"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.

Oddly enough, I heard that the word "gay" was added by the associated press to "clarify" what Santorum said. (That's probably why the AP put parentheses around it). Also, oddly enough, the AP reporter that interviewed Santorum is supposedly the wife of the campaign manager for one of the Democratic Presidential candidates.

You don't think that this campaign against Santorum may be politically based do you???

Read the quote again. The key word is not "gay" (which he did not use), it's the word consensual . Unfortunately, the press is more focused on destroying a republican senator than analyzing what he said. :rolleyes:

Todrick, the reason I disagreed with you is because gays already have the same rights as everybody else. They have the right to get married... its just that marriage is currently defined as heterosexual couples. They still have the right to live together, etc. The complexity comes from the homosexual special interest groups and anti-gay bigots bickering about how immoral the lifestyle is.

For an enlighted individual like me, the issue is crystal clear. Do whatever the hell you want, sleep with whoever you want, just don't expect me to get hysterical when a senator discusses supreme court decisions and his enemies misrepresent his beliefs.

Exactly.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/santorum.excerpts.ap/index.html


Shocking.

Sorry Todrick, I edited my previous post while you answered. I explained why I "disagreed" with you.

LOL... yeah, just read it again... it make me look nuts
also... it looks like we agree mor ethan one would think...

the only difference is i think being gayis not a choice and therefore homosexuals should have the right to marry and get all the benefits associated with marraige

I think the topic is a bit astray here... Please, people, read the damn article before spewing worthless crap about which Xterra owner is gay or not.

Call me "liberal," or - in the case of NYMadman, call me a "radical" (haha) - but "Sanitorium" is full of shit. It's quotes like this little gem:

"'I think that while some elites may be upset by those comments, they're pretty much in the mainstream of where most of the country is,' Bauer said."

...that make me lose faith in our society. This moron thinks mainstream society supports these ideals? Um, no.

Or how about this one:

"'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.'"

What is he smoking, and can he pass that shit? Exactly how far from reality can you be to compare adultery with homosexuality? It's an interesting Republican scare-tactic. God, think of the madness! Before long, we'll be in the midst of giant Democratic orgies! The liberals - excuse me, "radicals" - will be having sex anywhere they PLEASE! We need to put a foot down and stop those homosexuals from having sex.

And finally:

"'The basic liberal philosophy is materialistic, is relativistic, to the point of, you've got candidates for president saying we should condone different types of marriage.'"

"Materialistic?" This guy IS a Republican, right? I mean, he's not just using the party name to get votes...that would be downright...Republican. I mean, we radical left wing wackos are always rolling down the strip in our Mercedes, while our Republican enemies cruise along in VW vans...

The point I'm trying to make here, is that this is an elected official. He represents the state of Penn. and, therefore, he represents a portion of our nation. When fucknuts like this start spewing how THEIR ideas represent the "majority of the American public," it makes me want to yack. Don't vote for pricks like this and we can get back to talking about differentials and tires.

I think you are wrong. Most Americans do not want to kill gays or ship them to another country or anything. Most people believe what you do in your own home is your business.

Most Americans do have a problem with all these fucking rights they are demanding. Most have a problem with the gay agenda being pushed in education, special hate crimes, etc. and all sorts of legislation pushing this crap on the public ... all in the ruse of tolerance. It's bullshit.

It is wrong for 5% of the population... a deviant 5% at that.. to force it's immorality on the overwhelming majority.

Santorum can say what he wants. It's the deviant thought police like you that twist his words and meaning to suit your own agenda.

We now have a new liberal psychotic deviant supporter on the board.

EDIT: This is a perfect example of the gay nazi's in action:

http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=7fb7d5d8-900e-4089-9625-0eca7017ce35

I agree. I never said that Americans wanted to kill gays! This is exactly what I'm talking about - Sanitorium stated that he believes HIS views represent the majority or the population, and he is wrong. You agree with me on that, "most Americans do not want to kill gays or ship them to another country," but Sanitorium does.

So, you think they should have NO rights? Or no "special rights?" Is it YOUR job to decide when they are requesting "special" rights or "equal" rights? No, it's the job of our elected officials. When they do a shitty job of representing the people, the people speak out. So, I'm speaking out. It's called DEMOCRACY. I think your views tend to lean towards a Monarchy. "Just do as the king says, and all will be well."

