Santorum and his views on our privacy rights

[kieefer]

Yes, that is correct. Paul did support DOMA. However, Paul would like to take it a step further. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that we need to get the government out of the marriage business. Santorum believes just the opposite. He states that the government should be promoting traditional marriage. I used to believe the same thing Santorum believes. I still believe that marriage is only between a man and woman. However, I cannot deny someone else's right to partake in the financial and civil benefits that come from marriage.

The only solution I can come up with that is fair for everyone is the implementation of civil unions for everyone. Traditional marriage will still be available for those like myself who believe in it. However, we will be required to enter into a civil union or contract in order to receive any state or federal benefits. States or local communities that do not want to recognize same-sex marriage are still free to do so, but they cannot deny two individuals wishing to enter into a civil union.

“The question is whether we should change the laws of this country to reflect a different value structure. What we’re talking about here are different values. We have to Judeo-Christian values that are based on Biblical truth and truth that can be acclaimed and resolved through reason. And, those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”

He went onto say, “People are allowed to love a lot of different people, and we honor those relationships, but we don’t call them marriage and we don’t treat them like marriage.”

Santorum concluded, “Family is the foundation of our society and marriage is the glue that holds that family together. That’s not being against anybody, that’s being for something.”

RS also sees that civil unions is just a step closer to degrading the value of marriage that has been part of every society in the history of man that has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman.

You can either accept his position or start picking apart all of Romney's faults. IMO, RS is the better choice between the two, IF this is what it comes down to.

As said below, this issue is minor compared to the state of the economy and having a dictator in charge.

Edited January 9, 2012 by kieefer

[USMCJG]

You might as well throw my ass in jail right now

Sorry, but that's the way it has to be. We can't have a bunch of perverts having sex on the second Wednesday of months that end in "Y". That's just gross. Edited January 8, 2012 by USMCJG

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yep marriage is not the state's biz except child support issues. Similarly, there is no sense taxing people according to their marital status or number of children. Insurance should be portable policies which are not tied to the workplace. And it is none of the hospital's biz who wants to visit a loved one in ICU.

The anti-gay people always say that it opens the door to polygamy and bestiality. Beastiality is an animal rights issue because animals can't give consent. The only thing I see wrong with polygamy among consenting adults, is that most men would not survive being simultaneously nagged by multiple women!

[Oh Shoot]

...The only solution I can come up with that is fair for everyone is the implementation of civil unions for everyone. Traditional marriage will still be available for those like myself who believe in it. However, we will be required to enter into a civil union or contract in order to receive any state or federal benefits. States or local communities that do not want to recognize same-sex marriage are still free to do so, but they cannot deny two individuals wishing to enter into a civil union.

That's the crux of the issue. What we call "marriage" (a religious/moral) term is already treated by the states and the fed as a "civil contract". Hence "marriage" affects many secular things in life. Social Security and survival bennies for "spouses", military bennies for same, various assistance programs, loans, inheritance, adoption, taxes, etc, too many to name. On both state and federal levels.

It's only reasonable that I should be able to enter a "civil union" (a "life trust agreement" if you will) with any other member of the species, whether sex or progeny even enter into it.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The civil contract between two hyenas should be okay, but marriage is like OS

said. It is a religious/ moral union between a man and a woman. The two aren't

the same, though, except in the eyes of government. There should be no benefit

or punishment, tax wise or otherwise given by government. It shouldn't be something

the government codifies in the first place.

Sorry if I added to what you said, OS.

One is a legal concept and the other is a religious event. Even in a divorce, you can

have repercussions with your church in most religions.

I was listening to this stuff on Wilkow Majority(sat) and he made too much sense

for me. For a government to give to one, they have to take from another. I'm too

lazy right now to look, but is it an enumerated right of our government to get

involved in this?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nothing wrong with a civil union or contract. Just don't say it's marriage.

[RobertNashville]

According to an article from ABC News, in another 2003 interview he said:

Do you think you have a right to consensual sex in your own home? Santorum is clear that he doesn't think so. I really am shocked to see this coming from a guy who has gotten so much support from Republicans. And he is calling Ron Paul dangerous and crazy...

