Did you know that liberalism causes pederasty? I didn’t. Thank goodness that we have Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., to alert us to this political health hazard! From The Boston Globe:
WASHINGTON — Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, refused yesterday to back off on his earlier statements connecting Boston’s “liberalism” with the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal, saying that the city’s “sexual license” and “sexual freedom” nurtured an environment where sexual abuse would occur.
“The basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people’s behavior,” Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol.
“If you have a world view that I’m describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way,” Santorum said.
Santorum, a leader among Christian conservatives, was responding to questions about remarks he made three years ago on a website called Catholic Online. In those comments, Santorum said, “It is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm” of the clergy sexual abuse scandal.
Say what?
“I was just saying that there’s an attitude that is very open to sexual freedom that is more predominant” in Boston, Santorum said yesterday. Reminded that the sexual abuse occurred across the country, Santorum said that “at the time [in 2002], there was an indication that there was more of a problem there” in Boston.
For those who haven’t heard Santorum, recall that he also linked homosexuality to bestiality and isn’t afraid to invoke Hitler analogies. From the same Globe article:
Santorum has startled Washington in the past. In a 2003 interview with the Associated Press, he linked “man on child” and “man on dog” sex with homosexuality, describing them as deviant behaviors that threatened traditional marriage. Earlier this year, he apologized for comparing the Democrats blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees to the Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler.
At least he apologized for the Hitler reference. But liberalism = raping kids and homosexuality = bestiality? A-OK!
What wing of the Republican Party does this man represent?
]]>< 
My oh my we are wordy today aren’t we?
You are giving Santorum much too much credit for representing anything of importance in the Republican party. He is a Senator of little political import who polls tell us will probably lose his next election. He represents his own views and is a proxy for the people of his state who sent him to Washington. That’s it, man.
Now can we get back to killing terrorists?
I wouldn’t give Santorum credit for being a bigot, I don’t think he is that principled. I think he is just another dumbass demogogue.
Pennywit, I don’t know much about Santorum, but I’ll let my previous remarks speak for me.
J.
So what exactly are you pissed off about?
Even better; how does what Santorum said (which you quoted) mean liberalism *causes* pederasty? If deviant behavior XXX is tolerated, then why not deviant behavior YYY? For all we know, the percentage of potential pederasts in the population is and has been constant. The norms of society would keep them pretty much in check. The norms are gone and you’re seeing more deviant *behavior*.
As for homosexual marriage, once you’ve started to re-define marriage then why not re-define it again? I think that he’s also brought out polygamy as a possible consequence of expanding the definition of marriage. Believing that’s where we will end up is scarcely bigotry nor is it equating homosexuality with beastiality.
Regardless of your personal beliefs (and I’ll certainly say that I find most arguements based off the slippery slope one to be ridiculous), this moron’s just trying to get attention, same as Durbin and everyone else that fall to stupid ad hominem attacks of this caliber.
Pathetic, particularly from a senator.
Santorum’s an idiot of no particular standing. Wake me up when someone in a leadership position for the Republicans is spouting that sort of idiotcy as opposed to a guy who chairs a subcommittie or two out of longevity.
When you get just as pissed off at Teddy Boy…or John Fn Kerry, Dick for short Durbin and the Clinton Mafia….and post just as vehement of an article against them, then most of us will take you seriously when you bitch about Santorum. And this is comment is coming from someone who is not a Christian, yet a Republican.
It is all so easy to twist people’s words to mean something they do not.
Also, I forget the exact number but it was something like out of the 150 or so abuse cases in the Church brought to trial, something like 144 were from the Boston area. It was the vast majority anyway. So I think Santorum has a point there.
Robert:
I have a few things. Perhaps you would like my thoughts on the spin/counterspin cycle.
Or perhsps my thoughts on the Conyers “mock impeachment” hearings.
Or maybe my open letter to the Carnival Barker of the Apocalypse.
Or maybe you’d like to see my distaste for gotcha blogging, particularly the attacks on Jeff Gannon?