Where does the "deviant" come into the picture? Exactly how am I "deviant?" Because I use my head? Because I think for myself? Because I don't allow officials - officials that I did not elect - to speak for me? Deviancy and "morals" have nothing to do with Democracy, liberalism, or free speech. Perhaps it would help if you understood what the word means: "to stray especially from a standard, principle, or topic." Let me point you towards a prime example of deviant behavior: Our coke-snorting president.

You're right - he can say whatever he wants. And, after he finds that he's not re-elected, he'll say something different to please the voters. My only "agenda" is to make sure fucknuts like Sanitorium don't represent me when they speak to the media, just like people like you shouldn't represent the views of XOC. "Thought police?" Brilliant. Because I think for myself, I'm considered "deviant."

Who knows. Maybe now you'll learn something.

Again, I think you're confusing your words a bit. Here, you use the word "Nazi" in a derogatory way, indicating that you don't like Nazism. That's good. Nazis are bad. I applaud you on that one. But Nazism and Facism are based on the principals that you embody - you don't like all this "deviant" behavior, where people speak out against the majority - but Nazism is just that: autonomous response to the reich. Maybe you're right - maybe we SHOULD just nod our heads and let our country be purged of all these "gays."

Now you are being an idiot. When the fuck did Santorum ever say he wanted gays dead?

The problem with you liberals is that you see homosexual behavior as normal. It is not normal. It is deviant. They choose this deviant lifestyle.

A sexual preference in no way should be elevated to a legally protected civil right.

You liberals are always screaming the government is forcing morality on everyone everytime the word GOD is mentioned. Most people are sick of you liberals forcing immorality on everyone.

Santorum doesn't represent you. He doesn't speak for you. I am sure he will be re-elected in a landslide. The people of Pennsylvania for the most part are good traditional moral people.

Unlike you psychotic liberals in the North West. You should worry more about psycho politicians closer to home like that Se. Patty Murray. I bet a deranged liberal like you thinks she is great.

It's not a choice (yes, I know, there are many factors). However...let's say that is the case, that it shouldn't be protected because it's a choice, then I want to see all protections for religion removed. Religion is 100% absolute choice. There is no denying that. (If it were inate, how did my family go from Quaker to M.E. to Roman Catholic in 4 generations?)

misguided? :p

Please explain to us why YOU PERSONALLY feel homosexuality is deviant, no quotes or links please, just YOUR rational why it's so bad, and why it's such a threat, and how it's corrupting the "Moral Majority" of this country.

How many times do people have to explain it to you retard? Most homosexuals want EQUAL rights. Sure there are some exstremists out there, but the majority of gays just want to live and receive the benifits given to hetrosexuals, that's it. (it's like talking to a brick wall here, sheez!)

And us free thinkers are sick of you conservatves tring to force your brand of what you call "morals" (brainwashing) on everybody. All I can say is I am SO glad it says "separation of church and state" in the consitution.

Come on Moby...

Usually you put more lucid points across.

Comparing gays to religion is absoloutely ludicrous and ridiculous.

Religion is not protected. The state does not get involved. That's it. We have separation of church and state remember. They are tax exempt but so are a number of non religious entities.

To make your comparison then regarding sexual preferences.. the state should also not get involved. There should be a separation of state and sex. That means no laws giving them any special rights.

Religion DOES have protection, it has to some degree protection under a law you detest so much, "Hate Crimes". Are you saying if a Jew is killed because he/she was Jewish, it wouldn't be prosecuted under the "hate crimes" provision?

:rolleyes:

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.

This has to be on of the best quotes I have read. This dude is totally a closet whipping boy. I bet he goes to a Dom once a week for a spanking. We need Larry Flint to get some dirt on him.

This came after the statment that In his opinion right to privacy is not part of the constitution.

I haven't been in on this argument so far, but I do agree with Ny Madman that gays do not deserve separate inclusion in the laws. I disagree in that they do deserve equality, in so much a hetero couple has. And since insurance policies and the like often require that a couple be legally married (through ceremony or common law) and gay marriages are not considered to be legitimate in most states, that is how the law should be decided. By state. States rights...

But, on a side note, NY madman, I really thought you dug into Todrick on a very personal level, and it should be just left out. Let's not let this forum and topic get too personal and too heated. I think it was pretty low to spew out his personal life here. I know some people cut you too, but just leave it off man. I don't know 99% of the people here in any way other than what they type, but the 1% I DO know are also human beings and deserve to be treated with a little dignity, and should return that to you.

