Shady Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 If Santorum didn't want to get into a pooh-flinging contest, he shouldn't have flung the first nugget. Nonsense. Santorum simply speaks his mind regarding gay issues when he's asked about them. The appropriate response is for Savage to speak his mind regarding Rick Santorum, not speaking your mind and manipulating Google. I could see if Santorum first used Google to define man on dog action as a "Savage." Which ironically is kind of apt! He picked this fight. This is the high horse he rode in on. He's quite proud of his bigotry, and he knows that a lot of people who support him feel the same way. More nonsense. What happened kimmy? Your posts used to be thoughtful and intellectual. He didn't pick a fight. Expressing views on certain issues isn't picking fights. It's called the first amendment and freedom of speech. And I disagree that he's bigoted any more than you're bigoted of Christians. He simply disagrees with the changing of the definition of marriage. Question: What if you had a son who came to you and said he was gay? Santorum: I would love him as much as I did the second before he said it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I generally am not on Santorum's side of the gay rights or any issue but in what way did he "pick a fight" with Savage? Not with Savage specifically, but with the gay community as a whole. Some gay rights supporters took issue with Santorum in more traditional ways... but with less memorable results. Nonsense. Santorum simply speaks his mind regarding gay issues when he's asked about them. The appropriate response is for Savage to speak his mind regarding Rick Santorum, not speaking your mind and manipulating Google. I don't see any onus on Dan Savage to respond to Rick Santorum in a way that Rick-- or Shady-- finds "appropriate". Dan Savage isn't running for public office, as far as I know. His job is to sell page-views or newspapers. He doesn't need to be "appropriate" anymore than Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly. More nonsense. What happened kimmy? Your posts used to be thoughtful and intellectual. He didn't pick a fight. Expressing views on certain issues isn't picking fights. It's called the first amendment and freedom of speech. You can exercise your freedom of speech in ways that are guaranteed to start a fight. Rick did so, and he can live with the consequences. And let's be honest, he's not at all sorry about that, because he knows that his core support is from people who think fags should be shot and that people who support gay rights were never going to support him anyway. And I disagree that he's bigoted any more than you're bigoted of Christians. He simply disagrees with the changing of the definition of marriage. That's the understatement of the year. He doesn't *simply* disagree with changing the definition of marriage. He also disagrees that there is any such thing as a constitutional right to privacy, and that what goes on between consenting adults in their own bedrooms *is* the state's business and that banning man-on-man sex is appropriate for the same reasons that banning man on child or man on dog sex is. His support for state sodomy legislation is rooted in the same justification as his support for the idea that states could (and should) ban contraceptives. I know you feel like you have some kind of duty to defend Christians and conservatives, Shady, but have you ever stopped to think that maybe you're sticking up for a scumbag? His belief that the state can and should legislate morality ought to be appalling to anybody who believes in liberty. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Legislating morality? What are laws against stealing, rape, child abuse, fraud,etc. if not legislating a set of morals? The folllowing are the comments from 2003 that put Santorum on the 'hate list' of gay activists. 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue, yes, it does, he said, referring to a Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, that struck down a sodomy law in the Lone Star state. This right to privacy that doesnt exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution. 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 thats what? Children. Monogamous relationships, continued Santorum, then the Republican Conference chairman. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. Thats not to pick on homosexuality. Its not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. This is what I found, if anyone knows of some other comments that would add to his collection, please let me know. First off, as that quote clearly shows, Santorum is not comparing gay sex to bestiality. He is simply stating that historically, all societies have held up tradtional marriage. He says he's not picking on homosexuality, and names several other options that are in conflict with the one man, one woman coupling. So the response from those who claimed he was comparing it to bestiality, they are simply trying to smear Santorum because they have no argument to challenge his. Second, his thoughts on the Supreme Court's take on what the Constitution says about consensual sex in your own home is not way out there. You may not agree, but consensual sex could mean several things to different people and the Court seems to be saying as long as it's consensual, you have the right to do it. This seems unbalanced. Edited January 31, 2012 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) If Santorum didn't want to get into a pooh-flinging contest, he shouldn't have flung the first nugget. First, I think it should be pointed out that Dan Savage isn't "the gay community", he's just an outspoken gay guy with a column. I don't know much about him, but I do know that he has not been elected as a representative of "the gay community" or have any official capacity to represent gay people. Referring to the "santorum" thing as if it were something endorsed by "the gay community" is simply false. Dan Savage posted it, and it went viral on the internet. End of story (for everybody except Rick, of course.) It went viral because millions of people on the internet thought it was hilarious, not because some secret cabal of gay men thought they could ruin Rick Santorum. Dan Savage may not be the gay community, but to suggest