Also, I note parenthetically that Santorum is the chairman of the Republican Senator Conference, which makes hi mthe No. 3 pooh-bah in the GOP Senate hierarchy.
–|PW|–
Ah the slippery slope. Is there anything it can’t do, Mark? Whatever happened to opposing ideas based on their merits, not purely theoretical linkages to future, more unpopular law changes? Presumably you would say the same thing about making alcohol legal leading to more heroin abuse or, in Muslim countries, allowing women to dress in non-Burqa attire leading to moral decay.
The slippery slope is all about stating what you personally find offensive (sexual freedom) and then speculatively linking it with behavior that most people find offensive (pederasty). That’s what Santorum is all about, and apparently what you’re all about as well. Pity.
Pennywit:
Thanks, I will read them all.
Hi Pennywit,
I’ll go on record as stating that I think Santorum is a disgusting political opportunist of the very worst sort (from this example, the Accuweather situation already mentioned, and previous rantings of his), and if he were to run in a hypothetical Presidential election, I think the Republican Party would be very disappointed in my vote.
Not being a regular commenter here, I don’t know if anyone will care, but I’m sure Pennywit has seen me around and about at Dean’s World.
I tried for years to link liberalism with dishonesty, then I realized liberalism is dishonesty. You’ve proven it once again. Trying to make Santorum seem like some kind of spokesman for the right is not one bit less dishonest that linking homosexuality with pedastry. Now if you want to talk about true party spokesmen that say crazy things, look no farther than your side.
RightWingSparkle,
Your numbers are way off. The Catholic church has spent over $1B settling abuse claims and only $378M of that went to the Boston settlement. As other examples. “A $120 million compensation fund announced last week by the Diocese of Covington, Ky., is the biggest settlement so far. And last December, the Diocese of Orange, Calif., agreed to pay $100 million to 87 victims. ” So is Covington, KY the second most sexually free place in the US?
In addition, how about this:
“McChesney said the data and a report issued a year ago covering the years 1950 to 2002 show that 11,750 alleged victims have reported abuse cases to the church.
“Most of these cases occurred between 1965 and 1974,” she said. “What that tells us is that the number of cases that are occurring now appear to be going down. The 22 cases that occurred last year is a far fewer number than would have been reported in the 1970s.” So, how does this fit with Santorum’s theory of moral decay?
Finally, how is it that Santorum’s judging Boston to have such “sexual freedom”? Why not Los Angeles or New York City or Philadelphia? How do you measure that, anyway?
Ummm bullwinkle,
Liberalism is dishonesty? You talk about an ignorant statement, they don’t get any more ignorant than that. There are more books that have well-documented evidence of Republican’s/rightwingers that lie FOR A LIVING that I can’t keep track. In many cases the “source” is unassailable. The difference that I see between liberals and conservatives (and I’m talking about the new breed of conservative not “true conservatives”) when it comes to truth is that when the right attacks a liberal, liberalism or a Democrat they have to make shit up (Swift Boat vets etc.) but when the left attacks a conservative, right-winger etc., there is so much documented evidence and material that they don’t know where to begin.
Your problem is that you’ve been lied to so often and for so long that you live in their reality now and you have completely lost touch with the truth.
The Catholic cover-up of this issue is about as disgusting as Santorums’ mindless grandstanding, and about as sane as thinking there is no connection between homosexuality and pedaphillia.
A politician appealing to the radical right. In one world a “politician” and not a Statesman that are full and far between now when we need some.
Yes, I’m a Republican but I have little use for the radical right or the left.
OH Where have Abraham, Martin, and John Gone!
See my comment over at Just One Minute:
PURE UNADULTERATED HORSE PUCKY!
Link Here
Does Senator Rick Santorum represent me? Uh, nope. Forget Michael Moore. Does Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, etc. represent you? Idiots come in all stripes.
Now, if Santorum said that the same liberalism (not necessarily in Boston) contributed to or caused high teenage pregnancy rates, the spread of sexual diseases, etc. I might have to agree.
bullwinkle,
How’s Rocky?
