Funny that posting the name of a Republican being "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" is perfectly acceptable behavior, but posting gaffs of a Democrat in his own words is "dickery."
Where did I say you couldn't post those? Unless it was one of the edited ones, it's not against any rule on the site.
Disagreeing vehemently on an issue is "a desire to inflict harm" and "outright hostility?"
Working against equal rights for a minority usually falls into that camp, as it does in this case.
Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. Everyone harps on the separation of church and state (incorrectly, if you actually read the First Amendment) but nobody finds it shocking that marriage begins in a church and ends in a courtroom.
If there is some reason that we need to have things legally binding, let's make everyone get a form for a civil union, even heterosexuals. That way, you can handle things just fine regardless of gender, number of participants or species.
(I'm not sure if that last part would work, but I'd love to see someone let me know.)
I don't believe government should be involved in recognizing the concept of marriage, either. Logistically, it primarily serves as a means to determine things like priority for inheritance, visitation rights, etc. and this may be valid, but it certainly doesn't need to be filed under the 'marriage' label.
That said, if the only way to provide those benefits is through marriage, it is not ethical to arbitrarily deny them to one segment of the population while granting them to another.
I'm not Republican, and I haven't spent much time looking into Santorum's views on sexuality, but according to the clip, he doesn't condemn them, just doesn't agree with expanding the definition of marriage beyond heterosexuality. However, you can easily make that argument on any politician. If Obama condemns Republicans and the rich, how can he represent them? If someone doesn't like the Tea Party or the Occupy Wall Street people, can s/he represent those people?Santorum has spewed a lot of vile shit. He does not believe in the right to privacy, either
. Or contraception, or 'sexual liberty'
... I can go on. The biggest complaint when the url I linked to first started getting spread wasn't that it was inappropriate, it was because Santorum already is rather close to Latin for 'asshole'
(and that link also references is opposition to homosexuals having sex, in general).
There are a few things we generally consider as settled on this forum, if you want to start a debate on them, you can make a new thread, but for the purposes of this argument let us lay this out: Homosexuality is not a choice. It is something you are, or are not.
Being a member of a political party, or a movement, is a choice. You can address the facts proposed by Tea Partiers and OWS proponents individually, and work to correct them or ignore them. You can condemn a group for performing or supporting an action. I condemn Congressional Republicans for jeopardizing one of our most valuable assets as a nation (the National Debt). I condemn most of our political leadership for passing indefinite detention period, much less of American citizens. I condemn Obama for playing politics with economic recovery.
All of these things share a common backdrop: they're stuff people can apologize for, and either stop doing, or try to undo the damage caused.
You don't just 'stop' being homosexual. At 'best', you go through a horrific psychological ordeal of pretending you are something you are not.
You may as well ask how Independents are represented for each state. I think I heard somewhere that around 40% of the country is neither Democrat nor Republican, but there's only two congresspeople who aren't. Facts may be wrong there, please correct if possible.
Well, we'll see if 40% is a blip or not. Most of them vote for democrats or republicans, however. They'll either get more involved in primaries and disrupt a current party, or actually gather enough force to build a viable third party. My bet is on an eventual progressive-libertarian alliance, probably with a lot of held noses.