that the gay community had absolutely nothing to do with the Santorum thing going viral ignores the elephant in the room. So you're saying that millions of non gay people thought that naming this result of gay sex where shit becomes a by product of the sex was really funny? Hah hah, nobody knew who this Santorum guy was back then except millions of internet surfers who then clicked on it? It just doesn't quite add up that way. This Savage guy, not unlike Rosie O'Donnell, knows he has an audience that can at times do his bidding. So do many 'stars' in the media, like Limbaugh, Rosie O'Donnel(not so much now) and I could go on. But I may have oversimplified by simply calling it the gay community. Second, Dan Savage isn't running to be President. Rick is. That you're criticizing Dan Savage for lowering himself to the level of a US Senator who wants to be President says plenty about Santorum. I wouldn't vote for Dan Savage. Would you vote for Rick Santorum? Third, I'm puzzled as to why you feel sorry for Rick at all. He picked this fight. This is the high horse he rode in on. He's quite proud of his bigotry, and he knows that a lot of people who support him feel the same way. So why would you feel bad for him, when he's clearly quite pleased to be known as an enemy of gay people? I would think he would wear his santorum as a badge of honor. As far as lowering oneself goes, doesn't Savage lowering himself say something about him too? He seems like a pretty outrageous person, I'm puzzled that you want to defend him. And What makes you think I feel sorry for Santorum? I don't. Anyone who wants to run for president gets what they deserve. But I don't think he picked this gay fight. They picked something said 8 years ago and have apparently been hounding him during this election. One recent question shouted out to Santorum,"Would you abort a gay baby?" I didn't know they could test for gayness in the womb, but lets not let facts get in the way of stupidity. Finally... I have to point out: Stockwell Day never demanded that Rick Mercer stop calling him Doris... Sarah Palin never demanded that Tina Fey stop impersonating her on TV... George Bush Sr never blew up on Dana Carvey... I could go on, but I think you get the point. And yet... here's Rick Santorum, going to Google trying to make them remove Santorum from santorum. I would think that a guy who wants to be president could be the bigger man... but clearly Rick can't. -k Well it's not as cut and dried as all that. Palin even appeared on SNL, but decried some of the sick attempts at smearing her coming from other quarters, did she not? Dana Carvey's send ups were not malicious. BTW, do you find it interesting that the first examples to come to your mind are all conservatives being attacked? In any event, all Santorum was doing was trying to remove something on the internet. Good luck with that. Edited January 31, 2012 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 But I may have oversimplified by simply calling it the gay community. yes, clearly. It's all about web traffic, design, rankings and steering that traffic to affect search-engine placement... this MLW thread has, itself, helped direct traffic to the Savage website. So has, for example, this FoxNews article as it includes a direct link to http://spreadingsantorum.com. They picked something said 8 years ago and have apparently been hounding him during this election. the initial offending Santorum statements occurred in 2003. As I interpret the chronology, Savage put up his website in 2004 - this is not new; although it appears there may have been site affecting changes in 2010 (in any case, all before this current U.S. election campaign). If anything, it's been Santorum himself who raised the profile by his more recent reactions, including his approaching Google. In any event, all Santorum was doing was trying to remove something on the internet. Good luck with that. well, yes... good luck with that. His approaching Google was somewhat naive, given this isn't unique to Google... the same situation exists with Bing, with Yahoo, etc. Now, a while back Savage offered to take his website down if Santorum would donate $5 million to this group. Which, of course, wouldn't prevent someone else from following Savage's lead. of course, there is nothing preventing Santorum, or supporters, from attempting to influence search engine rankings to lower the Savage site ranking. As for his attempt with Google, apparently Santorum doesn't have the same pull as George Bush did... see "miserable failure Google Bomb". Of course, Google insists it didn't oblige Dubya... it simply adjusted it's search algorithm's as a part of "improvements/optimization/efficiency". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 They picked something said 8 years ago and have apparently been hounding him during this election. One recent question shouted out to Santorum,"Would you abort a gay baby?" I didn't know they could test for gayness in the womb, but lets not let facts get in the way of stupidity. The same tactic was tried against Paul for things he had no say or control of, and has since denounced many times. But that never stops the media from trying to get a sound bite for a sensationalistic headline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 The same tactic was tried against Paul for things he had no say or control of, and has since denounced many times. But that never stops the media from trying to get a sound bite for a sensationalistic headline. yabut, the post you replied to spoke of stupidity... apparently, thinking a "gay baby" might refer to the "baby of a gay couple" was a stretch for that poster! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Chinese Baidu - wiki trumps Savage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Legislating morality? What are laws against stealing, rape, child abuse, fraud,etc. if not legislating a set of morals? This does not stand up to scrutiny in the least.... stealing/fraud - taking something that is not yours rape - non-consentual child abuse - minors cannot give consent. It is abuse. gay relationships/sex - consentual between two adults. See the difference? In every way the things that you are comparing to being gay are not in any manner compareable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 because he knows that his core support is from people who think fags should be shot Wow, you've just completey gone off the deep end huh? That's the understatement of the year. He doesn't *simply* disagree with changing the definition of marriage. He also disagrees that there is any such thing as a constitutional right to privacy I disagree. He doesn't agree with the concept of gay marriage. It's a pefectly legitimate point of view. You can disagree or agree with him. and that what goes on between consenting adults in their own bedrooms *is* the state's business and that banning man-on-man sex is appropriate for the same reasons that banning man on child or man on dog sex is. I've never heard him suggest banning gay sex. I could be wrong. He's also never suggested the state ban conttraceptives. Your information is again very faulty. I know you feel like you have some kind of duty to defend Christians and conservatives It's not my feeling any more than it's your feeling to discriminate against Christians. Shady, but have you ever stopped to think that maybe you're sticking up for a scumbag? No, because I'm much better informed than you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) This does not stand up to scrutiny in the least.... stealing/fraud - taking something that is not yours rape - non-consentual child abuse - minors cannot give consent. It is abuse. gay relationships/sex - consentual between two adults. See the difference? In every way the things that you are comparing to being gay are not in any manner compareable. Ok, so why shouldn't 3 people that love each other be recognized as marriage? Why shouldn't two cousins or two siblings also be recognized? * On a side note. I'm now starting a Google campaign to have the term Layton be defined as breaking the hymen of a 12 year old girl. Since I don't like the NDP stance on minimum sentencing, especially in regards to sex offenders. Edited January 31, 2012 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Why shouldn't two cousins or two siblings also be recognized? * On a side note. I'm now starting a Google campaign to have the term Layton be defined as breaking the hymen of a 12 year old girl. Since I don't like the NDP stance on minimum sentencing, especially in regards to sex offenders. of course a successful campaign will require finding others of your persuasion coupled with a receptive media/blogosphere. Or, given your raised concerns you could alternatively channel your energies into attempting to raise the Santorum rankings... your call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Can he be considered as following in the footsteps of the two Pats whn his political agenda is concerned? I mean Robertson and Buchanan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Ok, so why shouldn't 3 people that love each other be recognized as marriage? Why shouldn't two cousins or two siblings also be recognized?Shady, I'm an extremist on that issue.I believe that any four mammals should be able to marry as long as one is a human over the age of 16. I posted this on Rabble under the name "lovebillygoat" with the exception of using the then-applicable age of consent of 14 and was promptly banned. I guess I'm too radical even for Rabble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I believe that any four mammals should be able to marry as long as one is a human over the age of 16. just to understand and appreciate your belief, why do you hold such a belief and what value-add do you believe this would bring to society, if any? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 just to understand and appreciate your belief, why do you hold such a belief and what value-add do you believe this would bring to society, if any? Freedom of expression of sincere and true love. In fact I was hoping that Defense Minister Graham would officiate the first marriage, his own, to a female musk ox, a male caribou and a 12 year old boy, on Hans Island, in order to assert Canada's sovereignty over that disputed real estate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I believe that any four mammals should be able to marry as long as one is a human over the age of 16. just to understand and appreciate your belief, why do you hold such a belief and what value-add do you believe this would bring to society, if any? Freedom of expression of sincere and true love. and the society value-add? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 He doesn't agree with the concept of gay marriage. It's a pefectly legitimate point of view. You can disagree or agree with him. Dont have to agree with him at all, it is you who has to agree he holds those views, (which you deny) because he did in fact want to ban gay sex . That 'better informed' view huh? Remember, this is the guy who once said: "I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts." He made the comment just before acknowledging that he disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling that individuals have a right to privacy and that such matters should be democratically controlled He doesnt agree with the privacy provision in the constitution so he can amend it to ban gay sex. What a fella ! I've never heard him suggest banning gay sex. I could be wrong. He's also never suggested the state ban conttraceptives. Your information is again very faulty. Faulty, wait a sec, down below you say you are better informed, which of course you aren't. ... former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who had stated earlier in the week that he would defund federal appropriations for birth control. Santorum adheres to strict Catholic beliefs and opposes contraception. He also favors allowing states the right to outlaw or ban contraceptive methods. Jan 9-2012 No, because I'm much better informed than you are. One should double check before bragging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 ...and a 12 year old boy, on Hans Island, in order to assert Canada's sovereignty over that disputed real estate. Two posts by two separate individuals , both referencing sex with 12 year olds. Is there some sort of mental imbalance w you two? And for the record, if you want to write comedy, be at least mildly amusing instead of totally annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Two posts by two separate individuals , both referencing