I believe that pennywit said “Republican party”, not “the right” as who Santorum represented. Seeing as he spoke at their last convention, has been elected three times on their ticket, and is the third ranking Republican in the Senate (behind Frist and McConnell), why can’t he be taken as a spokesman for the Republican party? How far down the ladder can you go with the Republicans before you hit the crazy wackos who no longer represent the Republicans? Is Tom Delay a spokesman for the Republicans Party? Bill Frist?
Finally, do you decry as blatantly dishonest any site that has ever held that a Federal Senator or Representative lower than third on the list (or antone lower than that) might be acting as a spokesman for the Democratic Party or liberals? If so, I’ll start compiling a list for you and you can start decrying.
OOPHS Darn those bifocals!
Should be:
A politician appealing to the radical right. In one word a politician and not a statesman that are few and far between now when we need some.
Calling Santorum a bigot based on those comments seems to be quite a leap. And I can’t stand the man.
Again, I am not a Republican, but I vote that way most of the time. It is people like Santorum who drove me out of the party. And it is also people like Santorum who are making me consider rejoining the party, just so I might have a better opportunity to voice my displeasure more loudly. But, I doubt if that will happen.
I’m a bit embarrassed to say that I voted for Santorum. And I have gone on record as saying I would never vote for him again. But…..
The current projected D opponent, Casey, against whom Santorum is following in the polls, seems to just about as high (or maybe its low) on the duh-factor scale. And he also happens to be just as stridently anti-abortion. But much more pro-Catholic. There’s a reason those quasi- anti-Catholic remarks of Santorum’s have come up. Catholics are a huge swing voting block in PA. I suspect those are two reasons he is polling so well. Casey also seems to be a strict law and order type, but completely non-committal on gun control.
I might have to go back on my word and vote for Santorum again. It could come down to the gun control issue with me. But if it looks like Santorum is gaining traction at the national party level, I might decide to do my part to take him out of the equation.
The thought of choosing between a conservative Republican dunce or a conservative Democrat dunce doesn’t please me. But I will give the D party credit. If they were to offer up a liberal Democrat dunce, I would pull the R lever with no qualms. Offer up a moderate/liberal D with some common sense, and I get to keep my word.
Thankfully, there’s still plenty of time for things to sort themselves out.
Let’s see, on the one hand we have the Swifties, a group of men who served with Kerry all willing to sign statements saying his story about Viet nam are lies, on the other hand, we have John Kerry, and his magic hat, and his ever-changing story, and his SUV’s he’s proud to say he owns in front of UAW members, that he denies owning the next week in front of enviromentalists. Need I say more?
Oyster,
You can call Biden and even Pelosi and idiot, but get the fvck off of Barbara Boxer. She has more courage and integrity than ANY of the next 10 Senators combined, both R and D.
bullwinkle,
As I said, you’ve been dipping too heavily into the fountain of right-wing misinformation. Those Swift Boat frauds were caight in more lies than Scott McClellan was on Monday. They admitted that not one of them were actually WITH John Kerry, only that they served at the same time and in the same capacity. THEY ADMITTED IT! The guys that were actually WITH Kerry were also with him on stage at the Democratic convention. The Swift Frauds were hatchetmen paid for by Houston home-building magnate Bob Perry. Please do us all a favor and at least stop propagating lies once they’ve been debinked. Makes you look delusional. Unless you didn’t know that they were exposed as liars and they were political hacks, then I apologize and you should take the time to read up.
Courage and integrity have nothing to do with intelligence.
And if homosexuality and sexual freedom led to pedophilia, wouldn’t San Fransisco be higher on the list? Since the problem was in the Catholic Church a better case could be made for celibacy and sexual repression leading to deviancy.
JmaR:
So according to you if someone is not riding in a car that was actually involved in an accident, they can’t be a witness to it?
lmfao.
So unless you were in the room with Rove when he sold his soul the the devil just STFU!!!111!!!
