Politics

[OPArsenal]

Seeing Sarcodina's avatar recently sparked something within me, as if I was seeing the face of Rick Santorum for the first time. And that thing insinde me which was sparked was twofold: First, my pity for the citizens of Pennsylvania. Second, an utter loathing of this idiotic man.

Note: This is not a bashing directed at Sarcodina. The only way this is connected to him is because his avatar reminded me of what an idiot Santorum is.

I have worked hard to pass <snip> legislation to preserve the sanctity of marriage.

Source here.

That sentence contains the words "legislation" and "sanctity" in direct relation to one another. "Legislation" as in "laws passed by the government" and "sanctity," as in "being considered sacred." So, from this key sentence, we can divine (no pun intended) that he is for the free interchange of religion and politics, which is in direct violation of the principle of separation of church and government, otherwise known as the "Tough Shit Rule." As in, "you want to preach your religion to everyone. So do they. Neither one of you can; TOUGH SHIT."

He has also said this: "defending marriage" was the "ultimate homeland security". Source here.

And then there's this:

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.

Source here.

This is the part where I do this: followed by this: and then this: :boom Sorry, did I miss that memo? Homosexuality being OK is the same thing as bigamy being OK? Does he even listen to the words that come out of his mouth?

Thank God he's considered to be the weakest incumbent in the Senate due to his batshit-crazy views and the emergence of former governor Bob Casey's son in PA politics.

/rant

 

[Sarcodina]

I love the gay marriage ad below (at least when I saw this)...

Props on recognizing my avatar, OP.

Let the debate begin!

That sentence contains the words "legislation" and "sanctity" in direct relation to one another. "Legislation" as in "laws passed by the government" and "sanctity," as in "being considered sacred." So, from this key sentence, we can divine (no pun intended) that he is for the free interchange of religion and politics, which is in direct violation of the principle of separation of church and government, otherwise known as the "Tough Shit Rule." As in, "you want to preach your religion to everyone. So do they. Neither one of you can; TOUGH SHIT."

My bum, How is that recognizing only traditional marriage is preaching? If it is, I would not see how it is that supporting gay marriage would also be preaching...as well as then not accepting polygamy, cross-species marriages etc. (never says anything in the constitution about marriage nor child's rights...thus it having multiple wives, half adult-child marriage, human-animal...all not mentioned in constitution...there are two views on then what to do (if one is logical), one only the traditional type of marriage is guarenteed, others must be purposely added while another would claim no marriage is banned nor accepted in the constitution). Societal law might be considered 'sacred' to some, but it is definitely constitutional. For example, providing tax breaks to those with children is to endorse procreation and stable homes. One could like it out of religiousness, but it is still legal. For example if medicare or social security are legal (let's say hypothetically), then it would be to help the poor to ensure that we don't have to many impoverished folk, thus potential societal turmoil. Another person could say it is out of biblical saying to help one's fellow man...I doubt OPA would oppose it based on a political adding 'sacredness' to an item.

He has also said this: "defending marriage" was the "ultimate homeland security".

That's his opinion, what's the problem. A civil rights enthusiast would contend ensuring the war on terror doesn't screw with rights is akin to fighting the war on terror. A person like Santorum who feels a traditional society (as in the way America was/is) is very important. Screwing with said society would be damaging, anti-American, against the homeland's ways. He is defending this society and feels it is important. Let's say we had a multicultural society on the planet Sushi. It gets attacked by martian terrorists. The martians living on sushi are all jailed and their cultural viewpoints treated as lesser than the rest. Some say that it is essential for the continuation of Sushi that it maintains its strong support of multiculturalism to allow all cultures including Martians. It is the way to preserve the way of life of Sushi. Now, let's say they were never attacked, but still wanted to perscute martians. The same would still be logically able to say that not being equally favorable to martians is anti-sushi, against the planet's traditional present/immediate past thus is a question of homeland security...

This is the part where I do this:  followed by this: *emoticon* and then this:  *emoticon* Sorry, did I miss that memo? Homosexuality being OK is the same thing as bigamy being OK? Does he even listen to the words that come out of his mouth?

Thank God he's considered to be the weakest incumbent in the Senate due to his batshit-crazy views and the emergence of former governor Bob Casey's son in PA politics.

Why is homosexuality more correct than bigamy? Are you being serious? Person A has a religion that he wants to be married to Opposite Gender B and Opposite Gender C. Having one of the OG's is legal. Person wants to have a relation (let's say based on religion) with Same Gender A. Having a marriage with none is legal. Thus both are adding one partner...

Also if marriage is sacred, separation of church and state etc. than why is having sex with two ladies unconstitutional. And why is it not akin to having sex with a guy or if not akin then *better*. If you said it was worse, that's b/c of your societal notion or religious belief...which is a little batshit insane based on your opinions stated.

I am not Rick Santorum nor agree with everything the man has to say, but I look as the whole. I think he is a good senator and should beat Casey down in November.

Please ask for clarifaction or where I don't make sense or you disagree. I am notorious for needing explanation