• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Rick Santorum says he'll try to unmarry all same-sex married couples if he's elected

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Open Source

Banned
AzureNightmare said:
Its not about protecting him, its about making sure he can't kill himself so he suffers, at least until he somehow manages to cause grievous trauma to his body or starves to death.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I have strong feelings on people who want to limit my freedom in various ways, many that have more of a practical effect on daily life than this issue, but I don't want to lock up, torture, and kill those people or draw crosshairs over them on a map or anything.
 
A

AzureNightmare

Banned
Open Source said:
Hmm. I have strong feelings on people who want to limit my freedom in various ways, many that have more of a practical effect on daily life than this issue, but I don't want to lock up, torture, and kill those people or draw crosshairs over them on a map or anything.
Click to expand...

So you'd rather give those ultra fanatical zealots a chance to dehumanize a group of people?
 
P

Puddles

Banned
Open Source said:
Yes, I think you have the idea. But obviously it goes beyond the extreme circumstances you describe into more mundane and less obviously necessary areas. And my moral code is most likely right in line with yours - I just draw the line at a different place in terms of where to forcibly take money from others to fund those moral imperatives - the reasons being that 1) economic freedom (keeping your money) should be maintained as much as possible, because economic freedom provides incentives for productivity and thus a society's long-term prosperity 2) dependence on entitlements others takes away those same incentives, whether it's a corporation slumming it with earmarked defense contracts or a person dependent on the social safety net who realizes that the marginal improvement in his life for working hard and educating himself isn't worth the effort and 3) too often entitlements are treated as jobs programs for the agents who deliver the benefits (esp. in education), and thus the efficiency of those programs is compromised.

I'm certainly not in favor of abolishing the safety net altogether and even favor expanding it in some places.
Click to expand...

This sounds reasonable. I think that if you and I were to sit down and discuss things, we'd end up in agreement on at least 75% of the major issues. There aren't many conservatives I can say that about. You and AlteredBeast are the two on GAF.
 
O

Open Source

Banned
AzureNightmare said:
So you'd rather give those ultra fanatical zealots a chance to dehumanize a group of people?
Click to expand...

Yes, so they can get voted down and their ideas swept into the dustbin of history.

That's how democracy works. When you lock up, beat up, torture, or intimidate your political opponents to silence them, you don't win the battle of ideas, and you make yourself the bad guy.
 
P

Puddles

Banned
I'm sure we've all had those kinds of feelings. Lord knows I read comments on Politico and think to myself that if I could jump through the computer screen, I would beat the shit out of the person on the other end.

You can't actually wish physical harm on people with opposing viewpoints though. Thinking it is okay; really wanting it isn't.
 
D

Dead Man

Member
Open Source said:
Yes, so they can get voted down and their ideas swept into the dustbin of history.

That's how democracy works. When you lock up, beat up, torture, or intimidate your political opponents to silence them, you don't win the battle of ideas, and you make yourself the bad guy.
Click to expand...

Easy to say if you aren't the one being dehumanised, and you have faith they will get voted down.

Edit: Look, I am not advocating violence, but that was a pretty flippant response man. People are able to express frustation by saying those things knowing they will never happen.
 
Y

Yagharek

Member
AzureNightmare said:
So you'd rather give those ultra fanatical zealots a chance to dehumanize a group of people?
Click to expand...


I'd rather not see people make comments wishing death on others, no matter how abhorrent their ideals.

All it does is contribute to validating the persecution complex that outspoken fundamentalist christian bigots like Santorum have.
 
O

Open Source

Banned
Dead Man said:
Easy to say if you aren't the one being dehumanised, and you have faith they will get voted down.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I favor strong state governments is that it allows people to shop for the policies they prefer. When power is concentrated in the national government, then it's monolithic, and if you don't like it, you have to move to another country rather than another state.

Obviously, picking up and moving isn't always easy, but it's better than being dehumanized, right?
 
D

Dead Man

Member
Open Source said:
One of the reasons I favor strong state governments is that it allows people to shop for the policies they prefer. When power is concentrated in the national government, then it's monolithic, and if you don't like it, you have to move to another country rather than another state.

