Rick Santorum openly admits to wanting Christian theocracy

There is a famous quotation circulating among many conservatives today:

I would cite the famous conservative lawyer Ted Olsen, a politically active lifelong Republican and veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

 

Precisely; coincidence and good old, get on with your neighbours as best you can, common sense.

 

Trying to educate thick conservatives, perhaps, who believe a 'god' will solve all their problems?
You tell me what's crazier, concern for the environment and actually doing something about it, or getting on your knees and praying to the wall?

 

Probably because the consensus of the scientific community is that global warming is occurring and that man is responsible for it.

http://www.edf.org/climate/scientific-consensus

The problem is that the "Christian Right" rejects science completely. It's amazing that they aren't still living in the stone-age (but then again perhaps they are intellectually living in the stone-age).

 

Marriage between a man and a woman is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. Same sex marriage is nothing more than a recent novelty having absolutely nothing to do with building society.

 

If the exact words are not in the constitution then it is not in the constitution.

You are arguing "intent" and that all comes down to interpretation.

What if a court rules against your interpretation in the future? Will you be proclaiming it as the wisdom of the land then?

 

Yes, such marriages are novelty. But mutual attraction between people of the same sex.
.

 

And that is not affected in any way by the inclusion of same-gender marriage.

False on both counts.

Same-gender "marriage" has been accepted and recognized by societies for thousands of years and was even accepted by the Native-Americans. This has been repeatedly documented and it goes all the way back to the Roman Empire and ancient Chinese culture.

As also noted by Ted Olsen same-gender marriage is equally beneficial to society. The benefit to society of same-gender marriage to society is virtually identical to opposite-gender marriage and is actually supportive of "conservative" values endorsed by the Republican Party in it's stand on the issues.

 

Delusional, alternate reality of your own creation.

 

Wrong.


so·ci·e·ty (*)(s-s-t)
n. pl. so·ci·e·ties
1.
a. The totality of social relationships among humans.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/society


So if you are a human, in a relationship with another human (gay or otherwise), you are by definition part of society.

 

I didnt deny that they are a "part" of society. Spousal abuse is a "part" of society, but it isnt a "building block" of society. Neither are homosexual relationships.

 

Wrong.

You are stating something as matter-of-fact that is completely subjective.

If you added 'I believe' before the above 'but it isn't' - okay.

Wrong (IMO) - but okay.

But you did not, so your statement is wrong...or at the very least...completely unprovable so irrelavent except to yourself and like-minded people - who are getting fewer and fewer in number by the year.


And btw - even though I am heterosexual - gay relationships are DEFINITELY a part of what I consider a 'healthy society'.

The only society I wish to be a part of is one that includes all people's that do no harm to others...no matter what they like to do in the bedroom.

And whether they produce offspring or not.

 

funny how so many of you keep on stating that "the left lies" but nowhere does a factual source showing any lie from the left shows up.

Are we suppose to take your word for it, with no backing for your accusation?

Is this what "Christian Faith" is supposed to be based on? Statements made by a few that are supported by nothing but become "dogmas" and "moral" just because. . . ?

 

Wrong!

The words "automatic weapons" is not included in the Constitution, but I bet you would defend to your last breath your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to carry an automatic weapon. . . Because of the "interpretation" of the very simple statement "the right to bear arm."

And, the "interpretations" have been made over the last 200 years, not by you and me, but by the legislative and the judicial members of the government, including the Supreme Court of the united States.

But let'snot even go that far. Let'sjust use logic: I hope that you will not argue that many of the original immigrants to this continent came over to escape the religious tyranny of their homeland govermnent WHO INSISTED THAT EVERYONE HAD TO PRACTICE AND OBEY LAWS based on their own FLAVOR of religious dogmas, or be punished and persecuted for not doing so.

ND THAT THIS IS THE REASON WHY OUR FOUNDERS FOUND IT NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE FIRST AMENDMENT, ESPECIALLY THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, WHICH PROHIBITS the establishment, and even the PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT of any religion over another, or over NO RELIGION.

And today, although you pretend to care for the word of the constitution, you are supporting a candidate for the presidency that STATES that he wants to elevate CHRISTIAN (and more specifically, The Catholic flavor of Christianity) to not only influence, but also DIRECT and even overrule the laws!

What kind of twisted, schizophrenic view of the constitution do you support?

 

AGAIN, I am not disputing that gay relationships are a "pert" of society. I am denying that gay relationships are a "building block" od society. Step away from the strawman if you can.

 

I am not misrepresenting your position.

I am simply pointing out your mistakes as I see them.


You are making matter-of-fact statements that are TOTALLY unprovable.

Not only is that inexactitude - it iS also (imo) inflammatory and deceptive (knowingly or not).

By making blanket statements about society - you are excluding equal human beings ('all men are created equal') from that society without ANY unbiased, proven facts to back it up.

I consider that ignorant, dishonorable AND UN-American.


America is about freedom of expression, freedom to live as one wishes (provided it does not hurt others)...not a bunch of xenophobes (like this whackjob - imo - Santorum) telling everyone how to live.

 

No its fact, luckily the USA is protected from nut jobs like him. But that still doesnt change the fact what he is .

 

religion?

You still dont get it that religion is based on nothing more then belief do you?

When you can show me scientific evidence of ghosts and goblins religious people believe in, you can call climate change "religion" .

 

You should rely try some history, if you think being gay is just of these times ...

 

No he didn't.

/thread

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianpiatt/2012/02/still-wondering-if-santorum-is-a-theocrat/

 

What silliness you babble on endlessly about, without even ever getting around to stringing a few words together to state why you believe gay relationships are a "building block" of society.

 

Im fully aware that "gay" relationships have been around forever. Theyve just never been a "building block" of society, then or now.

 

Nice red herring buddy. Fact is christianity is a religion just like islam, judaism, hinduism etc etc...Globing warming is a scientific with evidence to support their claims. Religion is nothing but "faith".

 

Rick Santorum is no different than the Talibanners or Pro-Sharia law muslims... he is a theocrat tht will obliterate civil rights and replace them with bull(*)(*)(*)(*) bible thumping dogma inspired self serving tyranny.