Quote# 86239

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. 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. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, 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.

Rick Santorum, USATODAY.com 111 Comments [2/28/2012 4:24:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 114
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 4 5 | bottom

Open Primary vote in Michigan today. Please, Dems & others w/ a modicum of sanity, please vote for the frothy candidate who represents the true face of the 21st century GOP party!

2/28/2012 11:50:38 AM


So Rick Santorum is against consensual sex? Explains a bit.

2/28/2012 12:00:55 PM


"And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home,"

Lemme know when a house can give consent.

Fucking retard fundies

2/28/2012 1:18:19 PM


Talk to your GOP congressmen and senators about adultery; apparently it is a cherished right.

Incest is seldom consensual.

Oh, and you forgot concubines. Read the bible.

2/28/2012 1:46:38 PM


Old quote of course, but one that keeps on giving.

What Rick thinks of as traditional families and traditional roles are history. They are gone and you know what? It is not as a result of some left wing agenda, it is unstoappble social forces at work and it can't be reversed. The old economic models simply don't work anymore. Getting married at 15 and pumping out kids to work the farm is not the way to go in 2012. Therefore, birth control and YES abortion are necesary now and in the future, you fucking retard.

2/28/2012 1:51:29 PM


No, Frothy, you're wrong. Gay marriages date back hundreds of years. There were gay marriages in the Roman Empire. They weren't widespread, but they did have some civil recognition.

2/28/2012 2:08:04 PM



Yes, his blatant "I hate freedom" is what separates Santorum from the rest of the republicans, who at least pay lip service to the idea of freedom.

2/28/2012 2:15:18 PM


Historically revisionist slop.

Now, I'm not saying the atomization of society isn't a problem. I'm saying the moral principles of our government are those of the individual. There is the individual, and there is his responsibility not to hurt other individuals. Morally that is what the law is expected to protect. /Persons/. Not institutions. The institutions exist for the citizens. This includes the family unit.

The personal responsibility not to harm includes a responsibility toward helpless individuals whose condition one has brought upon them. (Dude, logically that means that if someone cripples you you're entitled to disability support from that person for the rest of your life, heh.) So of parent toward child, and for that matter of government toward the incarcerated, because letting them starve when they have no means of supporting themselves is bad. Hmn.

Anyway, atomization as consequence of egalitarianism and anti-collectivism is a thing, and rather unfortunate, but not to the extent that you should, or for that matter can, fight it by forcing people into a particular structure in order to have equal opportunities.

Incest can hurt people in the sense that it frequently involves compromised consent in unequal power situations because of the age-hierarchy of the family (a major reason for anti-fraternization regs in the military), and the possibility of inflicting compromised inbred genetics on offspring. Where nether of those are relevant, incest is harmless--but I'm not sure where neither are relevant. Same-sex twins, maybe. Adult siblings not raised together?

I don't know how you can excoriate polygamy and invoke historical marriage a sentence apart. The fuck? Really strong extended family networks have often been heavily reinforced by polygyny, but we have come to oppose it on the grounds of frequent injustice to the individual persons of the wives.

(Actually, I don't know when or why that rule developed in Christianity, though I believe it was heavily reinforced by the German definition of marriage, but I know it's why Muhammad ruled that a man should not have more than one wife unless he proved he could support them equally, and should not have more than four outside extreme circumstances, like being a ruler and needing to make a fuckton of political alliances. Not one of those ordinances that is always followed to the letter, though, especially in areas that already had a strong polygynist tradition.)

Anyway, shut up. Social atomization is not going to be fixed by preventing gay marriage, in fact it'll be moderately promoted. If you really want to promote community by restrictive legislation, make it harder for people to move house, get divorced, and drive cars.

2/28/2012 3:24:49 PM

Old Viking

Coruscating brilliance! What a dork!

