Ron Paul vs. Rick Santorum on Gays

[howardroark]

    When I asked Savage about the ugly comments in old PaulSurvival Reports, he shrugged them off. “Ron Paul can have the closet,” he said. “He might miss it, but we sure don't. Maybe there's room in there for his old newsletters?”

    There is no comparing Paul and Santorum, said Savage, because Paul is a leave-us-alone libertarian. “Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn't beloved of religious conservatives, he isn't out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies,” he explained. “And Ron may not like gay people, and may not want to hang out with us or use our toilets, but he's content to leave us the fuck alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens. Santorum, on the other hand, believes that his bigotry must be given the force of law. That's an important difference.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/27/ron_paul_and_the_gays.html

[240 is Back]

HUGE difference there, and savage makes it very clear.

[tonymctones]

Homosexuality isn't normal and it shouldn't be forced upon ppl to view it as such

[Bindare_Dundat]

Summed it up well.

[240 is Back]

Homosexuality isn't normal and it shouldn't be forced upon ppl to view it as such

i dont think ron paul or santorum force it upon people..

I dislike when any kind of sexuality is "forced" upon me.  If straight people held a parade where they groped each other in front of children, i'd throw rocks at those fuckers for public indecency.  Same with gay people.  Same with eskimos.  Same with any group.

The issue here is that santorum wants to attach legislation to what gays can do, right?  And ron paul says all are equal, he just keeps his own distance as a personal thing.

[tonymctones]

i dont think ron paul or santorum force it upon people..

I dislike when any kind of sexuality is "forced" upon me.  If straight people held a parade where they groped each other in front of children, i'd throw rocks at those fuckers for public indecency.  Same with gay people.  Same with eskimos.  Same with any group.

The issue here is that santorum wants to attach legislation to what gays can do, right?  And ron paul says all are equal, he just keeps his own distance as a personal thing.

the problem is that by doing that he opens the door to normalizing the behavior.

There is a difference between straight parades and gay parades 240, one is a normal human behavior the other is an abnormal human behavior and it isnt enough to simply say lets ignore them b/c its ABNORMAL

[Soul Crusher]

the problem is that by doing that he opens the door to normalizing the behavior.

There is a difference between straight parades and gay parades 240, one is a normal human behavior the other is an abnormal human behavior and it isnt enough to simply say lets ignore them b/c its ABNORMAL

Obama loves a parade for twinks but objects to a parade for the troops. 

[Mr. Magoo]

Homosexuality isn't normal and it shouldn't be forced upon ppl to view it as such

I don't understand your point. Is that an argument for paternalism? could you expand more before I type a response?

[tonymctones]

I don't understand your point. Is that an argument for paternalism? could you expand more before I type a response?

I dont really know how to expand on this, it has nothing to do with paternalism/maternalism.

Fact is homosexuality is not normal and we shouldnt be made to view it as normal b.c it is abnormal

what is wrong with viewing an abnormal behavior as abnormal?

[240 is Back]

the problem is that by doing that he opens the door to normalizing the behavior.

There is a difference between straight parades and gay parades 240, one is a normal human behavior the other is an abnormal human behavior and it isnt enough to simply say lets ignore them b/c its ABNORMAL

see, I dunno what % you are using to assign "NORMAL" to it.

What % of the population is redheaded? 5%  What $ of the population is gay?  5%

I don't care if a guy wants to ram his junk up the ass of his chick, or his best bud.  Hell, if he's into the cawk, it means the odds % just went up for me hooking up with a chick, cause 2 well dressed dudes with good income are now off the market

If 1 in 20 people is ANYTHING, then it's pretty normal. 

Personally, I dont wanna see people swapping spit in a parade - gay, straight, or otherwise.

[Mr. Magoo]

I dont really know how to expand on this, it has nothing to do with paternalism/maternalism.

Fact is homosexuality is not normal and we shouldnt be made to view it as normal b.c it is abnormal

what is wrong with viewing an abnormal behavior as abnormal?

Even if it is not normal, why should it not be tolerated? I don't understand what policy implications the normal/abnormal of an act would have.

An easy example would be blowing bubbles with my mouth. It is a bodypart and by blowing bubbles I am not using the bodypart for it's natural intended function (whether the function is dictated by God or by nature is irrelevant). So by blowing bubbles with my mouth is abnormal and not "natural". But that says nothing about whether it should be allowed in a pluralist society.

I guess what I am saying is "so what if it is normal or abnormal, what is the connection with toleration and/or the law and public policy?" That's why I asked you to expand on your argument about homosexuality not being normal.

[tonymctones]

Even if it is not normal, why should it not be tolerated? I don't understand what policy implications the normal/abnormal of an act would have.