Santorum seems liable to self-destruct. Linking liberals to child abuse, etc. is just nonsense. And I hope the Penn. voters replace him.
He was, quite poorly, pointing to a problem with liberalism as we think of it today. Once you begin to abandon social restraints on conduct then it is not clear where you stop. That is the slippery slope.
e.g. It is not clear why polygamy should be outlawed if cohabitation and sexual relations with multiple partners is legal. Or why sex with consenting minors should be punished. Using drugs has to be your choice. Right?
On the other side the conservatives have a problem. They have no justification for government action when things go horribly wrong. They think some invisible hand will adjust it all. After all, unemployment insurance discourages seeking out a new job. Savers will be more prudent if bank deposits are not insured. Required audits drive up company costs, etc.
This is the lowest point I’ve ever experienced on Wizbang.
Obviously, liberals today perceive that their Rip Rove plans are falling short of credibility among many Americans and so, here we get the dreadful return-to-smash-Catholics meme.
This is an incredibly disturbed thread, penny.
It seems to me that the issue (and I’m both from Boston and Catholic so I’m pretty clued in to what’s happening here) is that Catholics that grow up and realize that they’re gay suppress their sexuality out of shame and decide that a life of celibacy, life as a priest, is the best way do “avoid” the embarassment and horror of being openly gay. Suppressing your true sexuality has a way of manifesting itself in despicable, criminal ways. As for Santorum, you will not find a more ignorant human being walking the halls of Washington DC.
B Moe,
I don’t usually equate courage or integrity with an idiot. Do you?
S:
At what point did I bash Catholics?
–|PW|–
But…just how many child molestors do you think are countable? As in, the many who are caught/captured/released/expected to register is but a dent in the greater numbers still at large, I strongly suspect. I doubt that they are voting as Republicans and that they have any affiliation with Catholicism and with Jesus Christ.
Some disturbed people pose in roles of authority…sometimes that involves figures in churches (of all denominations), sometimes employees in governments (“workers” in social services makes for availability of likely victims, for instance), and more: wherever predators think they can find likely victims, they will attempt to predate.
And, the homosexual lobby today includes “The Man-Boy” group/whatever it’s called, among others. But, the Catholic Church recognizes homosexuality as a sinful behavior, a bad behavior, a non acceptable behavior and it does not surprise me that liberals today really hate the Catholic Church as they do.
Sad to what extent sin will go to ensure it can continue to steer souls away from salvation.
About Santorum, I suspect you are not interested in a discussion so much as you are grasping today at rather venomous straws. I bet Catholocism has something to do with it, given your ongoing mentions of it. Yes?
Would you recognize “reasonable conservatives” if you encountered them?
B Moe,
The problem was that the Swift Boat guys were making claims about Kerry and how he responded in specific situations that they did not experience for themselves. I remember one of them on Hardball explaining his take on the incident with the Vietnamese boy that Kerry reportedly shot and when Matthews asked him if he was ever actually with Kerry he said no. WTF is that crap. They were hatchetmen and you know it.
RE: JmaR’s post (July 13, 2005 09:40 PM)
Being “Classic” Conservative and not “New” Conservative (let me get out the recipe book… pinch of government, smidgeon of taxes, dollip of social programs, scoop of hawk, secret VWRC sauce… yep, Classic), let me just say:
Good Grief.
That’s about the most worthy response I can muster without the carbonation spewing everywhere. I see the bitterness of the last election still flavors your Kool-Aid.
I’d say Drivel is about accurate.
S:
I have mentioned Catholicism only in the context of the molestation scandals arising in the Catholic Church and quoting summaries of Santorum’s remarks, which were given to a religious publication.
Again, where in this thread have I attacked Catholicism or Catholics?
As for Santorum … I am interested in discussion, paticularly in observing the discussion sparked by my original post. As for my rather combative tone — recall that we are in a forum where people freely equate liberalism with lies. In such a venue, don’t expect me to be shy about my own opinions.