sex with 12 year olds.Who else? Is there some sort of mental imbalance w you two?Did you mean "too"? And for the record, if you want to write comedy, be at least mildly amusing instead of totally annoying. Your opinion. And I did not write the original definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I disagree. He doesn't agree with the concept of gay marriage. It's a pefectly legitimate point of view. You can disagree or agree with him. (...) I've never heard him suggest banning gay sex. I could be wrong. He's also never suggested the state ban conttraceptives. Your information is again very faulty. Guyser already dealt with all of this very efficiently, but I'd just like to emphasize that the very quote that we've been discussing, which sharkman linked to earlier, is from an interview in which Santorum is criticizing the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-sodomy law. No, because I'm much better informed than you are. If you're well informed, then I guess the only explanation is that your head is stuck so far up your "no spin zone" that you're unable to interpret all this information you claim to have. * On a side note. I'm now starting a Google campaign to have the term Layton be defined as breaking the hymen of a 12 year old girl. Since I don't like the NDP stance on minimum sentencing, especially in regards to sex offenders. Let us know how that works out for you. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Legislating morality? What are laws against stealing, rape, child abuse, fraud,etc. if not legislating a set of morals? Those laws protect peoples' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Laws protecting people from robbery, violence, and so on, are not an attempt to endorse some moralist idea, but rather an absolute necessity in protecting the fundamental rights that are the cornerstone of western civilization. First off, as that quote clearly shows, Santorum is not comparing gay sex to bestiality. He is simply stating that historically, all societies have held up tradtional marriage. He says he's not picking on homosexuality, and names several other options that are in conflict with the one man, one woman coupling. So the response from those who claimed he was comparing it to bestiality, they are simply trying to smear Santorum because they have no argument to challenge his. He lumps homosexuality in with bestiality and pedophilia as abominable things that the law ought to ban. I don't see how you think this gets Rick off the hook. I'm honestly baffled. Second, his thoughts on the Supreme Court's take on what the Constitution says about consensual sex in your own home is not way out there. He's was (and still is) advocating for the idea that states have a right to tell people what they can and can't do in bed together. I'm not a lawyer so I can't weigh the legal merit of his stance, but the underlying idea is reprehensible. He's speaking in favor of laws that would in the not-too-distant past have made you and Mrs sharkwoman criminals for sharing oral stimulation in the privacy of your shark cave. It's despicable. You may not agree, but consensual sex could mean several things to different people and the Court seems to be saying as long as it's consensual, you have the right to do it. This seems unbalanced. What's unbalanced? I'm confused. What are you trying to balance? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 As far as lowering oneself goes, doesn't Savage lowering himself say something about him too? Maybe, but what of it? What's Dan Savage to me? I don't know anything about him, I don't read his column, and he doesn't have any more impact on my life than Ann Landers or any other columnist I don't read. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, wants to be president. I have American friends online and in "real life". I have American relatives. I love the United States. I'd feel really bad if something shitty happened to America, so I certainly don't want to see Rick Santorum become president. He seems like a pretty outrageous person, I'm puzzled that you want to defend him. I offer him only the same defense I offer Ann Coulter: his responsibility is to his publisher and his readership, not to you or me. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Those laws protect peoples' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Laws protecting people from robbery, violence, and so on, are not an attempt to endorse some moralist idea, but rather an absolute necessity in protecting the fundamental rights that are the cornerstone of western civilization. He lumps homosexuality in with bestiality and pedophilia as abominable things that the law ought to ban. I don't see how you think this gets Rick off the hook. I'm honestly baffled. He's was (and still is) advocating for the idea that states have a right to tell people what they can and can't do in bed together. I'm not a lawyer so I can't weigh the legal merit of his stance, but the underlying idea is reprehensible. He's speaking in favor of laws that would in the not-too-distant past have made you and Mrs sharkwoman criminals for sharing oral stimulation in the privacy of your shark cave. It's despicable. What's unbalanced? I'm confused. What are you trying to balance? -k I can't say I've read everything that Santorum has said on these matters. Your comments seem to infer that he has said some additional things since 2003 on oral sex. I haven't heard of this, but that goes too far in my book if he indeed feels this way. I tried googling to see what he's said and all I could get was a lot of anti-Santorum sentiment and hate speech. I guess that's why he doesn't get a larger share of the votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I can't say I've read everything that Santorum has said on these matters. Your comments seem to infer that he has said some additional things since 2003 on oral sex. I haven't heard of this, but that goes too far in my book if he indeed feels this way. I tried googling to see what he's said and all I could get was a lot of anti-Santorum sentiment and hate speech. I guess that's why he doesn't get a larger share of the votes. Perhaps you should find out what he actually said before you tap-tap-tap out words and opinions about what he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.