An easy example would be blowing bubbles with my mouth. It is a bodypart and by blowing bubbles I am not using the bodypart for it's natural intended function (whether the function is dictated by God or by nature is irrelevant). So by blowing bubbles with my mouth is abnormal and not "natural". But that says nothing about whether it should be allowed in a pluralist society.

I guess what I am saying is "so what if it is normal or abnormal, what is the connection with toleration and/or the law and public policy?" That's why I asked you to expand on your argument about homosexuality not being normal.

where did I say it shouldnt be tolerated?

being tolerated and being normalized are two completely different things.

Im not saying to not be gay, Im saying dont expect anyone to look at as normal or pass laws to normalize it B/C ITS NOT NORMAL...

Im not even going to address your analogy, thats horrible bro...you can do better than that

I dont care if youre gay, but dont expect me to acknowledge it like is a normal behavior especially with laws b/c it isnt..

[Mr. Magoo]

where did I say it shouldnt be tolerated?

being tolerated and being normalized are two completely different things.

Im not saying to not be gay, Im saying dont expect anyone to look at as normal or pass laws to normalize it B/C ITS NOT NORMAL...

Im not even going to address your analogy, thats horrible bro...you can do better than that

I dont care if youre gay, but dont expect me to acknowledge it like is a normal behavior especially with laws b/c it isnt..

The analogy works if the argument is that "homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural". Or "homosexuality should not be tolerated because it is unnatural", etc. It is even more analogous because I used a bodypart in the analogy that clearly wasn't being used for it's "intended" purpose or "primary" purpose. I could also use an analogy of using a hammer to crack open walnuts or something.

You said "pass laws to normalize". You said this should NOT be done. Would forbidding the existence of sodomy-laws be "passing laws to normalize" homosexuality? You need to expand on your idea of the role of law in regulating behavior. You need to expand what "passing laws to normalize" means.

My point is that even IF homosexuality is NOT NORMAL, then an argument can still be given to support political and legal toleration allowing for homosexual lifestyles. Being normal or not normal is irrelevant when discussing the role of political and legal institutions.

[tonymctones]

The analogy works if the argument is that "homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural". Or "homosexuality should not be tolerated because it is unnatural", etc. It is even more analogous because I used a bodypart in the analogy that clearly wasn't being used for it's "intended" purpose or "primary" purpose. I could also use an analogy of using a hammer to crack open walnuts or something.

You said "pass laws to normalize". You said this should NOT be done. Would forbidding the existence of sodomy-laws be "passing laws to normalize" homosexuality? You need to expand on your idea of the role of law in regulating behavior. You need to expand what "passing laws to normalize" means.

My point is that even IF homosexuality is NOT NORMAL, then an argument can still be given to support political and legal toleration allowing for homosexual lifestyles. Being normal or not normal is irrelevant when discussing the role of political and legal institutions.

first I never said anything about morality, you cant use morality when reasoning with those whos basis for morality is cultural.

Normalcy is based on the base line behaviour for humans and as such homosexuality is abnormal.

holy shit son, youve taken one to many liberal arts classes in school and forgotten how to have a normal conversation. Ill leave it at laws should not be passed to normalize homosexuality and if you cant gleen what I mean from that you need to slap the shit out of your professor tomorrow b/c they are doing you an injustice.

an argument can be made for anything but that doesnt mean its a good or valid argument...

Again Im not saying lets be intolerant of gays, simply saying that we shouldnt go around normalizing ABNORMAL behaviour as it serves no purpose other than to make the abnormal ppl seem normal which is counter intuitive/productive seeing as the behavior is ABNORMAL!!!!

[Mr. Magoo]

first I never said anything about morality, you cant use morality when reasoning with those whos basis for morality is cultural.

Normalcy is based on the base line behaviour for humans and as such homosexuality is abnormal.

holy shit son, youve taken one to many liberal arts classes in school and forgotten how to have a normal conversation. Ill leave it at laws should not be passed to normalize homosexuality and if you cant gleen what I mean from that you need to slap the shit out of your professor tomorrow b/c they are doing you an injustice.

an argument can be made for anything but that doesnt mean its a good or valid argument...

Again Im not saying lets be intolerant of gays, simply saying that we shouldnt go around normalizing ABNORMAL behaviour as it serves no purpose other than to make the abnormal ppl seem normal which is counter intuitive/productive seeing as the behavior is ABNORMAL!!!!

I bolded what I think is your main argument. First of all, your argument is circular. Second, by your definition it is abnormal for someone to play in an orchestra (since less than a majority of people do so), so we shouldn't allow orchestra players to be seen as normal (?)....again I don't get your argument.

