Quote# 78967

Potential 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum told a right-wing news outlet that it is “common sense” for the state to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and adopting children.

The former Republican senator from Pennsylvania spoke with CNS News editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey, who asked Santorum about marriage equality and same-sex adoption, which he described as, “if the state takes a child and sticks it into a same-sex couple.”

Santorum agreed that marriage equality and same-sex adoption are a violation of natural law that the state should not sanction.
“The state is not doing a service to the child and to society by not putting that child in a home where there is a mother and a father,” he said. “This is common sense. This is nature.”

Rick Santorum, http://advocate.com 63 Comments [1/23/2011 4:00:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 66
Submitted By: Aspergus

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom


This 'natural law' and 'common sense' means what? Sticking fingers in ears and singing 'La La La' will make all opposing points of view vanish?

1/23/2011 4:59:19 AM


I thought santorum was the frothy mix of lube and faeces that you sometimes get after anal sex.

1/23/2011 5:20:03 AM


Sticks a child into a same-sex couple? I don't think you understand what they're trying to do here, and I don't think I want to know any more about how you think it works.

1/23/2011 6:05:22 AM

Argle Bargle

Once again, fundies show that they're willing to do every despicable act, even stop orphans from getting loving parents, if it clashes with their twisted morality.

People like Rick are scum.

1/23/2011 6:13:30 AM

“This is common sense. This is nature.”

No and no. It is not common sense to deprive a child of a loving home in favour of an institutional upbringing based on your fairy story rules. It is not nature that a child always be raised by a female and a male. Many creatures are supported solely by their mother, some the father, some are left entirely to their own devices after birth. Some are raised in packs by multiple parent figures. Nature is as diverse as human beings. Deal with it you fucktard.

1/23/2011 6:33:04 AM

Bad Wolf

Did you ever notice that "Common Sense" tends to be mostly an oxymoron? And that "Natural Law" is usually used to describe something the SPEAKER likes?

1/23/2011 6:35:52 AM


Nature, common sense... you keep using these words, I don't think you know what mean.

1/23/2011 6:46:54 AM


“if the state takes a child and sticks it into a same-sex couple.”
That Santorum is one sick, kinky old queen

1/23/2011 6:50:11 AM


“if the state takes a child and sticks it into a same-sex couple.”

What. The. Hell. Proper phrasing, learn to do it.

You know, maybe the child would be grateful to have a family in general. Like, instead of an orphanage.

1/23/2011 6:52:42 AM


A child needs a home and at least one loving caretaker. The caretaker(s) gender or orientation? You recognise sane people in that they don't care for such a petty detail.

1/23/2011 7:26:03 AM

Doctor Whom

As for whether the state is doing a service to the child, reality disagrees with you. As for whether the state is doing a service to society, I thought there was no such thing as society. Which is it, or, as usual, do you hold mutually exclusive principles and pick the one that gives your desired result in any given context?

1/23/2011 7:28:45 AM


Santorum, as a presidential hopeful should concern himself with the law of the land, not natural law. He should take an interest in the wellbeing of citizens, not of church adherents.

If he does not do this, then he is a theocrat and not at all suitable to preside over one of the world's non-theocratic countries.

1/23/2011 7:47:14 AM


In other words, no one should have it because you think it's yucky.

Y'know, there are two open spots in my preschool class, Ricky.

1/23/2011 7:53:36 AM


Not doing a service to the child? May I relate to you a story I heard straight from the social worker who handled the case?

A young woman's baby had been removed from her for severe neglect and abuse. What was her favorite form of abuse? She stuck the infant with dirty needles when she cried in an attempt to shut her up. The little girl was eventually diagnosed with HIV and developed AIDS. This stellar mother of the year didn't care when her baby was hungry, or dirty or practically handed a death sentence. She only cared when she found out her daughters foster family was a gay couple who could afford her medication, fed her, clothed her, kept her clean and as healthy as possible and above all else, actually loved her like their own daughter.

Please tell me how fostering and eventually adopting that little girl with a gay couple did her 'no service'.

1/23/2011 8:12:48 AM



1/23/2011 8:17:08 AM


Which natural law is that? Boyle's law? Newton's? Kepler's? Joule's? Murphy's? Surely if something is "a violation of natural law" it doesn't happen? Or is same-sex adoption like quantum tunneling? Which supposedly also explains how Jesus got into a locked room. I'm confused.

1/23/2011 8:39:13 AM


Rick Santorum is labouring under the misconception that his superstitious notions are "natural law." He should study nature a little more, he wouldn't be so stupid.
I also have to laugh at the notion of Santorum as presidential candidate for 2012. Are the Republicans so totally devoid of any valid candidates?

1/23/2011 8:52:19 AM


There are species who eat their young, there are species where the female eats the male after copulation, there are species where the female dies as she gives birth, so that the new kids can feed off her carcass. All these things are natural. There are also occurrences of homosexuality in many different kinds of species.

A home where there are two mothers or two fathers is a thousand times better than having no home at all.

The Fritzl home had a mother and a father. A father who took a fancy to his daughter, who stuck her in the basement and raped her repeatedly for 24 years, who kept her down there even after she had his children, who let one of their children die down there.
Is this the common sense and nature you're talking about, Santorum?

1/23/2011 9:03:03 AM


Ah ... the ol' "common sense" argument. Right up there with the "it's obvious" argument: basically a form of "I don't have an answer, so I'll just pretend it's obvious and you're too stupid to see it."

1/23/2011 9:37:22 AM

Brendan Rizzo

Why is it that conservatives deliberately misunderstand what the phrase "natural law" means? If it is possible for an action to be done, then it is not a violation of natural law. Therefore, not only is this an example of the appeal to nature logical fallacy, it isn't even a very good example of that fallacy.

By the way, I wonder if Rick knows what his name has come to mean among the gay community. If he does, he is probably not happy. Maybe this is his idea of revenge? (Never mind that he's the one who started it?)

1/23/2011 9:54:54 AM

Following your logic, social services shouldn't exist. Or widows, for that matter.

1/23/2011 10:29:21 AM

TB Tabby

Now that majority opinion is finally turning against the anti-gay rights crowd, that "potential" part is looking very shaky.

1/23/2011 10:33:23 AM


On the contrary, common sense dictates that children do best in a stable family home, and studies have shown (and continue to show) that the gender and orientation of the parent(s) is irrelevant.

1/23/2011 10:44:06 AM


Okay but homosexuality is "nature" too (or natural if you want to be a pedant). So therefore, if homosexuality is natural then it's a violation of natural law to deny them the opportunity to raise children (either their own biological children, with the aid of donors and surrogates, or unwanted children made by heterosexuals).

1/23/2011 11:15:49 AM

The Bad Guy

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein

1/23/2011 12:37:26 PM

1 2 3 | top: comments page