rulemylife
Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou I don't think you're going to find mainstream Democrat or Republican politicians that will support "whip swinging perverts." If you really believe you'll see Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, or our new President proudly exclaiming their support of sadomasochism, than I want some of what your smoking. Find me the most liberal politician in America, and have him get caught on camera coming out of a S&M club or party dressed head to toe in leather or latex, and watch how quickly all the liberal politicians condemn their behavior and cross the street when they see said politician coming. Yes, but the difference is liberal politicians do not actively campaign against what doesn't fall in line with their personal ideas of moral righteousness. Remember this guy? FOXNews.com - Raw Data: Excerpts of Santorum's AP Interview ... WASHINGTON — An unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. 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. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality — AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out. SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that.
|