Rick Santorum: The Thread

[Moz]

Why would a Santorum supporter (or any other kind of social conservative) hang out on a website that's full of gay people? Or support a band/artist with a song that is widely believed to be about abortions?

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by markolas

Unless you're the 2nd person who voted that he/she was a Santorum supporter in the poll, then I wasn't talking about you.

Oh, I didn't bother voting, so the poll didn't show for me.
Now I have to vote!

[TrueFaith77]

There should be an "indifferent" option. Or something like: "Just the same as every other politician." I guess "hilarious" is the closest thing, because all politicians I see on the scene are jokes.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by Moz

Why would a Santorum supporter (or any other kind of social conservative) hang out on a website that's full of gay people? Or support a band/artist with a song that is widely believed to be about abortions?

1) As a gay person who is related to many social conservatives, I have never confronted the kind of homophobia from them (people who love me) that I have witnessed or received from some other gay people. So I don't really know how that follows. If the issue is "gay marriage," I think that's complicated. Currently, I tend to agree with Ron Paul<--on this subject-->, who thinks government should stay out of marriage altogether. As a gay person, I just don't get exactly why gay people would want to get married. But, then again, I tend to have a romantic view of the sexual outlaw (I mean, isn't that part of why some gay men identify with Stevie? Maybe it's just me.). Anyway, consequently, I would think there are some gay people, not to mention gay-supporting people, who don't say gay marriage should be made legal. Back in the day, gay intellectuals used to argue that marriage was a patriarchal institution. I guess fashions have changed, but I don't think all gay people have to follow those fashions. The most moving argument for gay marriage that I know is the film Noah's Arc: Jumping the Broom, and, even within the context of that film, it argues that marriage does not need official sanction of the state in order to be valid in the eyes of a community.

2) Being "pro-life" does not mean you don't think abortions happen. Is "Goodbye Baby" pro-choice propoganda? Or is it a song about devestation and reconciliation?

In fact, if I may ponder further, on "Goodbye Baby," that song doesn't treat the aborted "baby" as a "thing" but as a "baby" with a spirit from whom Stevie asks forgiveness and understanding. I would think people on either side of the issue, p0litically (which essentially is, according to pro-choice feminist Camille Paglia, whether or not some murder is rational), could respond to that.

[markolas]

There are posts that I would love to respond to, but they leave me so exasperated that the best I can do is say "Holy crap, what an idiot!" and close the browser window.

[markolas]

Okay, really, I can do this. Deep breaths. Baby steps.

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

1) As a gay person who is related to many social conservatives, I have never confronted the kind of homophobia from them (people who love me) that I have witnessed or received from some other gay people.

I'm related to social conservatives, too (none of whom I speak to, ever). My experience is that their idea of "love" is...interesting. They may or may not be overtly nasty, but when it comes down to it, they think you're a disgusting pervert. But they "love" you anyway, of course.

Internalized homophobia is a big, huge, giant problem for many (most?) gay people. I didn't realize how much this was the case until recently, but I think it at least partially explains why the gay rights movement hasn't made more headway than it has (it's made huge headway just in the last 10-15 years, but it could've made more). Gay people project their own self-loathing onto other gay people to a heartbreaking degree, and many will hold onto that closet door with every last bit of strength they've got. It's beyond maddening.

If the issue is "gay marriage," I think that's complicated. Currently, I tend to agree with Ron Paul<--on this subject-->, who thinks government should stay out of marriage altogether.

You have no idea how tempted I am to type "Ron Paul is an idiot" and close my browser.

People who say "government should stay out of marriage" are very short-sighted, to say the least. Who decides matters of kinship, if not government? This is just one of the myriad follies of both libertarianism and anarchism. People like to believe that if you just got rid of all government, the world would become a utopia; in reality, it would come to resemble the book Lord of the Flies very quickly.

What the marriage issue boils down to is kinship. My partner is a legal stranger to me. Yes, I could have legal papers drawn up that might approximate some kinship rights, but people don't realize the time and expense involved in something like that. Why should I (or anyone) have to hire a lawyer and spends thousands (yes, thousands) of dollars, when I could just go to the court house and pay $100 for a marriage license?

Why should we set up some sort of patchwork "separate but supposedly equal" system of civil unions or domestic partnerships when the system we have now (marriage) works just fine? To accommodate some people's religious sensibilities?

It's religion that needs to get out of the business of civil marriage, not the other way around.

As a gay person, I just don't get exactly why gay people would want to get married. But, then again, I tend to have a romantic view of the sexual outlaw (I mean, isn't that part of why some gay men identify with Stevie? Maybe it's just me.).

I want to get married because I want my partner to be my legal kin, with all the legal rights that entails. As it is, my crazy mother and my religious nutjob brother and his harpy wife, none of whom I've seen nor spoken to in years (and if I ever see any of them again, it'll be too soon), have more legal ties to me than the man I've shared my life with for the past 6 years.

Anyway, consequently, I would think there are some gay people, not to mention gay-supporting people, who don't say gay marriage should be made legal.

That's a rather silly statement. So because some gay people and gay supporters think all gay people should be "sexual outlaws," I should be denied the right to the legal protection of marriage for my relationship?

Back in the day, gay intellectuals used to argue that marriage was a patriarchal institution.

Yes, they argued this 30-40 years ago, when things were, um...very different for gay people. To say the least.

I guess fashions have changed,

You guess? Sweetie, that's been changing for at least the past 20 years. Probably longer.

but I don't think all gay people have to follow those fashions.

