• Santorum With A Side Of Time Manipulation: Rick Santorum Now Claims He Never Compared Homosexuality
    11 replies, posted
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-bieber/rick-santorum-homosexuality-bestiality_b_1192365.html?ref=politics&ir=Politics[/url] [release]I'm pretty sure Rick Santorum lied to my face on Friday. I was in Manchester, N.H. for one of Santorum's "Faith, Family, and Freedom" town hall meetings. As the event was getting underway, I asked Bill Boyd, one of Santorum's spokesmen, about an event earlier in the day in which college students in Concord had confronted the senator about his views on sexuality. With the country moving away from Santorum on sexuality, how did the senator hope to reach his fellow Americans on these issues? Boyd remarked that Santorum is tolerant of other views and that he hopes Americans will extend Santorum the same courtesy and respect. "But the senator has compared loving homosexual relationships with bestiality," I remarked. Boyd apologized; he wasn't "informed about that quote." As the event wound down, I started to ask Santorum the same question. He broke in: "Read the quote." He hadn't compared the two, he claimed. I was bewildered. Of course he has -- it's well-documented. How is this even up for debate? I pressed back, but he wasn't having any of it: "Read the quote." One of his staffers turned to me, and with the sanctimonious expression of a parent reprimanding a child, exhorted me to do the same. I felt embarrassed. Had I misremembered the quotation? Worse, had I swallowed some leftist propaganda about the guy and then thrown it at his feet? So I sat down and read the quotation. It's from a 2003 interview with USA Today, and while the entire second half of the transcript is illuminating, the most damning quotation is this: "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing." I then stumbled across an interview from a couple of days ago, in which Santorum denies that he was associating homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality. CNN's John King reads the quotation to Santorum, and Santorum responds, "Hold on one second, John. Read the quote. I said it's not. I didn't say it is. I did not connect them. I specifically excluded them." In other words, Santorum is claiming that the "it's not" is meant to distinguish homosexuality from "man on child" and "man on dog." He wasn't equating homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality, he says. He was separating the two. But of course, that's not what he was doing. If you read the whole interview (or any number of other Santorum quotations), you'll see that he's not shy about his views on homosexuality. In his world, there is one acceptable kind of sex -- between a married man and woman -- and everything else is dangerous and unacceptable. More galling, though, is his attempt to re-parse this quotation now that he's running for president. Because of course, his rereading of the quotation makes little sense. Take another look: "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing." The "it" in "it's not" doesn't refer to "homosexuality." It refers to "the definition of marriage." Follow it through: "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. [The definition of marriage] is not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. [The definition of marriage] is one thing. At one level, none of this matters. Santorum's disdain for homosexuality is clear, and I doubt many voters are going to weigh their support for him based on whether he actually equated gay Americans with people who have sex with dogs. On the other hand, that's what he did, and nobody should let him get away with pretending otherwise.[/release] I'll bold stuff later. For now have this picture. [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/fatshithead1.jpg[/img]
Lol'd @ the look on the face of the little girl, at bottom left in the picture.
Update on this story. [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/rick-santorum-homosexuality-man-on-dog_n_1187103.html[/url] [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] Video in the link
Barring the fact that none of what he said he really means makes sense syntactically (that would make his very next line a [I]defense[/I] of homosexual relationships), it shouldn't matter, because the entirety of his statement before that is more explicit. [QUOTE=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm]SANTORUM: 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. [B]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.[/B] 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. [B]Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things,[/B] are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality — AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.[/QUOTE] That's kinda hilarious, though. I'm glad he did this, because it means somebody is going to hold him to the statement as read: "Homosexuality is not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality [of whatever]" and ask what the danger of destroying homosexuality is.
America never stops amazing me, they're so progressive, letting mentally challenged people run for president every election. Then again, when around 50% of your population belongs in a mental institution you don't have much choice if you want to represent them.
[QUOTE=Miskav;34143908]America never stops amazing me, they're so progressive, letting mentally challenged people run for president every election. [U]Then again, when around 50% of your population belongs in a mental institution you don't have much choice if you want to represent them.[/U][/QUOTE] Get ready for incoming shitstorm. While the choice of president is quite.... foolish, he is a republican; which are sometimes backward thinking religionists. How your statistic in mental issues in America baffles me.
Many Americans were born around people who were brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality its horrible, that abortion is killing people and that people from other religions(or without your religion) are spawns of hell that need to be cleansed from earth. It was just a matter of time for newborns to be thinking like that too. Repeat that several times and you have a nation of bigoted people. They aren't necessarily nutjobs, they were just raised believing in stupid things(Many republicans have big corporations because they are great business men and really smart). Only a few have questioned their religion and culture to create something better and now they are been frowned upon by the rest of the nation. Also many leaders twisted their own religion to control the masses that were already following their religion as their life-guide.
Oh wow, just how can these guys get so far up their careers? :v: Nikota you're on fire with Santorum. Wasn't this guy the dead fetus picture guy?
Eat santorum, santorum
[QUOTE=Santz;34146605]Many Americans were born around people who were brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality its horrible, that abortion is killing people and that people from other religions(or without your religion) are spawns of hell that need to be cleansed from earth. It was just a matter of time for newborns to be thinking like that too. Repeat that several times and you have a nation of bigoted people. They aren't necessarily nutjobs, they were just raised believing in stupid things(Many republicans have big corporations because they are great business men and really smart). Only a few have questioned their religion and culture to create something better and now they are been frowned upon by the rest of the nation. Also many leaders twisted their own religion to control the masses that were already following their religion as their life-guide.[/QUOTE] There really aren't as many as you think... There are more people that think of gays as normal person like everyone else and don't care if they get married and do whatever they please. There are also a lot of people who don't care what religion you support. The problem is, if you don't live here you don't ever hear or see them because they don't make interesting news or entertainment.
To be fair, the quote he was referencing does not say that homosexuality is or is like bestiality, he says that marriage is [i]not[/i] homosexual, pedophilic, or bestial. The way I see that quote isn't that he's likening homosexual marriage to those, but that he's specifically contrasting traditional marriage to those, claiming that marriage is not those. He's nt saying that these three are alike, he's saying that this one is not these three.
[QUOTE=Squad;34146672]There really aren't as many as you think... There are more people that think of gays as normal person like everyone else and don't care if they get married and do whatever they please. There are also a lot of people who don't care what religion you support. The problem is, if you don't live here you don't ever hear or see them because they don't make interesting news or entertainment.[/QUOTE] But free thinkers aren't as much as religious people in the USA. While they are a lot, they are still a minority. And most of them are too young to power up a cultural revolution. Edit; Eventually when this youngsters have children and raise them to believe in equality for everyone, things will change but right now its too hard to do that on old/middle aged people who are too deep in their believes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.