And, yes, I recognize reasonable Republicans or conservatives when I meet them. As a general rule, they don’t accuse me of religious bigotry simply because I’ve indulged in the grand Southern tradition of tipping sacred cows.
–|PW|–
The comments of Sen. Santorum that you point out are obviously misdirected. The social ills of this country are more general than Boston. But Senator Santorum speaks for me on these issues.
No, I don’t think sexual deviancy was invented by pop culture nor do I think pop culture currently endorses the rape of children but the idolatry of sexual identity is certainly unhelpful and the public acceptance of sexual deviancy is less than helpful.
In a healthy society the sexual orientation of Samuel Clemens and Abraham Lincoln should be irrelevant. The sexual orientation of our citizens should be irrelevant and private. “Outing” yourself should be an act of foolishness not a cause d’ celebre’. These are an open assault on our culture by a counter-culture and Sen. Santorum represents my views when he advances our traditional values against this invading culture.
The problem isn’t homosexuality, your choices are your choices, but homosexuality is one of the fronts in a war to tear down the traditions, especially religious traditions, of the West. In this clash of civilizations homosexuals have become pawns, stage clowns almost, as the thin edge of the wedge to legitimize an ever widening array of deviancy.
I don’t see his views as toxic, odious, or bigoted. I don’t hate homosexuals anymore than I hate any other sinner (to use the Christian adjective), to do so would be to hate myself or be a hypocrite. But to allow our culture to devolve into a state where deviancy is the norm is unacceptable. A culture that can recognize no wrong is destine to end; what is there to fight for; what reason is there to exist?
Are we to become a country of moral anarchism? And if persons, priests perhaps, living in this moral ambivalence step beyond the current bounds who can blame them? We recalculate former taboos as normal then wonder that some miscalculate and fall afoul. You would say that using children in the way that errant priests did is a bridge too far but if some morals are irrelevant why not them all? “If there is no God then everything is permissible.”
I don’t want to see us as a society intolerant of private lives but I also don’t want to see us as a society where I am forced to, or coerced to, pay homage to “deviant” behavior.
Kinda makes you wonder what the left has for a miserable excuse to run against Santorum, doesn’t it? Even the republicans don’t like him much but he’s in office, the left must have some real losers. Oh yeah, they have people like Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Kennedy, Byrd, and Clinton, that’s the cream of their crop. Not like I’m saying that any of them ever said anything wrong, their constituents seem to think they are all fantastic legislators. What a joke the left has become.
earth…
When you’re engaged in a situation that you are receiving counsel about, generally, most counsel will ask that no discussions/statements be made about whatever the issue is that is pending/undergoing some liability review, however moderately much less aggressively.
The Catholic Church has also paid quite a bit for the horrible behavior by homosexuals using the Priesthood to continue their wretched abuse of other humans…and taken measures to change who is admitted to Seminaries (and thus the Priesthood) and who is not.
And responded to the problem of sexual abuse and homosexual sexual practices by those who abused the Priesthood by removing their access to the public, and, preventing their new and ongoing access to the Priesthood.
The Catholic Church is comprised of human beings — and, just as society has everywhere only recently become aware of sexual abuse by those in positions of trust, so has the Church as an aspect of society. And so as have other organizations…one awful event at a time, as many people begin to find themselves no longer rejected in their complaints but recognized, believed.
It’s a matter of society, not limited to and not isolated within the Catholic Church, but pervasive throughout society. And, the behavior represented a very small percentage of males who were/are Catholic Priests, given that the vast majority of Catholic Priests are not — at all — involved in those terrible behaviors and teach against homosexual behaviors, as they do other sins.
There is sexual abuse present in all/any areas of trust in human society — all “churches,” all law enforcement, all government, all corporations, all educational organizations, all healthcare groups, all trucking companies, all utility companies….the point is, the behavior is a human problem, not isolated to only the Catholic Church, but pervasive wherever predators exist in their expectation to find/obtain probable victims: areas of trust in society from whence they are provided with access to likely victims.