[tonymctones]

I bolded what I think is your main argument. First of all, your argument is circular. Second, by your definition it is abnormal for someone to play in an orchestra (since less than a majority of people do so), so we shouldn't allow orchestra players to be seen as normal (?)....again I don't get your argument.

lol no sir I never said majority, we could use statistics and standard deviations if youd like but im not going to do any calculations tonight but if youd like to im pretty sure that odds of being gay in the country is at least 3 standard deviations away making them statiscal outliers...i.e. abnormal.

simply not being in the majority doesnt make you abnormal...

do you think that homosexuality is a normal human behavior magoo?

[Mr. Magoo]

lol no sir I never said majority, we could use statistics and standard deviations if youd like but im not going to do any calculations tonight but if youd like to im pretty sure that odds of being gay in the country is at least 3 standard deviations away making them statiscal outliers...i.e. abnormal.

simply not being in the majority doesnt make you abnormal...

do you think that homosexuality is a normal human behavior magoo?

I don't know what you mean by "normal" (not trying to be a smart ass, but that is a crucial point in this discussion). Most animals have gay sex don't they? So couldn't it be argued that not having gay sex is abnormal? If you mean "if not many humans do X, then X is abnormal" then my orchestra example still holds (they are outliers). But then, to be consistent, I would have to think less of those who play in orchestras (those who choose to spend their life doing so and it is their "lifestyle"), and that seems odd to think less of them. If you are trying to...what's the word...say that a homosexual lifestyle is in some sense "unacceptable" then I think you need more than just  normal/abnormal condition.

And I am not arguing FOR homosexuality, I am arguing for political and legal pluralism.

[tonymctones]

I don't know what you mean by "normal" (not trying to be a smart ass, but that is a crucial point in this discussion). Most animals have gay sex don't they? So couldn't it be argued that not having gay sex is abnormal? If you mean "if not many humans do X, then X is abnormal" then my orchestra example still holds (they are outliers). But then, to be consistent, I would have to think less of those who play in orchestras (those who choose to spend their life doing so and it is their "lifestyle"), and that seems odd to think less of them. If you are trying to...what's the word...say that a homosexual lifestyle is in some sense "unacceptable" then I think you need more than just  normal/abnormal condition.

And I am not arguing FOR homosexuality, I am arguing for political and legal pluralism.

well first of all its not illegal to be gay so youre analogy again is simply horrible...

lol simply b/c happens in nature doesnt make the occurance of it normal...Ill point you back to the statiscal analysis as a basis...

and Im arguing, where do you stop with political and legal pluralism?

do bi sexuals get to marry a male and a female?

do polygamist get to marry more than one person?

do pedaphiles get to marry ppl under the age of 18?

the problem with the post modern bull shit that youve been spoon feed is that it leads to a world where no one is wrong but the problem is there are absolute morals in this world whether you want to accept them or not is the question.

but again to argue morals with a post modernist such as yourself is pointless.

[Mr. Magoo]

well first of all its not illegal to be gay so youre analogy again is simply horrible...

lol simply b/c happens in nature doesnt make the occurance of it normal...Ill point you back to the statiscal analysis as a basis...

and Im arguing, where do you stop with political and legal pluralism?

do bi sexuals get to marry a male and a female?

do polygamist get to marry more than one person?

do pedaphiles get to marry ppl under the age of 18?

the problem with the post modern bull shit that youve been spoon feed is that it leads to a world where no one is wrong but the problem is there are absolute morals in this world whether you want to accept them or not is the question.

but again to argue morals with a post modernist such as yourself is pointless.

Okay there are a lot of problems with your post. First of all, I deny moral relativism. Liberalism and moral relativism are NOT the same. Read more of the subject.

Now let's talk about pluralism. Assuming certain conditions are met (liberty, rights, etc) then it is acceptable for certain people to live certain lifestyles. If Joe Smith wants to spend his life watching football drinking beer, or Mary wants to become a Jehovah witness, etc is permissible. However (this is where most people are confused about pluralism), it is PERMISSIBLE TO TRY TO CHANGE PEOPLES LIFESTYLES. There is one, and only one, tool that is denied under a pluralistic society, that tool is the law. If you disagree with Joe Smith spending his life watching football and drinking beer, or Mary believing in what she does, or some guy being a homosexual, then there are social methods of convincing them to change their lifestyles. But forcing them by law is unacceptable. An inward change is needed for that person in question to benefit. Let's say you believe living a life of prayer is a better life than one without prayer. But it is impermissible to hold a gun to someones head to make them pray, because it is not an inward change. THAT is the driving force of pluralism and liberalism (and is an argument against sodomy laws, which are let's admit, laws that make homosexuality illegal).

Pluralism ends when it conflicts with the priority of rights and liberties specified in a constitutional framework (in  lexicon ordering). For example, the intolerable are tolerable only insofar as rights and liberties are not violated.

[240 is Back]

worst headline EVER>


"Santorum surges from behind in Iowa".