Santorum blames same-sex marriage for US economic woes

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Calboner, Aug 17, 2011.

  1. Calboner

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,026
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2,465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Within a short period I came across articles attributing the same weird claim to both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, but only in the case of Santorum do the facts bear out the attribution.

    First, here is Santorum, as transcribed by Right-Wing Watch:
    Two claims are implied by presumption in the mere wording of Santorum's first statement: First, that to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples is to promote the breakdown of the nuclear family. (How letting Mark and Tom or Anne and Laura get married is supposed to undermine the family of Jim and Susan is one of those impenetrable mysteries of right-wing physics that must be accepted on faith.) Second, that to allow abortion under the law is to fail to support the dignity of human life. (Not a ridiculous claim, though, of course, a contestable one.)

    In the next quoted statement (after the break), Santorum seems to equate the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples with "disregarding the family and the important role that it plays." Presumably by "family" here he means family consisting of one mother, one father, and their children. (Whether this is supposed to allow for the roles of ex-spouses, step-parents, children from previous marriages, and other non-Ozzie-and-Harriet characteristics that probably attach to most families in the US, I don't know.)

    Finally, of course, we get the main point: The big crash of 2008 is due, not to lax regulation, not to perverse economic incentives, but to the lack of moral consciousness on the part of some individuals, and that deficiency is itself due to our not inculcating morality and religion in public schools.

    On Top Magazine posted a story under the headline "Newt Gingrich Suggests Gay Marriage To Blame For Economic Woes," but its contents don't quite bear that out.
    This is not so clear. I wanted to hear what Newt actually said, but the recording that accompanies the article is about an hour long, and I don't have the patience to listen to the whole thing. Skipping through it, I couldn't find the place where he says the words attributed to him here.
     
  2. Klingsor

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,948
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    845
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Champaign (IL, US)
    LOL . . . Rick Sanitorium.
     
  3. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,866
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    598
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    Endowed by creator with inaleanable rights? Isnt it more accurate to say the american state created these inalienable rights by placing them on paper, whoever they ascribed them to? The paradox is that free enterpise utterly depends upon the existence of a rigid legal framework which controls and directs it. Quite what that has to do with family life I have no idea.
     
  4. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,279
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
  5. D_ Jack_Soffalotte

    D_ Jack_Soffalotte Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wouldn't worry about what he thinks. The man is notoriously moronic and has no chance of being president.
     
  6. hsarge

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,200
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    PA
    Hope you are correct, but the idiots in my state elected him to the U.S. senate.
     
  7. Thedrewbert

    Thedrewbert Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    579
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    It's not like we didn't come around eventually:

    Santorum was defeated 59% to 41% in the 2006 U.S. Senate election by Democratic candidate Bob Casey, Jr. This was the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator since 1980.

    Having George McGovern be the only senator in recent times to lose WORSE than you did isn't really something you put on a resume.
     
    #7 Thedrewbert, Aug 17, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2011
  8. dude_007

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    4,891
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    One would think the Republicans in the small inner circle would wise up and realize that an ultra-conservative candidate, while perhaps able to win over other conservatives, will ultimately lose the race. There are too many liberals and moderates who just won't go with those who are so far to the right.
     
  9. Calboner

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,026
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2,465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Utter nonsense. First, there was no American state at the time that the Declaration of Independence was written. The invocation of unalienable (sic) rights was the basis of the formation of such a state. Second, rights that are created by a state are ipso facto not unalienable: what the state has given it can take away.
    True. But he gives expression to the thinking of many millions of like-minded morons.
     
  10. FuzzyKen

    FuzzyKen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    One of the interesting things about world politics is that in order to get people to respond you have to demonize or dehumanize one group of people so that the others you want to manipulate will attack them.

    Adolph Hitler did this with his attack and his blame of the ills of the world on both homosexuality and Judaism.

    The United States has not been innocent on this one either. After the attack on Pearl Harbor we not only demonized Japanese people in Japan we placed American Citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps. They were born here and the only thing they did wrong was to have had the unfortunate bad luck to have had parents or grandparents and a Japanese surname.

    Whenever times have gotten tough political candidates have done this. If you look at many problems of the world on many continents you will find the same kinds of things going on.

    Those who champion these ideals of extremist conservatism have over the past thousand years created more wars and created more death and destruction than any other group or combination of groups combined. This belief system where one way is right and all the others are wrong on the part of extremists or extremist minds is the root of all unnatural death, war, famine, torture, persecution and hatred in the world. But throughout history extremists have been able to sell their programs that never work simply because people seek strong leadership, they seek a simple solution to a complex problem or complex problems and they buy the falsehoods every time.