Obviously, picking up and moving isn't always easy, but it's better than being dehumanized, right?
Click to expand...

I favour strong federal governments so regions are not free to pusue radical ideaologies. If a law applies to everyone it is harder to pass extreme legislation.

I think theUS Federal model was correct when it was designed, but I think society has now reached a point where uniformity of legislation is more beneficial.

By saying you favour strong state governments, you are basically admitting you don't care if a fellow countryman in another state, maybe just a few miles away, is oppressed.
 
O

Open Source

Banned
Dead Man said:
Easy to say if you aren't the one being dehumanised, and you have faith they will get voted down.

Edit: Look, I am not advocating violence, but that was a pretty flippant response man. People are able to express frustation by saying those things knowing they will never happen.
Click to expand...

Of course, I know the feeling. But if you were running for office against me, my campaign manager would be making sure your quote was in the media ever day for the rest of the campaign, paying thugs to attack my supporters at political rallies, and blaming the uptick in violence on you to score cheap political points. I would feign outrage while at the same time telling my supporters not to retaliate, thus appearing to be above the fray. Bloggers and twitterers would go crazy with the manufactured outrage.

That is why I look at the various "outrages" committed by political candidates with a jaundiced eye.

Not this one, though. Santorum seems to be stuck in the 20th century, when anti-sodomy laws were not only on the books but enforced in some places and porn was printed.
 
O

Open Source

Banned
Dead Man said:
I favour strong federal governments so regions are not free to pusue radical ideaologies. If a law applies to everyone it is harder to pass extreme legislation.

I think theUS Federal model was correct when it was designed, but I think society has now reached a point where uniformity of legislation is more beneficial.

By saying you favour strong state governments, you are basically admitting you don't care if a fellow countryman in another state, maybe just a few miles away, is oppressed.
Click to expand...

States can't override the Bill of Rights or anything else in the national constitution. Therefore, "oppression" by a state is not the kind of oppression that you'd see in China, Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and many other countries around the globe.

The ability for gays to get married only in a certain (slowly increasing) number of states doesn't rise to the level of serious oppression, just like the issue of eminent domain (see Kelo vs New London) does not. They are both infringements of personal freedom, but the benefits of bring able to shop for a government you like far outweighs them, in my opinion.
 
J

Joni

Member
It is a good idea to have one marriage law for the entire country. You just need one that allows same-sex marriage.
 
D

Dead Man

Member
Open Source said:
States can't override the Bill of Rights or anything else in the national constitution. Therefore, "oppression" by a state is not the kind of oppression that you'd see in China, Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and many other countries around the globe.

The ability for gays to get married only in a certain (slowly increasing) number of states doesn't rise to the level of serious oppression, just like the issue of eminent domain (see Kelo vs New London) does not. They are both infringements of personal freedom, but the benefits of bring able to shop for a government you like far outweighs them, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of fucked up shit that can be done while still following the constitution. You are basically saying it is not as bad as this screwed up thing, so its okay. Not good enough to me.

And the argument that you can 'shop for a government you like' seems facetious. Who has moved states becuase they did not like the situation in their current one? I would suggest not many have the means to do so. Did black folks leave the south during segregation?
 
O

Open Source

Banned
Dead Man said:
There's plenty of fucked up shit that can be done while still following the constitution. You are basically saying it is not as bad as this screwed up thing, so its okay. Not good enough to me.

And the argument that you can 'shop for a government you like' seems facetious. Who has moved states becuase they did not like the situation in their current one? I would suggest not many have the means to do so. Did black folks leave the south during segregation?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that people who can't get gay married are suffering violation of rights to the same degree as blacks before the Civil Rights Act? And the answer to your question is "yes", although discrimination was just as rampant in the north, unfortunately.

I actually have quite a few friends here in California who moved here because of the protections afforded to "domestic partners". And I have some in Texas who could move but who, after weighing the pros and cons, don't feel it's important enough.