Another key and very good response by the Catholic Church, however, about this terrible problem has been to confine some offenders to cloistered life: prevent their access to victims, to the public, and, isolate them in a confined environment with others who are in a position to counsel and save their souls.
It helps society, it saves some who can and do repent but prevents their repeat access to vulnerable persons in general society. Some who go to prisons simply proliferate their wrongs and learn to improve their stalking abilities and also result in paroled repeat exposure to the public. Once confined to cloistered lives and removed from the Priesthood, however, some of those can at least be ministered to in some constructive but realistic sense.
But they’ll never be allowed to return to the Priesthood as a Catholic.
Liberals attack the Catholic Church, for the most part, because of the stern and clear teaching against homosexual behaviors and abortion and euthanasia. Since those are the bigtentpole issues for Democrats as to their insistences, no wonder that the Catholic Church and Catholics in general remain targeted by most liberals today.
Rick Santorum speaks his mind without much abashment and he makes a good point about sexual deviances. I know it’s a difficult fact for some to imagine but the relationship as Santorum speaks out about exists.
This isn’t opinion, it’s fact. Ugly and real fact about some ugly and real human activity.
brad,
To put it bluntly, you are an ignoramus. I have known many a gay person and have asked them all the same thing. “Did you choose your sexuality”? With no exceptions, they answered that their sexuality was nature and not nurture. Not a choice but a painful realization. Some hide and suppress it and others accept it and try to be themselves. I agree with you on one count and that is that having sexuality thrown in my face (be it gay or not) is offensive.
RE: JmaR’s post (July 13, 2005 10:42 PM)
I’d say Drivel is about accurate.
Hmm. Never heard that one before. Certainly it’s not on the sheet of talking points since it is so unique.
JmaR:
Let’s see, you call me an ignoramus, then misunderstand what I say, and then agree with me. Which is it? If you agree with me when I am appalled at public celebration of sexual orientation you are agreeing with the bulk of what I say.
I am NOT anti-gay. Homosexuality is a sexual temptation. Whether you give in to that temptation is a personal choice governed by your moral values. I don’t hate them nor pity them. If someone with homosexual tendencies is a Christian they have a cross to bear, all Christians do.
The other point I am trying to make is that the “in your face” gay rights agenda is less about homosexuality than it is about legitimizing an activity that is anathema to traditional values for the purpose of tearing down our traditional civilization and replacing it with something else; it’s a revolution. To carry the point to an extreme, people that belong to the American Nazi Party are exercising their American rights but we, as citizens, are not required to accept their beliefs as part of our common culture. I don’t hate people with different beliefs, not even Pennywit; not even you, if you disagree with me. But none of us is an ignoramus; nor is Sen. Santorum, though we will all say poorly thought out things or say well thought things poorly on occasion.
brad,
Presumably, then you don’t hate homosexuals and find their behavior repugnant any more than you do that of divorced woman as per Malachi 2:14-16 and Matthew 19:6. I assume that you and Rick Santorum will stand firm against the moral decay of allowing legal divorce in our country.
Also, -S- you left out that the Catholic Church has taken a strong stance against divorce from your list, based on their interpretation of scripture.
As jYt noted, the number of abuse cases in the Catholic Church has gone down since 1974. Doesn’t that make Santorum’s statements kind of insane. Is it only wrong when the priests are caught, convicted, and jailed. The church certainly seems to think so.
I’m sure that the Catholic Church will soon be trotting out the slogan: “The New Catholic Church — now only a 2% change that your son or daughter will be molested by our clergy.”
Also, from -S-, “But they’ll never be allowed to return to the Priesthood as a Catholic.” At least not as long as the church recognizes that they’re liable to be sued if they let them. Up until now, it was fine to move them from diocese to diocese as per (but no limited to) Bernard Law, now kicked upstairs to the Vatican for his fine work.