This situation has nothing to do with religion. The perpetrator would be charged under the same provisions as if the victim were black.

You have a sick twisted mind Sean. You need someone to explain the mechanics of gay sex? It's not surprising that a sick fuck like you would think it is normal.

You can probably read about it in the instruction manuals your son will be bringing home from the liberal school you will be sending him to. They start them around the first grade up there. All in the name of tolerance and diversity of course.

Or maybe you can wait a few more years until he comes home from his first date complaining his ass hurts.

My mistake - Sanitorium never said that.

Apparently you missed the definition of the word "deviant." Again, it's "going against a predefined standard." Not the majority, mind you, but the "standard." There is no "standard" for sexuality. Heterosexuality is NOT the "standard," and don't even try to convince yourself otherwise. Read a book. Maybe you'd learn that homosexuality has been around since the Greeks.

Exactly where did I mention God? This is about homosexual rights, not God. Again, try READING the posts before responding.

Who are you speaking for? People in New York, or just madmen in general?

Could someone that actually LIVES in Pennsylvania respond to this completely idiotic statement? Does a gay-bashing politician speak for your entire state? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller...Bueller...

There's that liberal use of the words "psycho" and "deviant." Get a fucking thesaurus already. Does anyone else find it ironic that someone with the handle "Madman" calls everyone else "psycho?"

From the Department of Labor website:

EMPLOYMENT
For Employers holding federal contracts or subcontracts:

Executive Order 11246, as amended, prohibits job discrimination on the basis of race, color, RELIGION, sex or national origina and and requires affirmative action to ensure equality of opportunity in all aspects of employment.

For Private Employment, State and Local Governments, Educational Insitutions:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, RELIGION, sex or national origin.

For Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance:

In addition to the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Employment discrimination is covered by Title VI if the primary objective of the financial assistance is provision of employment,or where employment discrimination causes or may cause discrimination inproviding services under such programs. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities which receive Federal assistance.

HOUSING (From HUD's website)

Federal law prohibits housing discrimination based on your race, color, national origin, RELIGION, sex, family status, or disability. If you have been trying to buy or rent a home or apartment and you believe your rights have been violated, you can file a fair housing complaint.

Yeah...religion isn't protected. :rolleyes:

Killing someone who is Jewish is not a "hate crime"? Get your head out of your ass.

I had a feeling I wouldn't get any straight answers from you, when you don't know something, you just get personal. Should I send my son to a Catholic school for brainwashing and the off chance he can get raped by a priest? That comment about first date and ass hurting, is that from personal experience? At least my son WILL go to a university.

Alright, I have agreed with some of your points in the past, but posts like this prove you are nothing more than a close-minded hatemonger. You are just as bad as the wackos on the extreme left. Anyone that is not exactly like you is a 'deviant' because everything you do is 'normal'.

Your personal attacks show that you just spew crap you have heard elsewhere, and can not come up with a single original thought without resorting to personal attacks. If you were any were as smart or informed as you seem to think, you would not resort to repetitive name calling, and bullying like you do. The personal attacks make you look like a total jackass. Instead of debating the topic, you do this when you can't counteract someone elses point. So, why don't you do us all a favor and until you have something coherent to say.

I think we should get more Frontier owners to post on this board

On the basis of discrimination it has the same weight as racial considerations. As in you can't hang a Help Wanted sign saying No Jews need apply.

I would in no way say that protects the various institutions of religion. For example the state has no specific laws protecting the Catholic Church or the Episcopal Church, etc.

The liberals want to add gays , cross dressers and every freak going into anti-discrimination laws. That would affect many levels of our society.

No religious organization that believes homosexuality is wrong would be able to keep them out of any social organizations they manage. Even the Boy Scouts would have to allow deviants who want to camp with little boys.

The gay legislation is more than some bullshit civil rights issue. It is an attack on every religious and private organization in America. It is the state trampling all over the rights of these individuals. It is wrong. Aetheists know this and support the gay bullshit because they would love to see relgion in America destroyed.

Uh yeah, like you'd believe what he said. After all, he'd be talking about that cult of a religion's view. :rolleyes:

(It's excommunicated, by the way, not expatrioted)

The Boy Scouts and the others would have to do no such thing. Private organizations can allow whoever they want to be members. A good example of this is Augusta's no female policy.