B.: I’m not saying Santorum personally thinks that way – quite the opposite, I think other evidence shows he harbors antigay sentiment. I’m just saying that particular argument is not by itself disparaging to gays.
I think it fairly clear that Santorum harbors antigay sentiment. I don’t think he’s Fred Phelps – the “raging” qualifier might be a bit much.
cjhoworth: Thank you. We can’t read what you don’t post.
Wow, I can’t believe he said that. Not only did he piss off gays, but 90% of congress by equating homosexuality with adultery. And incest, jeez, he dissed all of West Virginia.
Reading the OP’s quote without the context of the rest of Santorum’s remarks makes it quite clear to anyone who has ever dealt with a gay rights issue that the remarks are anti-gay. Santorum invokes all of the classic arguments against recognizing the equality of gay people except bestiality and necrophilia. Anyone who believes Santorum was commenting purely on the legal aspects of the case is a fool.
Reading Santorum’s remarks in their entirety makes it quite clear that Santorum is a raging bigot. Anyone who suggests that his remarks could be interpreted to mean “I personally think homosexuality is morally OK, but the argument presented in favor of constitutional protection for homosexual sex leads inevitably to constitutional protection of other, less savory practices, so I must oppose that constitutional interpretation” is a damned fool.
In conclusion, Senator Santorum thinks butt-fucking will lead to the destruction of the American family, that fucking your siblings will lead to the destruction of the American family, that having sex with multiple partners will lead to the destruction of the American family, that having sex with someone who is not your legal spouse will lead to the destruction of the American family, that marrying more than one person at a time will lead to the destruction of the American family and that each of these acts are morally equal to each other. And anyone who thinks that this isn’t what he thinks is a total fucking moron.
In related news, the phony-baloney Republican Unity Coalition has called on Senator Asshat to apologize even if they did find it necessary to drag out the “he has the First AMendment right to say these things” as if anyone on either side of this issue has said or even implied that he didn’t.
It took them almost a week to come up with this weak-ass statement?
Thanks, Otto for your more incisive recap of my posts, but I’m afraid Dewey still playing deaf, dumb, and blind. OTOH, I’m sure his refusal to see or hear has made him really good at pinball.
In less-happy news, there has been speculation for years about how much longer Snowe and Chafee, as well as a few other moderate Northeasterners, will remain Republicans. I read their comments as being more on their own behalf than on the party’s, from which they have been increasingly marginalized.
I don’t have a Daily Show transcript, but a couple of days ago Stewart commented to the effect that “Santorum, like Lott before him, is getting into trouble for publicly stating the Republican Party platform.”
Which further reinforces my suspicion that somewhere in the President’s Compassionate Conservative LMNOcution Handbook there is a line that states, “the term ‘inclusive’ should be made part of the public record whenever defending the practice of trashing homosexuals, ethnic minorities, the poor, and liberals.”
I think it would be happy news indeed if Snowe and Chafee and other moderate Republicans left the party, either to become independents or Democrats. Either would take the Senate away from the Republicans, which would carry with it the happy goal of consigning Senator Asshat to the outer darkness (even his most ardent supporters are likely to fall away if the blowback from his shitstorm costs the Party an entire house of Congress).