Finally, pennywit, don’t pay much heed to -S-, she’s just one of those poor, oppressed Christians that sees the blows raining down on her from all sides, even when she’s alone in the room. She’s also the one that was recently trying to sell theories from the “Pink Swastika” as the gospel truth. And she thinks that type of behavior makes everyone else the bigot but her.
“the “in your face” gay rights agenda is less about homosexuality than it is about legitimizing an activity that is anathema to traditional values for the purpose of tearing down our traditional civilization and replacing it with something else”
See, JmaR, you asked the wrong question. You shouldn’t have asked, “Did you choose your sexuality?” Instead, the correct question, as brad reveals, is, “Did you choose to legitimize an activity that is anathema to traditional values for the purpose of tearing down our traditional civilization?” Because that’s what being gay is all about.
Brad,
Eating is a temptation as well, just before the sex temptation on Maslov’s hierarchy of needs. And you have made an excellent point about Nazis. Although we are not required to accept their beliefs in our culture, we are required to extend equal protection under the law. Nazis can marry, for example, and teach fascism to their children — you get the drift.
And Jmar,
studies do show that gayness is nature, at least partly. There is no need to ask your friends. God made them that way. Although only a fool would say that ALL practicing homosexuals were born with this predisposition. For example, there is a certain coolness about lesbian experimentation on campuses.
And about Santorum, of course he deserves to be trashed for expressing his shallow thoughts. Words have consequences. However, I don’t find him to be a disengenous blowhard. He genuinely believes it and I find that refreshing. The more wide-ranging opinions we have among the people in power, the better governed we will be. We need guys like him and Kennedy, and everything else around and between.
There is much that people legally do that I find repugnant. My point is not repugnant acts nor those driven to accomplish them but that they are being used to demolish the redoubts of our Western civilization. I am against the revolution.
Yes, I abhor lenient divorce laws. They lead to weekend marriages; poorly thought out marriages; me-me marriages. Divorces weaken personal resolve by taking away the need to persevere and deny the divorcees the opportunity for personal growth. The losers are always the kids, a cliché but a true one.
Brad, the Taliban cured all these problems that trouble you. A reading of Osama’s letter to the American people shows remarkable agreement with youir view. Permissive western civilization is the cause of all world problems, or so the myth goes. The answer to to convert to Islam or die since Islam knows what to do with all these damned homos.
Just because we routinely, and legitimately give in to urges does not cast legitimacy to satisfying all urges. A bank robber is responding to an urge.
Being gay is not a “wrong” anymore than being an alcoholic. But reveling in alcoholism for the purpose of defeating temperate living or attempting to force public acceptance of alcoholism as a legitimate lifestyle is wrong. Or did I mistake your sarcasm?
By the way, homosexuals can marry within the confines of the definition of the word. That is: they may not marry their car, their sister, their neighbor or their dog. And the traditional meaning of the word also precludes marrying a same-sex partner
Under law, the word is currently defined differently by states. So if you qualify your definition to say “in most states” you would be correct. As you know, more and more states will allow gay marriage and certainly partnerships of the same legal standing.
And of course, your own personal definition is morally indefensible, precisely as indefensible as bigoted requirements that married people belong to the same race.
McCain:
Where did I suggest a “final solution” for homosexuals? What part of “I don’t hate gays” don’t you get?
Our civilization is, by fairly common agreement, Judaic Christian. This does not preclude Islamics, Buddhists, Hindus, etc from being part of our society. Even the American Nazis are still Americans, despite their ideology being pretty roundly despised and discredited.
Again, you can be a legitimate part of our society without every part of your ideology being accepted or codified by our society. Just because your LEGAL activities place you outside the norms of our society does not deny you a place in our society but neither does that place given to you require our society to bestow acceptance of your deviant but LEGAL behavior.
Equating a desire to see the survival of our common American heritage to islamo-facism is repulsive.
I’m a right-wing “fundie” Christian and an Independent (partly because of idiots like Santorum). I currently live in an area dominated by conservative Christian people and I can’t imagine anyone I know agreeing with Santorum’s bizarre comments. Period!