No, and neither should we all be forced to be "sexual outlaws" because of some people's romantic notions of '70s drug-fueled "free love."

[HejiraNYC]

^^ I agree.

I think it's tempting to say that Rick Santorum is merely just poison to GLBT. Yes, he is a monster in that regard, but holy f***, his positions on all kinds of private and civil matters are just astoundingly nonsensical. I mean, it's so bad that you couldn't make up a character like Rick Santorum- that would be too much of a stretch of the imagination... but then again, anyone who has watched the most recent season of Dexter could see the parallels between he and the "Doomsday Killer." It's one thing for such an ignorant neanderthal to vie for presidential nomination. But it's another thing for him to actually garner a major following, which really makes me wonder about humankind. Really, America? Do you want to go back to the Salem Witch Trials? Do you want women to stay at home in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant because they're too "emotional" to make critical decisions in the workplace? Do you want to throw out all of the ultrasound machines and ban abortions so that the country is awash with a sudden bolus of retarded babies? Who's going to take care of all of them? Can the U.S. sustain policies that call for unchecked/unmitigated procreation while at the same time slashing budgets for education, welfare and health entitlements while calling for lower taxes on corporations and the rich?

[APerfectLie]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Can the U.S. sustain policies that call for unchecked/unmitigated procreation while at the same time slashing budgets for education, welfare and health entitlements while calling for lower taxes on corporations and the rich?

This is probably the best question ever asked.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

^^ I agree.

I think it's tempting to say that Rick Santorum is merely just poison to GLBT. Yes, he is a monster in that regard, but holy f***, his positions on all kinds of private and civil matters are just astoundingly nonsensical.

Oh, absolutely. Maybe I'm being naive, but if he gets the nom, I'm betting he'll bomb in the general even worse than McCain/Palin did. The majority of people in the U.S. are very much pro-choice, even Republicans (by that I mean the average Republican voter, not their demagogue leadership), and once he starts talking about birth control being evil, he'll be branded as a kook pretty quickly. I still think the average American isn't that familiar with him yet.

Also, I don't think people realize just how much social media has changed the way political issues play out in the public sphere (or how it's changed just about everything, but especially this). Remember the Susan G. Komen Foundation? That whole debacle was largely fueled by people posting and sharing via Facebook. And Rick Perry's "Brokeback Mountain" campaign ad on YouTube?

Wait until the general election (if Santorum is nominated) when he starts throwing this crap around. Everybody and his uncle will be hearing about via FB, Twitter, e-mail, and YouTube. The '08 election happened just as all this was taking off. Politicians can't break wind anymore without everyone on the planet hearing (literally!).

[bucklind17]

Can someone explain what this means, other than "Rick Santorum doesn't actually understand how contraception works"?

Moderator: “So you spoke about the dangers of contraception. Can you talk about why contraceptives are dangerous?”

Santorum: “What we are seeing is a problem in our culture with respect to children being raised by children, children being raised out of wedlock, and the economic impact and the impact on society.”

Perhaps, to eliminate children from having children, we should encourage they use contraception so they don't get pregnant at ALL and don't have to decide whether or not they need an abortion, because no matter what, they're gonna have sex. Throw the pill and some condoms and some Nuva rings at these kids if that's your concern!

[Macfanforever]

I dont know much about him.But this will be very interesting.

[David]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

For the record, I have absolutely zero issues with fiscal conservatism.

If it were actually being practiced anywhere in "party politics über alles" Washington, we'd all have a chance to judge its effectiveness.

The party of personal liberty wants to roll back women's rights.

The "party of personal liberty" can call itself that all it wants, but saying so doesn't by any stretch make it true.

The Republicans are largely the party of crony capitalism (bestowing political favors on friends irrespective of qualifications), corporatism (enormous sums of public money used to subsidize vast industries, like oil & farming), religious inculcation (encouraging exhortative lessons on creationism & intelligent design in public schools), & abrogations of rights & responsibilities of privacy & choice (paying people to get pregnant via the child tax credit, or issuing legal decrees for who gets to marry).

The Dems play these games, too, by the way, just in case anyone hadn't noticed. Sometimes the details change, but the principles are the same.

Louie, you might be interested in the Modern Whig Party. It may have no success in elections, but it's a nice change of pace from the two-party continuum (same game, different pieces).

[WildHeart69]

If Santorum was a decent guy, we wouldnt have voted him out of office here in PA. The guy is crazy and a crook and I cant believe how well he is doing in the polls despite his track record. JMHO

[PenguinHead]

Originally Posted by olive

It's not God's Wrath I worry about , it is the Wrath of his/her Followers.

Agreed! I have faith, but I live by facts.

"Family values" are not exclusive.

If you are against gay marriage, simply don't have one.

If you are against abortion, don't ever get one.

If you are against women's rights and contraception, you're an idiot.

The separation of church and state is a beautiful thing.

[Travis]

I rarely speak politics but I feel that my eyes have been open to a lot of things this past year. The issues have been there but I’ve become more aware of things and have started to ask questions. It’s never too late right? Personally, I like Ron Paul. I’m still learning more about him but overall, I like what I’ve seen and heard. He seems to be completely genuine when he speaks and I find him incredibly smart. The man also knows his history. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him stumped by any question he is asked, nor has he flip flopped so many times the way Romney has. I’m a registered democrat and I’ve always voted that way but I’m seriously considering voting for Paul in the MD primary. One thing I think is frightening is Obama’s signing of the NDAA act. I don’t think most people even know about it. It’s just another example of our rights slowly being stripped away from us, the very thing Ron Paul has been talking about for years.