Also, keep in mind that a strong national government can enact policies you don't like. It's not always going to be under control of the people you want to be in charge. In that case, all of a sudden you have nowhere to go to escape the laws being passed that you don't like, as you could if the powers in question belonged to states instead.
 
D

Dead Man

Member
Open Source said:
Are you suggesting that people who can't get gay married are suffering violation of rights to the same degree as blacks before the Civil Rights Act? And the answer to your question is "yes", although discrimination was just as rampant in the north, unfortunately.

I actually have quite a few friends here in California who moved here because of the protections afforded to "domestic partners". And I have some in Texas who could move but who, after weighing the pros and cons, don't feel it's important enough.

Also, keep in mind that a strong national government can enact policies you don't like. It's not always going to be under control of the people you want to be in charge. In that case, all of a sudden you have nowhere to go to escape the laws being passed that you don't like, as you could if the powers in question belonged to states instead.
Click to expand...

That's the point though, it is harder to enact mroe extreme measures when you are applying them to a larger group.

And no, I am not suggesting that about gay marriage and segregation, what makes you think that? All I am doing is pointing out that lots of people stayed in areas where they were disadvantaged and had massive reasons to move, and yet they did not. That was with a major violation of rights like segregation. How many people do you think (your firends notwithstanding) have the ability or the knowledge or the job skills to be able to move states? If you are young, no kids, well educated, it is not too hard. If you miss out on any of those categories it can be moch more difficult.
 
Monocle

Monocle

Member
Open Source said:
Are you suggesting that people who can't get gay married are suffering violation of rights to the same degree as blacks before the Civil Rights Act? And the answer to your question is "yes", although discrimination was just as rampant in the north, unfortunately.

I actually have quite a few friends here in California who moved here because of the protections afforded to "domestic partners". And I have some in Texas who could move but who, after weighing the pros and cons, don't feel it's important enough.

Also, keep in mind that a strong national government can enact policies you don't like. It's not always going to be under control of the people you want to be in charge. In that case, all of a sudden you have nowhere to go to escape the laws being passed that you don't like, as you could if the powers in question belonged to states instead.
Click to expand...
"At least they don't have it as bad as the blacks did" is the implication here, and it's a shameful way to slither out of an unqualified repudiation of bigotry. Oppression is oppression.
 
O

Open Source

Banned
Monocle said:
"At least they don't have it as bad as the blacks did" is the implication here, and it's a shameful way to slither out of an unqualified repudiation of bigotry. Oppression is oppression.
Click to expand...

There are varying degrees of oppression. That is obvious on its face. The fact that gay people have the ability to move to a state where they can get married and the fact that many gay people do not feel the need to move to a state where gay marriage is legal suggest that the infringement on personal liberty is not a severe one, all things considered.

Bigotry isn't the issue we're discussing, since that refers to a person's attitude, not government policy. Discrimination? Yes, but much more mild discrimination than say, poll taxes, literacy tests, or other Jim Crow laws, and probably even less severe an infringement of rights than having your property forcibly purchased from you and handed over to private developers.

Laws like DOMA would not exist without a strong national government. Even still, states that legalize gay marriage are in a gray area because of that law. Contrary to another poster's opinion, a strong national government is more likely to limit freedom on a large scale than a weak one, because it has longer reach and a monopoly-like hold on legislative power.
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
GaimeGuy said:
Why do you keep on saying this? He lead the polls just a few weeks ago. When you consider the fact that the presidential election is a 2 man race, and that this is the #2 guy (at lowest) in the republican primaries, it means that Rick Santorum is, at worst, the 3rd most likely person to be elected president this november.

That is a fact, and it should scare the fuck out of everyone.

In 2008, 60 million people - 46% of the people who voted - voted for Sarah Palin to be the first in line to the presidency.

Therei sa very real chance that people like Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum become president. People like them hold many seats in congress already
Click to expand...


GaimeGuy said:
He's 2nd most likely to receive the GOP nomination, which puts him at 3rd most likely to become president in our political system.

And regardless of how batshit insane he is, he would get at least 40, no, 45% of all votes in November, simply because he has an R next to his name.

