Rick Santorum openly admits to wanting Christian theocracy

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Montoya, Feb 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The slippery slope is a fallacy, haven't you heard?
     
  2. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You still have not identified which race was being discriminated against.
     
  3. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do hear a lot of people covered with mud at the bottom of the slope say that.
     
  4. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I chose Scarlett Johansson. She replied "in your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dreams"
     
  5. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, one of my choices would be Jessica Alba with the same answer.

    In the previous post to that one I said every man was free to marry any woman who would have him.
     
  6. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Race has no rational relation to the process of procreation and formation nuclear families. Two people of the same sex render the process an impossibility. A rational relation.
     
  7. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In reference to the prohibitions against same-gender marriage it obviously isn't based upon race but instead it's based upon gender (sex). In short it is sexual discrimination which is also prohibited under the US Constitution and is condemned by the Republican Party Platform.

    Remember one other factor. Equal protection under the law relates to the individual and not to a couple. All inalienable Rights related to the "person" and not to "persons" and are protected as such under the US Constitution. The government cannot tell a "person" who they can or cannot marry based upon invidious criteria as was established related to racisl discrimination in Loving v Virginia. Discrimination based solely upon gender is invidious discrimination against the individual as has been established in State Supreme Courts as well as Federal District Courts.
     
  8. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No its not. They tried repeatedly to pass the ERA amendment, but it never made it.
     
  9. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fascinating. Of course it soon turned out that cars can be made and bought in many different colours.

    Just as a man can marry a man if he likes also. This way all men and women remain equally treated under the law.
     
  10. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indeed you probably are old. Perhaps old enough to remember when many many different types of discrimination were thought to be the natural order of things.

    Those ideas were overturned as harmful, illogical and unneccessary - same with this last bastion of unreasonable discrimination.

    And they still wish to be left alone to be left alone. But you want to pretend that their marriage somehow perverts what marriage will henceforth mean to you. Thats a lie you and your fellow travellers cooked up to disguise your basic reactionary disgust.

    As for bestiality and lib lawyers, as long as an animal cant consent they can have no case to make.
     
  11. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Noooo, treating the married the same as the unmarried would be all men and women equally treated under the law. Hypocritical to whine about equal treatment under the law, in the context of marriage laws, which by design, treat people UNequally.
     
  12. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whats hypocritical about it? What difference in marriage to you have I made by letting gays marry?

    Im in favour of gay marriage. Is there something or someone thereby Im wanting to be treated unfairly?

    Is someone going to suffer by my proposal? If so then who?
     
  13. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did Santorium said "Catholic" government? What if he suddenly convert into Mormon, or Protestant or maybe Muslim, or become an atheist?

    Amazing just how people can twist things in order to ignite the flames of chaos and confusion.
     
  14. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem isn't that Santorum is Catholic.. its that he's sick and rigid.. I don't think he wants to be president of the US.. I think he is swimming for the drain.
     
  15. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have made no difference to me whatsoever. And you arent "letting gays marry". In my country or yours.
     
  16. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The assertion is that Santorum is "wanting Christian theocracy". I havent seen a thing to indicate that he wants any such thing.
     
  17. RiseAgainst

    RiseAgainst Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    19,122
    Likes Received:
    3,191
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To the contrary, if his political record was faced against a purely religious (christian) judgment, he has gone against his faith on numerous occasions. The left relies on lies and half-truths, if anything causes them to lose this election it will be outing them on their misdeeds.
     
  18. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course people of faith have a role in the public square.

    What we do not want is people "of any faith or non faith" that do not understand the role/job title.

    The problem is not that Santorum has religious beliefs. The problem is that he wants to force those religious beliefs on others which is a violation of the role of public office because it violates the constitution.
     
  19. theunbubba

    theunbubba Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    17,889
    Likes Received:
    307
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Tell it to the Germans and Jews.
     
  20. Anansi the Spider

    Anansi the Spider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sorry you can't accept the plain facts. Black voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8.

    I guess you prefer to be manipulated by the corporate media which, with a few well-known exceptions, ardently favors gay marriage.

    It's been pointed out to you that homosexuals don't suffer from discrimination any more than polygamists (or incestuous couples). It's been pointed out to you that many societies, some of them entirely secular, have at least discouraged homosexuality. Again you simply ignore the facts.

    If you really admired the Constitution you wouldn't support judicial activism.
     
  21. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have an "equal rights amendment" and it's the 14th Amendment that ensures that all individuals receive equal protection under the law. As has been repeatedly documented denial of same-gender marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. That's why the National Organization for Marriage (i.e. the Mormon Church) pledge, that Santorum, Romney and Gingrich have signed, includes a committment to support a "Marriage Amendment" that would negate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They know that the prohibition of same-gender marriage violates the equal protection clause. That pledge even calls for the packing of federal judge positions and the Supreme Court with theocratic judges that will impose "Christain" law over the enumerated protections in the US Constitution.
     
  22. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's just fast talk.

    What you're doing is making up stuff as you go along.

    The previous poster claimed that a ban on homosexual marriage was the same as a ban on interracial marriage because both were allegedly examples of discrimination.

    So I ask him to name which race was being discriminated against.

    No lib here has answered that question.

    Now have not dealt with the racial issue you want to jump back over to gay marriage as if the two were the same.

    But they aren't.

    The fact is that until the Supreme Court says so homosexuals have no constitutional right to marry.
     
  23. Anansi the Spider

    Anansi the Spider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Really the comparison is an insult to black people. It cheapens the suffering they endured. How can anyone justify the use of the terrible suffering of black people in a cause which they vehemently oppose?!

    Haven't you heard? If you, like the US Supreme Court, differ with Shiva's eccentric reading of the Constitution you are part of a Grand Conspiracy To Impose Theocratic Rule!
     
  24. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously an analogy is apparently beyond comprehension so let's ask a question related to the case of Loving v Virginia. Which racial group was being discriminated against in that case.

    The case involved the marriage of Mildred Loving (née Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent) and Richard Perry Loving (a white man).

    Was the Right of Equal Protection denied to Mildred Loving, or to Richard Perry, or was the Right of Equal protection denied to each individually? The fact it that it imposed invidious discrimination againg both and so both African-American as well as White-Americans were being discriminated against. The case was applicable to the individual Rights of EACH and the 14th Amendment specifically establishes that the right of equal protection under the law applies to the "person" and not to "persons" in it's very wording.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

    Person is singular for those that lack an understanding of the definition of words. The 14th Amendment protects the Right of the Person.

    There is a simple fact that many opponents to same-gender marriage fail to understand. The violation of equal protection under the law for an individual that would choose to engage in the legal institution of "marriage" based upon gender discrimination violates not just the individual's Right to Equal Protection but violates the Right of ALL Americans to Equal Protection. Any government violation of the protected Rights of Americans adversely affects ALL Americans and not just the individual subjected to this injustice and the violation of their Rights. All individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law and the violation of this Right for one person violates this Right for ALL persons.
     
  25. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What nonsense you go on about. For every ONE case you can find, stating a violation of the 14th amendmernt, I present 5 that say it is not. Youve "documented" nothing.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page