Santorum Booed for Comparing Gay Marr...

Santorum Booed for Comparing Gay Marriage To Polygamy

There are 3251 comments on the www.buzzfeed.com story from Jan 5, 2012, titled Santorum Booed for Comparing Gay Marriage To Polygamy. In it, www.buzzfeed.com reports that:

Politics Staff Feature

Buzzfeed reported on the booing Santorum received today for speaking out against gay marriage in a New Hampshire town hall meeting.

The "know your audience" concept was overlooked by Santorum, who was more in his niche speaking against gay marriage in Iowa than in the more secular New Hampshire. When a young female audience member inquired about "two men who want to marry the person that they love," Santorum interrupted:

What about three men? It's important that if we're going to have a discussion based on rational thought, that we employ reason. Reason says that if you think it's ok for two, you have to differentiate with me why it's not OK for three. Let's just have a discussion about what that means. If she reflects the values that marriage can be for anybody or any group of people, as many as is necessary, any two people or any three or four, marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.

What's your take on Santorum's position? And is it fair to equate gay marriage with polygamy?

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.buzzfeed.com.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#3563 Oct 25, 2012
Forget that that back up claims with proof and scientific research, your in denial. I also read that apparently, according to recent studies, homosexuals are born missing something vital in the brain. I forgot the details, but that's a surprising fact.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't read the stories.
But I could have read them, and dismissed them after reading them.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3564 Oct 25, 2012
It's not a fact until you can say what it is.

Mothers appear to be responsible for many guys' orientation:
www.livescience.com/7056-mom-genetics-produce...
J_a_n wrote:
Forget that that back up claims with proof and scientific research, your in denial. I also read that apparently, according to recent studies, homosexuals are born missing something vital in the brain. I forgot the details, but that's a surprising fact.
<quoted text>

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3565 Oct 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Women's rights goes back to the beginning of recorded history. Suffrage is just the latest page in a history that goes back thousands of years. Ever wonder why their are no ancient arguments for same sex marriage?
You'd have to have read every ancient argument to know that.
But even if there isn't it doesn't matter.

And still, no rational argument against gay marriage!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3566 Oct 25, 2012
J_a_n wrote:
Forget that that back up claims with proof and scientific research, your in denial. I also read that apparently, according to recent studies, homosexuals are born missing something vital in the brain. I forgot the details, but that's a surprising fact.
<quoted text>
Better than what happened in your case, missing the whole brain.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3567 Oct 26, 2012
"Ever wonder why their are no ancient arguments for same sex marriage?"

.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
You'd have to have read every ancient argument to know that.
Or half of them to be halfway certain.

.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
But even if there isn't it doesn't matter.
Why wouldn't history matter?

.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
And still, no rational argument against gay marriage!
Only if you ignore history, philosophy, law and human reproductive biology; can you say there are no rational arguments against same sex marriage. We don't want to rewrite marriage law to satisfy a small minority. It's bad for society and since every gay was born of male/female union, same sex marriage would be bad for homosexuals.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3568 Oct 26, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
>Only if you ignore history, philosophy, law and human reproductive biology
Smarmy bigot: if you don't believe that homosexuals should get married, then you can continue to live in sin, no one is forcing you to get married.

Most Americans understand, however, the government has no business interjecting itself into the bedrooms of USA.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3569 Oct 26, 2012
You're th one ignoring history. Prior to the 20th century, marriage was a business arrangement--you bought a wife. The basis was to produce offspring and to have a domestic slave (AND take any property she might have.) But the very basis for marriage has changed from that chattel arrangement to a bonding of equals who love each other--THAT is the model for marriage in this society here and now. Children may or may not happen; a couple may decide not to have kids even to the point of aborting any mistakes. Reproduction is irrelevant to today's model.

There re no logical arguments against gay marriage any more than there are logical arguments against interracial, interfaith, or any other marriage in which the basis for the relationship is itself legal.

As for "We don't want to rewrite marriage law to satisfy a small minority"; who is this "we"? Polls show that the majority lf americans now favor SSM. You seem to forget that most gays favor it AND a huge number of heteros favor it as well.
Brian_G wrote:
"Ever wonder why their are no ancient arguments for same sex marriage?"
.
<quoted text>Or half of them to be halfway certain.
.
<quoted text>Why wouldn't history matter?
.
<quoted text>Only if you ignore history, philosophy, law and human reproductive biology; can you say there are no rational arguments against same sex marriage. We don't want to rewrite marriage law to satisfy a small minority. It's bad for society and since every gay was born of male/female union, same sex marriage would be bad for homosexuals.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#3570 Oct 26, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Because ancient peoples married for property or inheritance, not love. Gays married the opposite sex and had real lovers on the side. When marrying for love became the societal standard, we began to question, "why not us as well?"
<quoted text>
We really nee a "slam dunk" judge it icon.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#3571 Oct 26, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
"Ever wonder why their are no ancient arguments for same sex marriage?"
.
<quoted text>Or half of them to be halfway certain.
Or, as in your case, not a single one of them.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Why wouldn't history matter?
The explanation involves logic, so you might not understand.
"Appealing to tradition" is a logical fallacy.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Only if you ignore history, philosophy, law and human reproductive biology; can you say there are no rational arguments against same sex marriage.
LOL! Again, dummy, you are appealing to tradition. And, you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
Still waiting for a rational argument against gay marriage...
Brian_G wrote:
We don't want to rewrite marriage law to satisfy a small minority.
IOW, your bigotry is your only argument. And that's not a rational argument.
Brian_G wrote:
It's bad for society and since every gay was born of male/female union, same sex marriage would be bad for homosexuals.
You always run like a frightened chicken when asked this but...
How is gay marriage bad for society or homosexuals?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3572 Oct 27, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
Smarmy bigot:
Back at you.