2/28/2012 4:06:29 PM


So society is based on perpetuating society. It shouldn't be based on the best good for the most people. It shouldn't be based on equality or liberty. It should just be this thing that exists for the sake of existing and shouldn't care about the lives it has to crush in order to keep existing. That's the saddest most pointless thing I can think of Rick, and it's clear you have no imagination or motivation that isn't dictated by your religion or ideology, which for you is the same thing.

2/28/2012 4:27:42 PM


This is a serious political candidate that represents the second major party in the world's most powerful country who is seriously using this as reasoning to become the single most powerful person on the planet.

2/28/2012 4:29:52 PM


"This is a serious political candidate that represents the second major party in the world's most powerful country who is seriously using this as reasoning to become the single most powerful person on the planet."

Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler were once the most powerful leaders on the planet, and neither of them were particularly sane or reasonable.

(My first Godwin?)

It's quite likely that being completely round the bend is a vital quality for a budding major World leader. Just not a quality most normal people would prefer their leader to have...

2/28/2012 4:42:00 PM


This is way too repetitive to make a tasty word salad!

2/28/2012 5:38:56 PM


I was going to think of something to put here, but eh, it's Mr. Stinkyfroth, so it would be a waste of time.

2/28/2012 6:12:04 PM


I... REALLY hate to say this... but.......

Unless another Republican appears on the horizon, I may actually vote for.... *shudder* *twitch* *puke*.... Obama. :(

2/28/2012 6:35:58 PM


What is it with Republicans and sex with animals, or fucking your kids.

Strong healthy families? My mother and father (/) were abusive, neglectful and vicious. And that's your 'traditional family'. Fuck you!

2/28/2012 6:41:19 PM


2/28/2012 6:48:54 PM


OMG, is that Lenin? Hey now, that's going too far. I may just stay home as a conscientious objector, too, but then if someone truly evil like Santorum wins, I'd feel partially responsible for not voting. So, I wouldn't be voting for Obama, just against Santorum/Romney/Ron Paul or whoever/whatever the Republicans pick. Truly sad. There are some great conservatives out there. Why are we left with the racist, sexist lunatic fringe?

2/28/2012 7:07:37 PM


it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families.

Nobody engages in these things because they're "condoned" by society. Does he a actually think a heterosexual man would say "gee, I guess now that gays have rights and everyone's saying it's OK to be gay, I'm going to leave my wife and kids and go have sex with another guy"? Does he think people who have adulterous affairs worry about what society thinks? If the prospect of ending up in divorce court isn't enough of a deterrent, why the hell would they be thinking about what society "condones"? How can somebody this dumb be running for President?

Besides, polygamy and incest are so rare that it's obvious he just threw those in there to disguise his anti-gay rant.

2/28/2012 7:17:15 PM


Jesus H. fucking Christ, what a moron.

2/28/2012 7:22:45 PM


Do I need to point out how ignorant, idiotic and utterly wrong on every level it is to equate a consensual act of sex between two adult partners with pedophilia and bestiality?

I hope this jerk gets caught in a hotel room with a double dong in one end and another guy vigorously plugging the other. Sorry motherfucker.

2/28/2012 7:34:57 PM

No, I was simply applauding you for being smart enough to realize that you shouldn't vote for any of the Republicans this year.

2/28/2012 7:57:16 PM


@Rick Santorum:

I forgot one. What about people who don't want families? There are plenty of people out there who just want to live by themselves, or perhaps as couples without children. Do you really want to give the government the authority to deny these people the right to their own sex lives on the basis of a part of the "fabric of society" which they don't have anything to do with in the first place?

Good lord, if you actually thought about your positions any... well, then you wouldn't be Rick Santorum.


Here you go, a clapping image that ISN'T communist. (Gosh, guys, that's mean!)

Twilight Sparkle applauds your anti-Santorum wisdom.

2/28/2012 8:03:54 PM


His4life, if you think that's Lenin, I congratulate you on your subacuity.

2/28/2012 8:15:37 PM


" In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. "

It never has been made begfore, therefore it's bad !

Said the caveman opposed to fire cooked meat.

2/29/2012 2:41:28 AM

1 2 3 4 5 | top: comments page