 Santorum's war on privacy, among other things | Sep. 28th, 2006 @ 10:54 pm  |
|---|
I found some excerpts from an interview back in '03 with Pennsylvnia Senator Rick Santorum and a reporter from the Associated Press. It was the sort of outlandish intolerance and support of un-American ethics that many of us have come to expect from Ricky Santorum. I have added my own feelings on what the opportunistic hateful bigot had to say. While this is old news, nonetheless, with the upcoming election I think it's important to remember what the mindset is of those who are running for office today.
"AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?
SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?
SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.
AP: What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it."
Yeah, a lot of people do believe it is perfectly fine for consenting homosexual adults to have the same right to choose their partner as heterosexuals do. It's just bigoted puritanical authoritarians like you who find it unacceptable and make some warped leap of logic that it somehow destroys the fabric of society. And yes, it is fair to assume you would 'see more of it', not because it encourages it, you'd have to be a really dumb fucking moron if you believe an acceptance of homosexuality in society causes people to be homosexual. Rather, you would see more of it because people would feel more comfortable being open about their orientation and their relationship. It's akin to why people once tried {and some still do — Rick Allen} to hide their Jewish heritage. When the Nazi's no longer run the show, Jews aren't so afraid to admit who they are and where they have come from. Of course people like Santorum would like for us to continue to live in the shadows, closted so our 'deviancy' doesn't disrupt their archaic and 'wholesome' world-view.
I suppose Santorum probably does believe that an acceptance in society of homosexuality will cause people to become gay. Obviously he's not alone in this hilariously idiotic perspective. I suppose it makes sense then why these people are so afraid of homosexuality being permitted and even tolerated. They're afraid it might just turn them. We just can't have good ole god fearin' moral folks catching 'the gay'?
"AP: Well, what would you do?
SANTORUM: What would I do with what?
AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe —
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions."
Well there you have it. Santorum doesn't have a problem with gay people, just gay couples. We're allowed to exist, we're allowed to have alternate desires, we just can't ever act on them. So he gets to wallow around with his wife like sloppy pigs in a pen, and breed bigoted children like himself, but gay people are supposed to become abstinent for his benefit. I can't think of anything much more polite to say than kiss my fucking ass, Ricky, it's my life, I'll do what I want with it. If your 'morality' is put in jeopardy because of me living my life then I guess that's just too fucking bad isn't it? Obviously your morality doesn't deserve preservation because it's far too weak to stand up against 'godless' behavior.
"AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And 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."
Oh, there it goes. The slippery slope. We can't give homosexuals equality with heterosexuals because then you have to allow bigamy, polygamy, and incest. In other words if you give an inch... So really the blame falls to allowing things like civil rights. I see what he's saying, afterall, ever since we allowed women to vote and gave blacks equality the whole country has gone to the dogs... Now the 'sexual deviants' want their rights too! It seems we never should have accepted such liberal notions as civil rights. Maybe no one should have civil rights and basic liberties at all, because if you let anyone have it then everyone else wants it too and a god-fearin' society just can't afford to risk that for all the iniquities it could lead to. If we allowed such liberal permissiveness as liberty we'd have to ensure that criminals and prisoners had it too... Nice leap of logic there, dumbass. Too bad it's completely bogus. The repeal of sodomy laws have in no way legalized incest, bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, nor pedophilia. It's apples and oranges. Your slippery slope is illogical and irrational in justifying the denial of homosexual equality. While it may be hard for some people to get that, when used in relation to many other minorities that becomes clear. Well at least to most of us, to Ricky it probably sounds good applied to all, except for truly righteous Christians.
He goes on to say:"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, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."
Well of course if you're going to outlaw homosexual acts, if you believe sodomy laws are perfectly reasonable, if you believe that what individuals do in their private lives and their own homes affects society at large and therefore what people do in their homes isn't just their business but everyone elses as well, then one would have to completely dismiss the notion of a right to privacy. Does this not raise a legion of red flags? This man doesn't believe that people have any right to privacy. He thinks what people do in their homes is everyone's business. And he and his ilk should decide what sort of intimacy is appropriate.
There is a glaring question that gets raised in all of this: Why the fuck have people voted for this jackass? What Santorum is talking about here is quite simply an authoritative government. Whether it be theocracy or a moralocracy, he's talking about certain people, presumably a majority of Christian patriots, deciding what sort of lifestyles and beliefs are acceptable and the rest of us therefore are allowed to have.
I'm not finding ANYTHING American in what Santorum is talking about here.
He states further:"Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —"
Society is based on one thing — children? And this is why we not only can't allow gay marriage but shouldn't allow gay couples either? Nevermind the fact that gay couples can indeed have children, if anything someone needs to take in the kids heterosexual couples didn't want.
Another hole in his argument is this notion that we can't allow relationships and define marriage as being between two consenting adults because historically it has supposedly always been between a male and a female. As far as tradition goes most societies, especially those from Santorum's precious Bible, largely practiced and encouraged, even demanded polygamy. Odd then that I hear him attacking polygamy as well and not defending it. He needs to make up his mind which 'tradition' and which part of the bible he believes all the rest of us are supposed to adhere to. I find this all ironic too that I myself, a monogamous homosexual, am opposed to polygamy , I believe strongly in monogamy & I'm not even religious.
"AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society."
Ah, well, hmmm... I guess I spoke to soon, apparently Santorum doesn't believe we are allowed to have desire, or to have passion for each other. He believes the state has an interest and control over our 'passions'.
I'd have to say emphatically, the state does not — should not have rights to limit individuals wants and passions, so long as those wants and passions do not infringe on the inalienable rights of others. Our passions for love & intimacy with each other should not infringe whatsoever on people's individual rights nor society at large. If we were to hinder people from exercising their own beliefs and living their lifestyles as they see fit then we should also outlaw people who lead religious lifestyles that are 'outside the norm'. We've seen what radical Islam, and radical Christianity leads to. Terrorism, whether it's bombing a synagogue, or an abortion clinic.
"AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."
So Santorum wants to do away without our right to privacy, and dictate how we live our personal lives. To prescribe what sort of 'passions' we should have. As if we didn't have enough reasons to despise Santorum and never give him an ounce of support, I woule hope this interview and a look into Santorum's crazy ass viewpoint would suffice. This country and it's most cherished American values, freedom, liberty, and protection from an overreaching government, including a right to some degree of privacy and personal choice. Above all life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. Santorum, that includes for adult persons to have whatever relations they choose with the partner of their choosing.
As of September 22, the Rasmussen Reports survey indicates that Santorum is at 39% to Bob Casey Jr.'s 49%. I don't know much about Casey, all I know is that Santorum is a miserable choice. In fact, he's not worthy of being a choice. He never should have got beyond thinking about running. I don't know how such a bigoted man who holds such basic American principles in such contempt could ever, ever be nominated, let alone elected of such a high position as Senator.
I can't believe the people of Pennsylvania have elected this bigoted bafoon before. I can only hope they are not stupid enough to do it again.Feeling like:  disgusted |
|
|
![[info]](http://img.greatestjournal.com/userinfo.gif){kind=small}