Santorum foot in mouth.

[AdinaL]

"All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," Santorum continued. "And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."

Full Story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...bigamy__incest


Now here is a winner.....Not sure if I am more concerned about the views on gay sex...or the fact that he thinks that the right to privacy doesn't exist in the constitution.....YIPE!

[Arduinna]

Ug, I hope that these remarks are not forgotten when he is up for reelection.

[amy mama]

nice, huh?

[daylily]

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Santorum said in an interview published on Monday by the Associated Press.

"Right to adultery"? Hmmm....if adultery becomes illegal, a whole lot of congress people will be in big trouble.:

[AdinaL]

no joke.

[Meiri]

He's an ass.

Unfortunately PA is notoriously conservative.

[Els' 3 Ones]

Would'nt it be nice to see the press whip fervor like they did with Trent Lott? (rightfully so)

Maybe we could help. Place a call to your congress. Tell them that you didn't hear any compassion in his conservatism; tell them he should be replaced as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the number three job in the party's leadership.


Here are the numbers:

Congress


Who keeps voting for these idiots?



El

[DeChRi]

Utterly stupid. This may be the point that I transition gracefully from Republican to Democrat .

[Annais]

I am so proud to be from Pennsylvania :
Maybe this will do SOMETHING to get him out of office, but I doubt it.

[mum2sarah]

I do not understand how Santorum thinks he can push his views on everyone. I am ashamed that he is from my state of PA, but I'm not so sure PA is always so conservative. After all, we usually end up going for Democrats at Presidential election time; like the guy who should be in the White House right now BTW, Meiri, I'm from Irwin, so we're really near each other; I'm still very new to this forum and still getting to know everyone, so HI!!!

[JessicaS]

The unedited interview with the Associated Press.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84862,00.html

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

Santorum is a staunch Catholic, and is basically quoting the Catholic's Churches stance on this one.

Thought this was interesting....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84827,00.html

Some Republican sources were quietly raising questions about the reporter who first quoted Santorum and who continued to report on the conflict it created. Lara Jakes Jordan is married to Jim Jordan, a former DSCC official who now manages Kerry's presidential campaign

I don't agree with Santorum and I feel this is becoming more of a question of whether politician's should carry their religious views into their public office.

[Els' 3 Ones]

I don't know abt quoting the Church's stance on this one..............I do think he put alot of his own spin on it.

Here is one more from your link:

SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year olds, or 5-year olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

I have not read much that said these priests were acting as "basic homosexuals"????? They were/are pedophiles and I'm fairly confident there is no link between them.

I think you've hit a nail, Abimommy..........I don't think that pols should be bringing their theocracy into gov't. I think we can have some limits on what we can and cannot do (protecting children always) but outside of those limits the gov't should stay out of my life.

Why are my sexual acts so damning to the family but their raping and pillaging the economy and environment is not? My family has to live in the environment and earn a living in the economy.


El

[mirlee]

Who keeps voting for these idiots?



El [/B]

Well, no one in my family, that's for sure! Unfortunately, he's our rep. I really think he should be booted. I have never liked him. He does not represent this area.

[AdinaL]

_
President George W. Bush praised Republican Sen. Rick Santorum as an "inclusive man" on Friday, four days after the senator's comments about gays unleashed a storm of bipartisan criticism.

Full Story:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...um__inclusive_


I have to wonder how "inclusive" he really is.....:
What a stupid word to use to describe him....
It is pretty obvious he is NOT inclusive.

[Delta]

Hi! I just wanted to put out another, perhaps overlooked perspective on this.

I think, in what he was saying, he was speaking about the reasoning behind SCOTUS's forthcoming ruling on the Texas case. I mean, after all, what he said was already an argument used in Bowers vs. Harwick, but you don't see SCOTUS being hammered about it.

IMO, it's more of a state's rights issue than anything, because SCOTUS ruled that it cannot strike down one sex-related law based on privacy rights, without then putting other sex-related laws in jeopardy. That's what Santorum, IMO, was saying. Unfortunately, in this time of 'gotcha journalism', the AP writer who was interviewed took his remarks a bit out of context.

That said, I personally DO NOT think states should criminalize homosexual behavior between consenting adults, and IMO Texas should repeal the law on it's own, NOT at SCOTUS's demand. But, like Santorum, I personally think homosexual sex is wrong. He has every right to express THAT sentiment, as do I, as we are both Catholic.

Also, I don't see how he is is trying to 'impose' his beliefs on others. This is not an issue up for vote in the Senate.

JMO.

[AdinaL]

I am going to have to disagree...

If he was stating as you say...

I think, in what he was saying, he was speaking about the reasoning behind SCOTUS's forthcoming ruling on the Texas case. I mean, after all, what he said was already an argument used in Bowers vs. Harwick, but you don't see SCOTUS being hammered about it.

Then he would have said that. What he did say was equating gay sex with a myriad of other things that people find abhorrent. Which is very different.

I couldn't frankly care less what he thinks about gay sex...he doean't have to have it. That is his preference. But if someone had said something equating having sex with his wife with adultery, bigamy and incest...you better damn well believe he would be a bit peeved.

He has a right to his opinion. He doesn't like gays, doesn't approve of the "lifestyle". Fine. But I do think that his remarks were out of line.

And if I hear one more stinking time, the whole "love the person, hate the sin" argument, or that it is a "choice" to be gay...I am gonna :Puke. (that is not directed at anyone in particular...I just read something that made reference to it.)

[mahdokht]

edited

[AdinaL]

awww bummer muslimomma....I was looking forward to what you had to say!!! Must have been juicy!! :LOL

[mahdokht]

*

[mum2sarah]

I have to disagree. Homosexual marriage can be monogomous. In fact most gays I have met value monogomy. I knew a homosexual couple who had been together for 30 years. The truth of the matter is that while, in theory, members of a poligomous situation consent to such, in practice,this is usually not exactly true. Many women who do this feel as though they have to by their culture, and there are often feelings of jealousy or inadequacy that devalue the women as people. In other words, with polygamy, there is usual a victim of some sort. With homosexuals, they often just want what all of us want. A successful, monogomous relationship. Gays go through torture of all sort. Gay teens are 3 times as likely to committ suicide. I don't think they would choose such a difficult lifestyle if they had a choice. It is NOT the same as polygamy.