.
barefoot2626 wrote:
if you don't believe that homosexuals should get married, then you can continue to live in sin,
Homosexuals have always married under the same law as everyone else. There is no orientation test for a marriage license, a lesbian might marry a gay as simply as any heterosexual couple.

.
barefoot2626 wrote:
no one is forcing you to get married.
Marriage isn't for everyone.

.
barefoot2626 wrote:
Most Americans understand, however, the government has no business interjecting itself into the bedrooms of USA.
This has nothing to do with bedrooms, the issue is rewriting marriage law so government would consider two men or two women as if married. There's no ban on your behavior, if you want a religious same sex marriage, no law stops you.

Best wishes!
1 post removed

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3574 Oct 27, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Back at you.
.
<quoted text>Homosexuals have always married under the same law as everyone else.
I don't have to make you admit the sun rises in the east, smarmy bigot.

The laws prohibiting people of the same sex marrying are getting tossed right and left; the last most bigoted states will be the same ones that opposed those black people from voting.

Tick tock, bigot.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#3575 Oct 27, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Back at you.
.
<quoted text>Homosexuals have always married under the same law as everyone else. There is no orientation test for a marriage license, a lesbian might marry a gay as simply as any heterosexual couple.
Men and women haven't always married under the same law. That should change. Why are you against equality?

.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage isn't for everyone.
Wasn't for you and your ex-wife. LOL!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#3576 Oct 28, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
"Ever wonder why their are no ancient arguments for same sex marriage?"
.
<quoted text>Or half of them to be halfway certain.
.
<quoted text>Why wouldn't history matter?
.
<quoted text>Only if you ignore history, philosophy, law and human reproductive biology; can you say there are no rational arguments against same sex marriage. We don't want to rewrite marriage law to satisfy a small minority. It's bad for society and since every gay was born of male/female union, same sex marriage would be bad for homosexuals.
Reproductive biology has nothing to do with marriage. If it did, the ability to reproduce together would be a criterion for a marriage license. History has nothing to do with marriage. If it did, people from different religions would not be allowed to marry. Philosophy has nothing to do with marriage. Philosophy actually doesn't have anything to do with much of anything. Law is the only thing that has to do with marriage, and laws can and do get changed. So, your only useful argument is "laws say it's illegal." Well, that's fine. Laws also said it was illegal for whites and blacks to marry. Laws also said it was required that people own land to vote. Laws are whatever people decide they shall be, and whatever the Constitution allows them to be. Unless the Constitution has a clause directly prohibiting same-sex marriage, the laws can most certainly allow it.

So...did you think you were making a point?
Swedenforever

Marcus Hook, PA

#3577 May 13, 2015
Republican National Convention in OKC??you cant make this stuff up

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3578 May 14, 2015
Government licensed sex segregated marriage is the path to legalized polygamy because every argument for sex segregated marriage can apply to polygamy too.
1 post removed

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3580 May 14, 2015
SSM violates bigamy laws?
Brian_G wrote:
Government licensed sex segregated marriage is the path to legalized polygamy because every argument for sex segregated marriage can apply to polygamy too.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3581 May 14, 2015
Redefining marriage to satiate sexual predilection violates civilized law.

“ LIBERALS WILL ALWAYS ROOT FOR”

Since: Mar 09

ANARCHY AND ANTI-AMERICANISM

#3582 May 14, 2015
Keep up the good work, Brian!

We hear ya!

“ LIBERALS WILL ALWAYS ROOT FOR”

Since: Mar 09

ANARCHY AND ANTI-AMERICANISM

#3583 May 14, 2015
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
the same ones that opposed those black people from voting.
Tick tock, bigot.
Stop resorting to the race card to muster support and sympathy for your gay argument.

Its a sign of desperation....and the blacks don't like when you people do that.

“ LIBERALS WILL ALWAYS ROOT FOR”

Since: Mar 09

ANARCHY AND ANTI-AMERICANISM

#3584 May 14, 2015
Santorum is running again.....be afraid....be very afraid.

muwahahahaha

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 min The_Box 9,502
News The Civil War Is Over: Let The Battle Flag Be (Nov '11) 3 min Go Blue Forever 4,033
News Obama blasts Scott Walker's policies in visit t... 3 min Prep-for-Dep 51
News Oregon lawmakers vote to help gay veterans, str... 5 min Belle Sexton 1
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 7 min Lburg resident 333,349
News Clinton offers reassurance to gay youth in web ... 9 min Rainbow Kid 21
News Who's a lame duck? Obama's next 18 months 13 min the Ace of Spades 4
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 17 min Bluestater 1,252,424
News Donald Trump surges, and Democrats cheer 1 hr xxxrayted 129
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr LeDuped 186,658
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? 1 hr Knowledge- 158
More from around the web