Rick Santorum in the Hot Seat Again for Gay Marriage Stance - ABC News

I think you are taking things out of proportion here.

We have the right to enjoy our homes and be secure in our persons and not be subject to "unreasonable" search and seizure...we do not have the "right" to do anything we want with/to anyone we want just because we do it on our "private property" or in our bedroom for that matter. To continue the example he gave, incest is against the law and for damn good reasons...just because the sex is happening inside my home doesn't protect me from being charged with a crime or from having the police break down my door to arrest me if they have just cause and/or a warrant to do so.

[RobertNashville]

I am much more worried about the quote in the first post, which is flat out scary, than I am the quote in the second post, which is just insanely idiotic. As far as the whole sanctity of marriage argument, to have this argument we must assume that the government has any business being involved in marriage at all- whether traditional or not. I would take the position that the government has no place in anyone's marriage.

I'm agree.

Frankly, the entire concept of "marriage" comes from religion predates the United States by at least a few thousand years and in many countries, it is the "church"; not the government, who defines what is and isn't "marriage" and the church is the only vehicle through which people can marry each other.

Government truly does have no place in it and I would submit that the only reason it does is because it's a means of control (through the tax code) and a means of at least some revenue.

[Moped]

If I were Dictator of the United States, there would only be Civil Unions for tax and benefits proposes, that you got at the Court House. Anyone could have a Civil Union with anyone else, gender does not matter. Marriage would be a religious ceremony with significance only to the two people involved and their chosen church. Guess what, as far as I can see, that still wouldn't preclude Gays from getting married as long as their church recognizes it!

As for sex in the privacy of one's on home, as long as it's between two consenting adults and doesn't involve minors or animals, I don't care. It's none of mine or anyone else's business, including Herr Santorum.

RS is the Republican Version of a Nazi, and him and his ilk the biggest reason I've been moving more and more to a Libertarian point of view and away from the Republican Party.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Since it's Santorum's business what adults do consensually in the privacy of their own homes, I'll think I'll make it my business too. From now on, sex can only be had by people who have been married for not less than four years, missionary position only, on every third Tuesday of a month that ends in "R". So let it be written. So let it be done.

What's missionary position? Done it all kinds

of ways but, huh? What about the kitchen island?

Your law is too restrictive for me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mav]

That's the crux of the issue. What we call "marriage" (a religious/moral) term is already treated by the states and the fed as a "civil contract". Hence "marriage" affects many secular things in life. Social Security and survival bennies for "spouses", military bennies for same, various assistance programs, loans, inheritance, adoption, taxes, etc, too many to name. On both state and federal levels.

You and I have had this debate before.

A federal law implementing civil unions for all who are currently married and to those who would seek a civil contract would be much easier to accomplish than establishing a federal law that requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage. The later would be next to impossible. Under my suggestion, which I elaborate on in the following paragraph, everybody wins. Those that want to keep marriage defined in the traditional sense can continue to do so. States that do not want to recoginze same-sex marriage can continue to do so. Homosexuals wishing to enter into a civil union, contract, domestic partnership, or whatever you want to call it to receive the same benefits as married couples are now free to do so.

I am suggesting that "marriage" licenses/contracts should be issued by the church, which is where it should stay since "marriage," as you rightly point out, is religious/spiritual in its significance. In order for the state or federal government to recognize that bond between two people, they will also be required to enter into a civil contract, and it is only the civil contract that will be recognized by the government. Same sex couples wishing to receive the benefits of married couples can forego "marriage" and enter into a civil contract. Since the state now only recognizes the civil contract, it doesn't really matter if they are "married" or not.

Just to reiterate, trying to force the majority of country who believe in the traditional definition of marriage to accept same-sex marriages is futile; it is never going to happen. Thus, people will continue to be discriminated against and denied rights that others enjoy.

[G27]

Some folks believe that homosexuality is a choice. Personally, I believe religion is a choice, and refuse to have it forced on me by the government. I will never vote for a guy like Santorum. My guess is that way over half of the voting population feels the same way.

I'm a religious person and I agree with you 100%. People like him are dangerous.

[Oh Shoot]

You and I have had this debate before.

,,,

I don't know recall what opposite positions we have had in the past on this, as you just reiterated pretty much what I said in post 29.

I'm all for "civil unions" as long as they give the same real world benefits in the realm of state and federal government that hetero marriage does now. It's just a type of contract that doesn't exist now that they would have to honor, since the federal government and most states don't currently recognize all marriages.

- OS

[mav]

I don't know recall what opposite positions we have had in the past on this, as you just reiterated pretty much what I said in post 29.

Our positions have always been in agreement. Except, you once said I was debating semantics, which was probably true since my grammar skills are very poor.

(edit) - I don't think my reading comprehension is good either. I mistook your response in #29 by quoting my earlier post that you were in disagreement. I went back and reread what I originally wrote and saw that you were not. Damn. There are times I hate text, and I need to learn how to use the spell checker.

Edited January 9, 2012 by mav

[Oh Shoot]

...(edit) - I don't think my reading comprehension is good either. I mistook your response in #29 ...

No worries. Senior Moments actually begin about 30, it's just that you you whippersnappers won't admit it.

- OS

[kieefer]

Don't know where you've been, but the consensus in todays society is that it's not perverted behavior. That term is reserverved for stuff like raping altar boys.

Well, maybe in another 50yrs, raping altar boys won't be considered perverted behavior and father and daughter can marry, or have a civil union together. Just saying.

Whatever, huh?

[Oh Shoot]

Well, maybe in another 50yrs, raping altar boys won't be considered perverted behavior and father and daughter can marry, or have a civil union together. Just saying.

Whatever, huh?

What is your thought process that equates rape and consensual sex?

- OS

[kieefer]

What is your thought process that equates rape and consensual sex?

- OS

What's that organization called ...NAMBLA? Just saying that we are accepting homosexuality as normal behavior, normal enough that we are also accepting their marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong but we didn't accept this 50yrs ago.

Perhaps rape is too harsh a word but maybe it will take on a new meaning in the future just like marriage and our acceptance to social behavior is today?

[Oh Shoot]

...Perhaps rape is too harsh a word ...

I'd opine that it is, by far. Rape is a crime of violence, and hardly relevant to evolving sexual or marital mores, except perhaps in the quite limited scope of consensual underage "statutory rape".

- OS

[mav]

Just saying that we are accepting homosexuality as normal behavior, normal enough that we are also accepting their marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong but we didn't accept this 50yrs ago.

I do not accept homosexuality as normal behavior, nor do I accept homosexual marriage. However, I am not going to infringe upon someone else's rights (edit) to partake of the same civil benefits as heterosexual couples.

Edited January 9, 2012 by mav

[mikegideon]

Well, maybe in another 50yrs, raping altar boys won't be considered perverted behavior and father and daughter can marry, or have a civil union together. Just saying.

Whatever, huh?

OK. So you want to go back to all the bigoted crap from 50 years ago?

[kieefer]

I'd opine that it is, by far. Rape is a crime of violence, and hardly relevant to evolving sexual or marital mores, except perhaps in the quite limited scope of consensual underage "statutory rape".

- OS

I tried to make a point, apparently you missed it.

[kieefer]

OK. So you want to go back to all the bigoted crap from 50 years ago?

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, where do you draw the line?

If marriage is not defined, which is the basis of the argument, and we accept that marriage is not a traditional value, where does it end? What do we eliminate next? What morals do we de-value next?

I'm not a big religious fanatic but I can see the deterioration of family values and how it has hurt this country. It bothers me.

[Guest lostpass]

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, where do you draw the line?

If marriage is not defined, which is the basis of the argument, and we accept that marriage is not a traditional value, where does it end? What do we eliminate next? What morals do we de-value next?

I'm not a big religious fanatic but I can see the deterioration of family values and how it has hurt this country. It bothers me.

pretty sure everyone has drawn the line clearly at consent.

[sigmtnman]

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, where do you draw the line?

If marriage is not defined, which is the basis of the argument, and we accept that marriage is not a traditional value, where does it end? What do we eliminate next? What morals do we de-value next?

I'm not a big religious fanatic but I can see the deterioration of family values and how it has hurt this country. It bothers me.

Marriage is defined by the church not the state. The .gov has no business being involved in it.