    Right now people are desperate and they want to buy the simple solution from the candidate who says it's easy I can fix it. The problem is that the fix is not one that will work in the long term and the person making the statements really does not speak from a position of knowledge.
     
  11. Calboner

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,026
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2,465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Like hell you do.
     
  12. Mensch1351

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In the only other State that begins with "K"!
    Actually --- this is quite insightful and is also true in the REALM of religion itself. (I haven't figured ALL this out yet, but here is my take on this!) It seems that from the 1930's to the 1960's, the authoritative voice of Religion was taken for granted. If the Pope said it -- you didn't argue, it must be right. If your Pastor said it -- you didn't argue, it must be right. Because we were predominantly a rural society, the most educated in towns were the local teachers, doctor, lawyer and minister/priest. The roles of male/female (bread winner/home maker) were much more clearly defined. There was a great simplicity to life and the whole approach to life: White was definitely white and black was definitely black (and I mean philosophically, NOT in a racist connotation).

    But then came the 1960's when all of the authoritative voices were challenged to their very core. A whole generation started asking, "Why?" And the older generation's attitude of "Don't ASK 'why' just DO it!" wasn't enough. Blind obedience to the old voices of authority were not enough for a new generation. The old sociological, philosophical orders started to get turned upside down and side-ways. Vietnam, women's liberation, gay rights, and even Vatican 2 were simply tooooooo much for a lot of people to mentally absorb. Many really didn't WANT to approach life from a new philosophical basis by having to actually re-think through the foundational thoughts that had been simply ASSUMED. For these people there was a great longing to go BACK to the more simple uncomplicated approach to life where there were fewer grey areas of morality, justice, or even gender roles. This longing led to the rise in Christianity of radical fundamentalism. The TV Evangelists and Fundamentalists offered a much simpler approach to religion and faith that did not take ANY moral sensitivities into account. They offered a right is right and wrong is wrong faith. Ironically, they never seemed to actually see their own inconsistencies in their thinking/theology. They zeroed in on Abortion as a response to Women's Liberation and the evils of Homosexuality as a response to Gay Rights (and the rise of AIDS). Take a look at the actual statistics of church membership before 1970 and the decades since. The Mainline denominations, with a more educated clergy, took the complexities of the new generational thinking and tried to absorb them into their theologies & ministries. The Fundamentalists shut all this out and adopted a "park your brains in the Baptismal Font" approach. And because the Fundamentalists exploited the rising medium of Television and the Mainline churches did not --- the Fundamentalist movement has grown and grown in its influence and numbers while Mainline Denominations have shrunk numerically for decades. Now -- a whole generation of Americans (born since 1970) identifies Fundamentalism as the primary voice of Christianity. And I would speculate that the Fundamentalist movement MUST have an "evil foe" to battle in order to rouse their followers into action.

    This simplistic religion made its followers feel superior and "more righteous" than those "other" sinners out there -- rather than the "old" religion that demanded EACH individual see themselves before God as a sinner in need of redemption. Fundamentalism by it's nature MUST create a "them" VS "us" mentality (with the US's feeling morally, & spiritually superior to all others!) Couple this kind of approach to religion with a deep seeded sense of American Superiority over the rest of the world's culture/religion/whatever --- and you get a group who feels it is their "mission" to return America to it's more simplistic roots (which were never there in the first place, but were seemingly so)! Their attacks against all those who differ from THEIR mindset seem vicious (and at times moronic) but to THEM -- this is God's answer to America's ills and anyone who espouses differently could actually be an agent of the Devil himself!

    Now you may understand WHY these people see any kind of divergence from THEIR definition of the "norm" is not just to be opposed -- it is to be crushed. Their great fear is that God (who, for them, is not so much a loving God, but a judging God) is going to wreak his vengence upon America if we do not "obey his voice and return to HIS word!" And of course --- God's Word happens to be whatever it is THEY decide it should be in the most simplistic terms you can express it! Right is right -- wrong is wrong -- period -- end of discussion!

    Anyway Fuzzy Ken -- I think you tapped into something VERY relevant here and the key to combating it is to first of all really understand it, dissect it and gently learn how to effectively stop it in its tracks!!
     
  13. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Running a platform of hating gay marriage does not seen like the best tactic in my opinion but then again we are dealing with Frothy Mix Santorum. Ever wonder how he pays the bills while spending 18 months running for President? I'm guessing he must not have much of a law practice.
     
  14. B_enzia35

    B_enzia35 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Sounds like this Santorum guy is a retard.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted