Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

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 110 Comments [2/28/2012 4:24:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 114
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4 5
aaa

@whatever: The difference is that those two combined didn't have even a third of the power the White House currently holds. Having a man who is about as batshit as Rick to run such a government would be a remarkable concern for everyone in this planet, regardless of who they are or what they do.

3/18/2012 1:17:58 PM

whatever

@aaa
Hitler could have ended up the most powerful man on the planet if the course of the war had changed, which might have done on a few occasions... El Alamein, the late invasion of Russia, the alteration of the Me262 to fighter-bomber... A united German superstate would have been a formidable World power.

5/28/2012 4:05:54 PM

Crimson Lizard

"The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Elliott Trudeau

11/14/2012 8:04:18 AM

ProfessorsKid

Anyone seen the new definition of 'santorum'? It's still the top result on google, I think...

11/21/2012 7:26:17 AM



Shorter santorum:
I should be able to decide what kind of sex people can have.

11/23/2012 12:38:07 AM

Anon-e-moose

@Justanotheratheist

"Rick has the rare gift of making Mitt Romney look like the sensible choice for presidential candidate."

And even Mitt the Tit failed. Which therefore brings into sharp contrast how Frothy Mixture and his ilk are even less relevant in US politics today. Especially with the parlous state the GOP is in, post-Obama's re-election; the near-terminal split in the Repubican party, with the moderates & Religious Reich tearing each other apart and all...!

Keep frothing, (P)Rick Rantsorbum. Someone just might still listen to you.

11/23/2012 9:15:47 AM

Ruby

"...this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution..."
Bill of Rights. Ever read it?

1/21/2013 10:55:55 AM

Blarghonius

Big Frothy is watching you get it on.

1/21/2013 11:02:00 AM

Quantum Mechanic

How does a piece of shit like Rick get elected?
Idiots.

10/5/2014 12:21:48 PM

pyro

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

Which they did, and you do.


> then you have the right to bigamy,

Nope. Your right to sex has nothing to do with your right to marry.


> you have the right to polygamy,

Nope. Your right to sex has nothing to do with your right to marry.


> you have the right to incest,

You got one right for a change! (I just hope you use a condom.)


> you have the right to adultery.

Absolutely! And if your partner and you had an understanding, they also have the right to a divorce.


> You have the right to anything.

Nope. You still don't have the right to pedophilia, to rape, or to visitation rights. The right to consensual sex doesn't even imply gender-neutral marriage laws, as big of an overlap as their supporters may have.


> Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

I disagree...


> It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution,

It's not your opinion that matters; it's the court's.


> this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion.

At least you didn't make it up (that really is the first case to explicitly name a right to privacy), but are you really okay with the government watching everything you do without evidence that you've committed a crime? How else are they going to know if you've been having illegal, consensual sex, seeing as no one is going to complain.


> And now we're just extending it out.

Actually, we've extending out the limits on search and seizure.


> 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.

Are you saying that everybody should be legally required to start a family?


> Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman.

Yeah, even the ancient Hebrews. Where marriages with hundreds of wives and one man are not unheard-of.


> 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.

Yeah, even the ancient Spartans, where wives would shave their heads because their husbands were used to having sex with men.


> 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.

Huh?

10/5/2014 2:35:20 PM
1 2 3 4 5