So yes, he has a very good shot at becoming president. More than anyone except for Obama or Romney at this point.
Click to expand...
"If you torture the statistics for long enough, they will confess."

Rick Santorum has lead in the polls. So has Donald Trump. As have Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. His campaign is sorely underfunded, SuperPAC not withstanding, and he's only produced wins in caucuses where Romney hasn't bothered to compete. Romney has not taken this as convincingly as I thought he might, but he has always been the inevitable Republican nominee, and trying to assert that he's the "third most likely person" is hysterical bullshit.

And people don't vote for vice president. How many people do you think voted for Obama because of Joe Biden?
 
W

WARP10CK

Banned
I´m beginning to think that Santorum might be a Democratic plant in the Republican party that will make sure that Obama get´s four more years.
 
W

WedgeX

Banned
There are varying degrees of oppression. That is obvious on its face. The fact that gay people have the ability to move to a state where they can get married and the fact that many gay people do not feel the need to move to a state where gay marriage is legal suggest that the infringement on personal liberty is not a severe one, all things considered.
Click to expand...

Not allowing marriages, just because they're between two people of the same sex, to be recognized from state to state is a clear violation of the full faith and credit clause of recognizing legal contracts between states, as guaranteed in the constitution.

DOMA really ought to be unconstitutional for trying to build an exclusionary exception.
 
E

esquire

Has waited diligently to think of something to say before making this post
Poor Rick, it must be hard having to live your entire life in the closet.
 
A

Alrix

Member
While he is a sad, sad little man, what I think is more pitiful is the people that cheer and vote for him. I don't know what to call this group of people but they are the same people who would cheer for Palin. You need to be some special kind of fucked in the head to think that these kinds of people would make good leaders in this country.
 
E

Escape Goat

Member
Alrix said:
While he is a sad, sad little man, what I think is more pitiful is the people that cheer and vote for him. I don't know what to call this group of people but they are the same people who would cheer for Palin. You need to be some special kind of fucked in the head to think that these kinds of people would make good leaders in this country.
Click to expand...

did you just reuse a post from another thread? I swear I've read this before lol
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
I thought Conservatives were stanch supporters of "States Rights" letting States be more autonomous on self-governance.

Santorum in the end just wants to control everything
 
B

bdouble

Member
astroturfing said:
seems kinda immoral.

btw, whats up with the all these right-wing Christian anti-gay groups with euphemistic names like "Family Research Council", "American Family Association" , "Focus On The Family" etc?
Click to expand...

Oh you don't know? Gays, Rock and roll, internet, bikers, porno and abortion are all threats to good ole fashion nuclear families and the government has to protect them from these evil beings. We have to lock our doors and keep the bad men out of the country.
gutter_trash said:
I thought Conservatives were stanch supporters of "States Rights" letting States be more autonomous on self-governance.

Santorum in the end just wants to control everything
Click to expand...

Right thats the traditional way at looking at it the name "Republican". The definitions differe and the US conservative-liberal swing is so damn narrow it doesn't really matter what the name is. They both have agendas with slight differences.
 
RPGCrazied

RPGCrazied

Member
Not that I plan on getting married anytime soon, or hell have a b/f anytime soon, but I guess i'll move to Canada when that happens, lol

It's legal there, right?
 
O

Ollie Pooch

In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
SpectreFire said:
I still don't get this rampant conception in the US that marriage is some sort of sacred innocent institution. Historically, marriage is one of the least sacred institutions around. It's been used to gain power, money, abused over and over again. Not to mention divorce rates these days.

I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

It's more a way for shitbag conservative politicians to use "the gays" as easy, outrage-inducing political fodder. Same shit here in Australia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
4K
ManaByte replied
Happy Independence Day, GAF
48
2K
West Texas CEO replied
The Virtues of Ancient Rome
45
2K
Liljagare replied
What actually happened to Warren Ellis?
14
2K
CGNoire replied
  • Locked
Russia bans 'LGBT propaganda' in media for all ages - Assassins Creed, The Last of Us, The Sims, Apex Legends, and more to be possibly banned.
Drama
23
2K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom