Way past time to grow up, liberal children.

Don’t throw any glitter on gay marriage opponents Obama and Biden, if you know what’s good for you.

Obama says he’s against gay marriage. Is he lying to you?

This story is a joke. These (unemployed) folks were paid off by unions. Good to see union dues make a difference

The protesters were right about Santorum being intolerant and hate-filled, but shouting him down is accomplishing nothing. Protest outside the venue or make a limited series of “shouts” inside, but let the guy talk. His own words are his worst enemy.

Welcome to the Obama Social Welfare State. These losers are the dregs of society. No amount of wealth distribution can help these losers.

OKAY.

This glitterbomb thing went from “kinda-lol” to “okay…” to “okay, this is old” to “lame” to now… I hate to say it… It’s like the energizer bunny… but almost becoming funny. It’s so STUPID but… comon… kinda lol that still politicans get sprinkled by this stuff.

I agree.

Even if I believed this to be an acceptable tactic, it doesn’t work with Sanitarium. Willard rather invites such conduct because it rattles him so.

“What they represent is true intolerance.”

What stunningly Orwellian doublespeak, but it’s a spot-on descriptio­n of Santorum’s own foaming-at­-the-mouth followersh­ip. And of himself.
 

I love how bigots like Santorum who has spoken poorly of minorities, gays, and every other marginaliz­ed group in America can suggest that another human being is “intoleran­t”.  

No Gloves…this is the best way for the militant gay community to show themselves as mature participants in national political discourse.  This act surely impressed the majority of Americans and most likely advanced the gay movement by leaps and bounds.
 
The Catholics ought to do something similar for the administrations intolerance against them versus their current silly method of discourse, which of course is forming a coherent rebuttal based of constitutional principles.

The liberal politics of hate reminds me of a movie I saw years ago, I think it was Malcolm X but I may be thinking of another, where the person had good intentions but instead of peacefully protesting with ideas and love like Martin Luther King this person instead condoned using violence to get what they want.  Glitter may be harmless, but so may a toy gun that shoots plastic and rubber darts (unless it hits you in the eye).  The problem is if these people find it acceptable to throw something on someone they disagree with, then escalates to shooting them with a toy gun, the “targets” will have to be wary of the possibility of some nut using a real gun, just as with these glitter or powder bombs they have to worry it could be something harmful, like anthrax powder.   In a way its unfortunate the left is so tolerant of personal attacks on their enemies, but if the right responds in kind they are demonized in the media and by liberal politicians.

I shouldn’t be at all surprised if Willard doesn’t have one of his PACs pay people to glitterbomb him just for the attention.

I can’t quite go to “hate-filled” but agree that these tactics are not helpful.

I agree, too. There’s nothing that glitterbombing can do to make Santorum seem more ridiculous than his own words.

Washington State does not put up with backwards humans like Rick Santorum. He is wasting his time.

“The problem is if these people find it acceptable to throw something on someone they disagree with.”           Yes,says it all about the Republican/Tea Party.They just happen to be throwing BS instead of glitter.

My friend was there, and wrote a really long recap of the event. This portion was about the protesters:

There was a group of protesters there from the rainbow
coalition who were making a lot of noise, shouting and chanting.  It did not
phase Rick at all.  He just kept going.  He did acknowledge the protesters
(liberty and freedom, and all that).  At one point some protesters got a bit
rowdy and the police removed a few of them… they kept being noisy off and on.
  Rick, still unfazed, took a moment to discuss how the left promotes anger and
intolerance.  That they would rather shout down and take away from the
experience of others, instead of listening and having a respectful dialog.   “….
Maybe they should get a job…” he said.  And then this was brilliant… the crowd
started chanting “Get a job! Get a job!”  And Rick goes, “Now now, I understand
why they’re upset… they haven’t been able to get work for 3 years, and the
president is making things worse and worse…”  Was really hilarious.  

 The crowd would break out in chants of “USA! USA! USA!” and
“We pick Rick! We pick Rick!” when the protesters would get a bit obnoxious.  At
one point Rick said “Wow, you guys are really good at dealing with this here,
aren’t you?”  

She was invited in to the VIP area before the event, by a local pol, and Santorum gave a 20 min. speech and a Q&A. She said he was very nice, down to earth, and nailed the Q&A with spot on answers.

 I am sure you believe there was second gunman on the grassy knoll and we didn’t actually land on the moon…

You mean like putting targets on politicians and using gun verbage to make a point. I agree with you on some level, throwing glitter is just plain stupid.

The Catholics and the right have engaged in discourse? Strange, it came across as them saying no to any sort of compromise on the issue and claiming religious intolerance.

Ladies and gentlemen the Grand Old Party.

I dearly want the bigot to me naminated. 

Marcus Bachmann is envious.

Shouting down, acting disruptive, throwing things, and even resorting to violence is not the way to win people over to your side. 

All that does is cause people to dig down deeper, to retreat into their beliefs, and hold steady.

If gay people want to *bring people around* on gay issues, they need to meet face to face, and engage in civil dialog. Gay people need to come out to people they know that oppose gay issues. (like Harvey Milk said). Look at Cheney, and his stance on gay issues. 

You get people to open up their minds and hearts with love and friendship, and dialog, not hate, and screaming, and violence. 

Welcome to dealing with the right, where people are forced to go to extremes because their viewpoints have been completely ignored by their candidates, or they’ve found the candidate more than willing to actively use intolerance of minorities to try and win votes, such as with Santorum’s homophobia. :)

In any case, the glitterbombing thing has gotten old and is only hurting their case.

Of course he is lying. You see, people understand subtle messages. Obama isn’t a bigot so makes no sense to say he is. Santorum is a bigot who runs purely on bigotry.

The same reason the 99% anti-bailout crowd, the anti-war crowd, the pro-civil liberties crowd, and the pro-gay marriage crowd do not protest Obama.  They aren’t any of these things.  They are just hate-filled liberals with no sense of hypocrisy.

Do this to Obama and you get beaten by the SS and get twenty years in prison. 

I’m sure Rick would have rather been glitterbombed,  than being Santorum-Bombed!!

Fear not, Obama will be the nominee!!

The stuff Rick Santorum said about gays is so upsetting that I can say I understand the protestors, but I don’t condone violence, because it only helps this guy.

“We Pick Rick! We Pick Rick!”

God forbid. It would be a complete nightmare.

Liberal politics of hate? Oh, right, because Republicans are known to be so accepting. That’s why they disinvited GOPROUD from CPAC. Because they’re not bigots.

I question why anyone would want to vote Rick Santorum. That is what terrfies me the most.

Violence and rage are not the answer. It only helps this guy, and I doubt anyone with a moderate view on life would want to vote on Rick Santorum. The best way to defeat this candidate is to expose the ignorance in what he has to say.

Completely. Was it not intolerant when he compared homosexuality with bestiality? It just seems with conservatives that they can dish it, but they can’t take it. If you dare to call anyone out on their most outdated views, We’re being intolerant. It’s ridiculous. Is it intolerant to tell someone that the sky is blue and water is wet?

 And called a racist.

 
“You get people to open up their minds and hearts with love and
friendship, and dialog, not hate, and screaming, and violence.”  This needs to be explained to the Republican/Tea Party.

I hate it when that happens!

Certainly there’s nothing intolerant about wanting to impose your particular vision of God’s divine law on everyone else in the country, is there Rick? There can’t be because you said God’s law, and you’re sincere and all. That means wanting your religious beliefs to govern the lives of those  who don’t share them isn’t the definition of intolerant except for those elitists who understand the definition of the word.

This whole victim thing is as funny as it is pathetic. The oppressed stand up to the oppressors and they are called intolerant for not willingly being oppressed. Good stuff Rick. Be sure to mention it if you  get to the general.

I agree as well. I don’t get this whole glitterbombing technique at all, it is so counter productive, they show up, sling some glitter and then are promptly escorted away. I think a more powerful statement could be made if they dip themselves in glue and then roll around in the glitter so it covers their entire body and THEN go to one of these events. NOW that would be a powerful scene. The mere magnitude of the sparkles would surely blind any candidate and force HIM to flee in agony.

These glitter bomb teams are not exactly helping anything. It’s a foolish strategy. It’s not like the candidate is going to put his head down at night and say “You know, after that guy tossed glitter on me I think I’ll be in favor of gay rights.”

It doesn’t work that way. Besides the only thing that all people should be concerned with is that the government enforce the rights that are already on the books. We don’t need additional rights for any one particular group. Our government needs to get the F’ out of the way.

If two people are married, say that they are married, then they are. Period. Why is government butting into the business of marriage anyway? It’s not their place. The states should have a say not the federal government.

Our liberal schools should be proud of themselves for producing such fine young idiots!!

Hey hey… not everybody remembers that the left uses those images. We’re supposed to keep that stuff quiet!

http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u1019/murdBULLS.jpg

Wait, that’s what you were talking about, right?

The ONLY reason Cheney is soft on gays is because his offspring is gay. 

Sorry, but people like you used words like love, friendship and Jesus when telling slaves or black people that they need to accept that standing and fate in society.  Sometimes it is necessary to get in the faces of people like you, in order to get society to do the right thing. 

no, it needs to be explained to the people that are screaming and committing violence. 

So glad to learn he’s “nice”. That changes everything.

Yes, I am sure Sanitarium, and for that matter, Willard, would be open to just such a dialog. It would certainly be well received in the Party. As for Big D*ck, please! His daughter is a Lesbian who has even written on the subject, and his wife wrote a Lesbian romance novel. Much more the all prevailing Cheney hypocrisy than being open to dialog. Right result, wrong motivation doesn’t render one honorable.

I am confident there are a number of St. Ignatius de Loyola and St. Mary’s boys and girls in that group.

You mean like the Secret Service did to the Willard Glitterbomber in Colorado?

The reason why it came across that way to you is because you bought the DNC talking points hook line and sinker.  The Church’s stance was based on the constitutionality of it, and as long as the order was in violation of the constitution, then there would be no compromise. 
 
The silly part of it all though, is that Catholic leaders articulated this publicly.  I’m a firm believer that the correct way to get your point across would be similar to how these folks in the article do it….by throwing glitter.  Don’t you agree?
 

I think a lot of what Rick said about gays has been taken out of context. 

Putting that all aside – some people do feel, or have brought up the issue, that gay marriage opens the door to polygamy or *man on dog* or incest, or whatever. 

Ok, putting aside hysterics for a moment, and freak outs that I or Santorum, am comparing gay relationships to incest of polygamy, or pedophilia – I’m not, but let’s discuss it, can we? Like grown ups?

Is it really soooooo horrible to go there, if that is what someone thinks? I, like many people, believe that gay people are born that way. It’s not a choice, it’s who they are. I love me the gay peeps. 

But, are pedophiles born that way?  Findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic. it sounds like they are indeed born that way. There are groups like NAMBLA that advocate for man/boy relationships. 

If people are born that way, and groups advocate for it hard enough, can you really say that one day, it will never become legal (again) or that it won’t become the new issue (once gay marriage is legal). It wasn’t that long ago that minor girls were married off. And still are in some countries.

Polygamy. Not sure why people get outraged when used while discussing gay marriage. It happens. Didn’t they arrest a huge group of religious nutjobs a few years ago, who had multiple wives, including minors. Can you really say that one day, advocates won’t push this? There are currently Mormon fundamentalist splinter groups of polygamist in Utah, Arizona, and Texas. It happens. Can you honestly say this might never become the new *cause* or even common practice? In some countries it still occurs.

As for dog on man. It’s not like zoophilia/bestiality isn’t a *thing*. Just spend a few minutes on the web and you will know there are some sickos out there who won’t just love their pets…. They *love* them. Not saying this would ever go mainstream, but it’s not like it doesn’t exist. And who’s to say they aren’t born that way? 

(Ok, I just spent some time on Wiki reading about it, and ewe. Way more common than I thought.) It is not illegal in Denmark, and only illegal in 34 US states!

Anyhoo. People want to get outraged that homosexuality is mentioned in the same breath as these sexual deviance’s, but maybe it’s better to discuss the issue, instead of just freaking out and taking things out of context. 

Pedophilia is illegal. Zoophilia, not as illegal as I thought. Polygamy is illegal, but practiced anyway. They were all legal and common at some point, in history. There was a time when Homosexuality was illegal. I support two people who love each other the right to get married, and adopt. But, I don’t think bringing up these other issues deserves the outrage that comes when someone does. I don’t think gay people are sick, or perverted, but I do a pedophile, or zoophile. But, like I said, I also don’t think it is far fetched to think that those groups would, one day, advocate for their rights, too. (NAMBLA already does.)

Rick was talking about the Lawrence v. Texas case, when he made those comments.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/207032/rick-santorum-right/robert-p-george 

that is my point… knowing people, loving people, having friends who are gay does much more to change people’s minds than yelling and shouting and violence. 

WTF are you talking about? First of all, not religious, so I never “use Jesus”. And secondly, when have I ever told “slaves or black people to accept their standing and fate”? 

Quit lying. You are exactly the kind of person who causes others to shut down, and dig in deeper. 

again, you have an uncanny ability to completely miss the point. 

Hum, no. They went into this debate not prepared to accept anything less than the government caving to the will of the Vatican so no, I don’t agree. I also disagree with the claim that it’s unconstitutional as freedom of religion is not a declaration that people have the right to force the views of their religion on people who don’t necessarily agree.

I will agree ton an extent though, throwing glitter is as equally childish as yelling no to everything that goes against church dogma.

Why are conservatives complaining about this? They’re the ones who made this sort of behavior acceptable with those obnoxious Tea Party rallies. What’s good for the goose…

I agree but conservatives thought this was a good thing with the Tea Party and now they ‘re complaining about uncivil discourse?

Will Obama be the eventual “anti-Romney” candidate?

besides the health care townhalls, which I didn’t agree with the yelling (and those weren’t tea party rallies) when did Tea Party rallies feature people screaming down the speakers, committing violence and throwing things? 

Tea Party rallies were tea party rallies. They were infiltrated by Lefties, like Santorum was here. The stuff that happened in WI was the Left. 

Do you really consider throwing glitter to be violence? I think it’s rude & inconsiderate, but if we consider that to be violence we have to say the city of New York was acting violently towards the New York Giants by giving them a tinker tape parade.

If someone is taking your rights away, I think it’s your obligation to disrupt them as much as possible.

You mean the Catholics are going to stop raping children and take to the streets!?

We AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!     Holy Macaroon.

Now we just need one of Santorum’s kids to come out of the closet.

That is the most reasonably presented screed of naive bigotry I have read in quite some time. Kudos.

Actually, I hit the nail on the head. You’re struggling with your newly embraced severe social conservatism. That’s fine. Everyone who thinks struggles with questions of faith, spirituality and ideology. You’ll get over and be more comfortable with your severe social conservatism.

No, but I consider it out of bounds. It is illegal, and it can really freak out security details and candidates. I am against throwing anything at anyone. I am talking about the violence that has occurred at many instances when they have descended on events. People were arrested in Tacoma, two of them for violence.

Apparently I was expecting too much from ya’ll…

Care to discuss, or just throw out insults?

I think pedophilia can get tricky. What if the minor, guardian of the minor consent to the relationship? In such a situation, who could we stop them? Not advocating pedophilia but the setup I described is legal in America. Polygamy is most about claiming dependents. If we allow polygamy, someone could easily abuse the institution of marriage to claim benefits. Perhaps if we did away with marriage benefits, that would solve all the problems. Beadtiality is something I would consider to be animal cruelty. We can’t get consent from an animal and we would have to give animals the rights of human beings (eg. property ownership). All of these scenarios could be worked into society, but they could do that even if we don’t legalize same sex marriage (eg. pedophile marriages can be legal right now).

I disagree, they’re raising an issue that would otherwise be ignored.

yes, my severe social conservatism of supporting gay marriage and adoption…. 

i know you are just trying to piss me off with your idiotic comments and lies. you are so desperate for attention. it’s so sad. go hug your wife. or your dog. 

I’d have to look more closely at Rick’s comments and positions. Off hand I would also have trouble voting for someone that could be seen as anti gay. I’m not in favor of gay marriage (though I am in favor of civil unions having the same rights), but a President needs to represent all Americans. The current President unfortunately has not, we don’t need the opposite where only Republicans would have representation in the White House.

It’s just glitter, not a gun, not anthrax, just glitter.

The very basic concept of “consenting adults” just seems to fly right over your head so the idea of discussing this with you just seems like way too much hard work.

I don’t know, by those standards, lighting up a cigarette or starting a car could be seen as violence.

“All of these scenarios could be worked into society, but they could do that even if we don’t legalize same sex marriage”
That’s true, which makes the outrage people express, when it is brought up, kind of silly. Like you wrote, they aren’t that far off from the mainstream already. 

‘We can’t get consent from an animal and we would have to give animals the rights of human beings”

Wasn’t PETA just trying to get human rights for whales, or something?

I think Govt. should be involved in a civil contract between two people – gay or straight, for legal issues. Out of *marriage* all together. Then couples can get *married* wherever they want, church or beach or whatever. Contracts are legal in all 50 states. Marriages are between you, and your Church or internet minister, or Wicken or whatever. Then Churches can decide whether to perform gay marriages or not. 

(thanks for the reply.) 

NP thanks for the discussion :)

Glitter bombing doesn’t hurt anone either. Really, when it alll comes down to it. Glitter bombing just a fad. Kinda like streaking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATzeXnoWloU

Adults and courts can grant consent to minors seeing to marry. http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/index.shtml

Like I said, homosexuality used to be illegal. Girls used to be able to marry very young. What’s to say the law would never be changed again? 

Until 2008 the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints practiced child marriage through the concept of ‘spiritual (religious only) marriages,’ as soon as girls are ready to bear children, as part of its polygamy practice and laws have raised the age of legal marriage in response to criticism of the practice. 

“in the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10-12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895. Female reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raised the age of consent to 16-18 by 1920.” 

WRT polygamy, you don’t need minors. And animals? 

“I don’t know, by those standards, lighting up a cigarette or starting a car could be seen as violence.”

Give ‘em time… 
haha

But seriously, it can be hazardous, so it, I suppose, is no different than throwing acid or something… The way they do it, anyway, by dumping boxes on someones face. I have been known to add a glitter to myself when going dancing, so I am not against a glittering – just rushing people  and throwing things at them. It’s a scary world, as we saw in AZ.

But, people often don’t realize they are in the midst of a transformation. It’s often easier for other people to see it happening. Maria Vendetta’s friend and neighbor Mario Piacevole stood by in amazement as Maria Anna transformed. Milestones:

“Look at he Fascisti. They have such nice uniforms and their trousers have such sharp creases.”

“I’m glad the Fascisti are having another parade today. Their music is so nice and they walk in such straight lines.”

“The Fascisti have made the trains run on time.”

“The streets are cleaner since the Fascisti have taken over.”

“Can I borrow your scala? The colors in this painting of Il Duce go much better with my divano that the colors in the picture of the Holy Father.”

See, it can creep up on a person. I am merely being Signore Piacevole to your Signora Vendetta. You’ll thank me some day. And, I would appreciate your pointing out such things to me.

Comparing Dart board target to a gun site.
Big difference!

LOL!

Like I said, way too much hard work and quite clearly just a bizarre, irrational and rather shameful framework for defending your candidate/party of choice.

Wouldn’t want to have to clean up that mess!

http://spreadingsantorum.com/

HubwangFoxwoggle
Like I said, way too much hard work and quite clearly just a bizarre, irrational and rather shameful framework for defending your candidate/party of choice.

So…basically you have no rebuttal. Got it. 
Shameful? How so? Irrational? How so? I am not using it to defend any candidate, I am doing it to have a discussion because this issue comes up all the time, and people overreact all the time when people say things, and I always think about this. So, I took a chance to bring it up, to see if anyone could actually discuss it, instead of just reacting with personal, ad hominem  attacks, over generalizations or falsehoods.

Really? I saw that as a target. Nothing on there said “dart board.”

But hey, if you need to spin out of some ideological compulsion, who am I to stop you? Lie away, voltman!

Ah yes… the obnoxious rallies. Which hurt no one, resulted in no arrests, and caused no property damage.

Damn those Tea Partiers… they didn’t know what they were doing. Now the OWS movement… those folks know how to get it right!

How am I lying?
It’s the truth that hurts.

http://www.promotionalbest.com/fridge-magnets-shop/Magnetic-Dart-Board/fridge-magnets-dart-board-1.jpg

Dude, I forget, which one are you, Beavis or Butthead?

Rick Santorum doesn’t make these arguments because he believes in their veracity – he is a demagogue, a poisonous opportunist and a theocrat and the entire premise of your argument is abhorrent and dangerously naive. You can anchor every bizarre hypothesis you like to the legalization of gay marriage and you can believe in your heart that what you say is entirely reasonable but all you are succeeding in doing is to perpetuate a conversation that keeps homosexuals in the same breath as bestiality and child molestation. But that’s okay because you’re pro-gay marriage, right?

Kind of agree with you. But you know what else is NOT the answer? …Silence

But let me make one final observation. Just because you rally and shout down someone trying to speak, that does not constitute “violence” or “rage”. It may be “rude” but it does not rise to the level of hyperbole as some would have you to believe. In most cases it spurs those types of reactions from the supporters of those trying to speak, not from the protesters.

I agree! It would have been funnier if they launched a condom filled with a mixture of excrements and lube  :D

So, you still got nada? 

Santorum isn’t making these arguments, I am. If you read the article I posted, he was discussing a specific case.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rick-santorum-gets-heckled-glitterbombed-while-campaigning-in-tacoma/#comment-439022953

“but all you are succeeding in doing is to perpetuate a conversation that keeps homosexuals in the same breath as bestiality and child molestation. But that’s okay because you’re pro-gay marriage, right? ”

No, I’m not. I am attempting to get people to discuss the issue, instead of always doing exactly what you are doing. People bring these issues up. Here’s your chance to refute it. You apparently still haven’t *listened* to what I wrote, or addressed it. You are just name calling and throwing around ad hominem attacks. You are doing it to him, and to me.

BTW, you didn’t answer this: 

besides the health care townhalls, which I didn’t agree with the yelling (and those weren’t tea party rallies) when did Tea Party rallies feature people screaming down the speakers, committing violence and throwing things? 

glitter bombing is a health hazard

http://thehill.com/capital-living/in-the-know/209573-eye-doctor-warns-of-dangers-of-political-protest-on-gay-marriage-

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/09/421878/doctor-glitter-bombing-is-a-health-hazard/

YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHIT!!!!!!!!!!

Here’s the issue Sarah – gay people are citizens and are entitled to the same constitutional rights as any other citizen. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors. If people want to take the unfortunate position that gay marriage opens the floodgates to all manner of perversions and abnormalities being legalized then let them fight those on a case-by-case basis and common sense will prevail. But to prevent basic civil liberties passing into law based on pubescent scaremongering is a scathing indictment on an alleged democratic society.

You’ll shoot your eye out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jCr8QSGYss

Racists like you must be destroyed.

Please show me the language in article 2, that stipulates the government has the right to direct any private organization, especially an organized religion, to provide ANYTHING to ANYBODY.

There are people forcing their views in this topic on other people who don’t necessarily agree…but the Catholic Church is not the offender in terms of application of force in this instance.  

Why keep your mouth shut, and let only half of the people think your an idiot, when you can open your mouth and confirm it for everyone?  Good Job.

Not quite sure if I’ve seen it happen at a Tea Party rally but I recall a Seantor named Joe Wilson interrupting the president address to the union with “you lie”. There are a couple other scattered incidents of interruptions but I think that chanting & anger has become the way of political discourse the past few years.

Frothy Post-Sexual Residue will go down  in history a footnote illustrating the last throws of an anachronistic ideology not unlike the reactionary politics from 100 years ago.

Obama was not a Bigot until he verified that he was in both his autobiographies….

I’ll be happy to provide quote to you if you are uniformed…..

Good…than you understand the Catholic Church’s position.

I’m sure you believe medicaid/medicare/Soc security are not going to  bankrupt us, and our deficit spending can be cured by simply taxing the “SUPER RICH”….

Does glitter really bother you that much?

I know.  Just watch..the next silly thing he will say is that they need 60 votes in the senate to pass a budget…..then he would be REALLY ridiculous.

Wow….were you actually trying to sound reasonable?

Why..did the cuban communist revolutionaries like the one depicted in your silly avatar do things better?

You can not discuss *anything* when you premise your stupid argument on farm animals and children having the same legal rights as consenting adult human beings. There is no rationalization there. You want us to dive into the rancid cesspool to have a discussion with you. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – this glitter-bombing B.S. does NOTHING to further the argument toward marriage equality. All it does is further piss-off the opposition and confirm their reasons why they don’t want to bother with you. If you want to further your cause, try acting like a tolerant adult and TALK to the other party without resorting to a shouting match. Gee, what a concept!

 Yes that is exactly what I believe along with corporations. Did you know that Carnival Cruise who has 3k employees in Miami pays 1% taxes the last three years. Yes the rich and rich corporations need to pay their fair share. Of course I am SURE you are one of those 1% who will be effected by this

HubwangFoxwoggle
Here’s the issue Sarah – gay people are citizens and are entitled to the same constitutional rights as any other citizen.

What specifically is the Constitutional right for marriage?
Would those rights open up the rights of others, i.e. polygamy, incest, etc.? If so, what does that mean to employers, who pay spousal benefits? Do you force employers to pay for multiple wife families, and their children?

Does the Government have the right to force churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies? 

(like I said above, I actually think govt. should get out of marriage all together, and make it civil unions for all couples, and leave *marriage* and weddings to churches & symbolic ceremonies.) 

I don’t think that bringing up those other issues is beyond the pale or scaremongering. Like I laid out, those things are practiced, not even illegal in some states, and some already have advocate groups. Is it really out of the realm of possibility?

Verreauxii
You can not discuss *anything* when you premise your stupid argument on farm animals and children having the same legal rights as consenting adult human beings. There is no rationalization there. You want us to dive into the rancid cesspool to have a discussion with you.
*** 
As I said, people equate them or get accused of equating them, or believe that gay marriage opens up the possibility that those could be next. I am discussing the topic. Getting it out there, to discuss, refute, debate… Are you denying that those things exist now? Are you denying NAMBLA? Are you denying polygamy happens?  I am also not saying that the law would ever change back, to allow children to marry, or to allow man to marry dogs, but I am not doubting that other groups would feel emboldened and start pushing for it. (like polygamy and NAMBLA)

wow, were you actually trying to say anything?

ha! love that movie!

There are a couple other scattered incidents of interruptions but I think that chanting & anger has become the way of political discourse the past few years.
**
I can trace it back to Bush’s election, and the 8 years that followed. I recall members of Congress calling him a liar, unpatriotic, failed leader and booing him. I recall members of the media (and Congress) calling him a fascist, and all colorful deviations of Hitler, an idiot and more. 

Liberals thought this was a good thing while Bush was Pres, and now complain about uncivil discourse from the Right.

Ok, putting aside hysterics for a moment, and freak outs that I or
Santorum, am comparing gay relationships to incest of polygamy,
or pedophilia – I’m not, but let’s discuss it, can we? Like grown ups?

for some people Sarah making some of those comparisons is not something reasonbably intelligent adults would do at all. I can see some people who are just ignorant and not hateful or malicious asling those questions and making comparisons but it’s harder to forgive a former Senator and someone currently running for the highest office we have.

Our gay citizens have been treated badly, with cruelty, discrimination and violence for decades in this country. I can understand that one more discussion about why they may not deserve equality, are they really just sick perverts like pedophiles or people who have sex with animals might be one more than they can, or should have to, bare.

I would say there’s an obligation, a responsibility for Senators, or potential elected officials to seriously consider the facts that are available, and the fact is, there is ZERO, evidence of any relationship at all between the things you mentioned. Any slippery slope argument is frivilous. All the arguments agasint SSM at this time are just a rephrasing of the same arguments made agasint interracial marriage. We now know how foolish those arguments are, so why should we treat people who are still repeating them as if they are serious thoughtful adults on this issue. I don’t see that returning hate for hate accomplishes anything but all opinions are not equal when dealing with the civil rights and equality of our fellow citizens. You either have some realisitic fact based valid argument to oppose SSM or you don’t. and they DON’T.

Catholics and all other religions can’t compromise on their beliefs…silly boy.
Either they believe what they believe or they don’t.
And there is only one way to say no….not a hundred.
NO!!

 Why “open your mind” when you can open your Bible?
Gay issues are not a subject that needs resolution for many Santorum supporters.

For starters, I don’t think that is what Santorum was doing – equating the two. 

I was having a email exchange with my friend earlier, she is opposed to gay marriage, but has tons of gay friends. She brought up all kinds of points, and I don’t agree with her on some of them, but she made some really valid points, and very reasonable reasons for opposing it, in her opinion. I don’t think it is out of the realm to discuss the slippery slope argument, because of the reasons I listed above – mainly existence of groups like NAMBLA and the polygamist sects that currently exist and operate.  I also disagree that it is hate or ignorance that drives many of those who oppose it, or discuss these reasons. Pedophilia used to be a norm. Crap, a 100 years ago in the US, you could marry a 7 year old. I don’t think that was considered a perversion or sickness then. 

Again, my point in bringing it up was because I really don’t think it is impossible to think that if that proverbial door is opened, it won’t open up these other groups advocating for their rights – mainly polygamy and, far less plausible to be approved pedophilia (like NAMBLA). 

Especially after seeing how certain activist groups can be quite abusive and militant, I have no doubt that one of these could become the new cause, once gay marriage is legalized.

That’s one of the reasons I now prefer, instead of gay marriage but Govt. civil unions for all, and marriages for couples and their churches, god, or internet friend. Keeps churches out of gay marriage, if they so choose, and allows all couples a contractual union for health reasons, children, wills, buying property, adoption, etc.

But, I think you and I talked about this before – I support someone who wants to marry and raise a family and be in love. I don’t think people who support family values should oppose someone wanting to be a family. Especially when idiots like Britney or Kim K can get married for 55 hours….

But, after talking about it a lot lately, I can see the argument for the slippery slope. And I really don’t think it is hate (yes, there are some bigots, and homophobes, but the comments that Santorum made in that interview, I don’t believe were. Did you read those links I posted?) for a lot of people that oppose it, but religious or conservative family views. Like we talked about before, 70% of blacks oppose gay marriage. Why? Because of religion and conservative views. Are they hateful or ignorant? 

You said you don’t think it is a valid argument, slippery slope. So, does that mean you don’t believe groups do practice or advocate for those rights, already? 

Ok, I am off to bed. I will check in the morning to see if you replied. Thanks for reply.

Oooooooh a photo of a target.

Voltman is trying to associate a target with a murder. That’s disgusting.

Logic fail Voltman. Epic logic fail.

It’s tragic. Wasting glitter.

Epic fail.

Missed the link on gun verbage.

 ”Glitter bombing doesn’t hurt anone either.”

Neither does raping women at OWS. Right,12voltman1?

Glitter is a good way to troll someone. Glitter seems harmless but it gets everywhere & is a pain to remove. He’ll be finding glitter wherever he goes for weeks.

The “religion” of peace ladies and gentlemen…

Have they stopped raping yet?

the Catholic Church’s position is only good for the CHURCH.  If it is conducting a business, it is required to follow the laws of that business.  If the church doesnt like that, they need to get OUT of the business.
Telling employees what to do about contraception based on the employer’s religious beliefs is constitutionally dangerous and un-American.
Catholic organizations enter the business of health care vountarily, and with that decision they must accept that their place of business is NOT a church where their doctrine stands.  The violation of religious freedom here is not in asking Catholic employers to pay for birth control, rather it lies in Catholic employers treating their employees like congregants and imposing their doctrine on them whether they share the faith or not.
If we believe Catholic employers are justified in refusing to pay for contraceptives,. do we also believe they are justified in telling their employees that they are NOT permitted to divorce their spouses, which is also the Catholic doctrine? 

Don’t confuse running a church with running a business.

Yes, we watch that movie every Christmas – can’t help it – it is running 24 hours that day. Love it.

sarainitaly, can I just throw something else out there for discussion? Let’s try this out:

I don’t think people of different ethnicities should get married. I also don’t think women should have positions of power. Their hormones make them irrational. They are best suited to stay home with the children.

Does the above paragraph seem like something even worth debating? 

You should go to Boystown, Chicago and suggest that a homosexual couple should not have the right to be married because it might open the door to a man legally having sex with a goat.

There’s a chance this post seems insulting and if so I apologize. Unfortunately, Rick Santorum’s entire argument is insulting. 

I don’t care what people do with glitter as long as I don’t end up cleaning it up.

Well, I am against gay marriage, but not for the reasons that most are. I think that it is entirely MOTARDED that the government is involved in something as philosophical as the love between two humans. The government should only be involved when the parties involved can not protect themselves. (like children and animals) The question is not should gay people be allowed to marry? The question is, Why do I need a state licence to profess an eternal vow of love for another adult human. Two reasons, taxes and divorce precedings.

If 15 adults want to live together and have sex, call it marriage, and raise their offspring like wild pagans that worship folk gods, what’s the problem? Well, it would be legal to do so had they not claimed to be married. then it’s illegal. OK what’s to stop them from living together, having sex, raising children, having ritual ceremonies that vow eternal love and affection, and calling it amalgamation. (which is a synonym for marriage by the way)

My point is that the universe is either going to drift apart into depths unknown and one day the last star will burn out freezing whatever species dwells on the last living planet, or the universe is going to collapse upon itself crushing every known thing in the event horizon of a super black hole. Sometime before that happens, mankind will have an extinction event which will wipe our entire species off the face of this rock. Man faces many perils every day. There’s famine, war, threats of pandemic, constant threat of nuclear and biplogical attacks, religious unrest, economic meltdowns, and utter ineptitude on behalf of world leaders to simply do what is right on basic levels.

And, what do we do? We squabble over whether two people of the same sex, that have sex, live together, have ceremonies professing vows of matrimony, are actually married, and should it be recognized by the government. I say Hell with the government recognizing any matrimony. Get the whole thing off the books. It’s not like it changes anything ya zealots. It’s legal for the sex part, It’s legal for the ceremony. The only thing is that they can’t get tax breaks, insurance benefits, and fiance visas. Oh and old gay rich dudes don’t have to worry about some young spouse filing for divorce and taking half his junk.

OK I’m done with this topic. Alert the vatican. I’m talking about profilactics next time.

I’m lovin it. Ya nailed it. awesome.

im_lovin_it
sarainitaly, ”I don’t think people of different ethnicities should get married. I also don’t think women should have positions of power. Their hormones make them irrational. They are best suited to stay home with the children. Does the above paragraph seem like something even worth debating?” 

 - You’re forgetting that it wasn’t that long ago that those were the norms, and laws. 

“You should go to Boystown, Chicago and suggest that a homosexual couple should not have the right to be married because it might open the door to a man legally having sex with a goat.”

- As I said before, I don’t see bestiality ever becoming legal, wait, excuse me, it is already legal in 16 states. What I mean is, I don’t see it becoming legal to marry a goat. But, I am not denying that I can see some fringe group pushing for it, down the road. People already advocate for legal pedophilia, and polygamy.

”
If 15 adults want to live together and have sex, call it marriage, and raise their offspring like wild pagans that worship folk gods, what’s the problem? Well, it would be legal to do so had they not claimed to be married. then it’s illegal.”

If married, then you are dealing with a whole new set of issues like the responsibility of the employer to pay spousal healthcare benefits to the 14 wives, and all their children.  

But I agree with you – get govt. out of marriage, and just do civil contracts for the legal purposes. 

Michael Savage Rules!

And those two things are connected how?

My language is the only type you liberal sheep can understand. Idiots like you think Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and take all the garbage you mindless fools live to spew but we not sit back and take your crap!

Obama appreciates and depends on mindless sheep like you to toe the line and regurgitate those simple minded liberal talking points such as ”fair share” and many many others……What does the socialist/dumocratic party do send out pamplets or just download them in your i-pods? It’s a shame there are so many of you out there willing and ready to take what the government will give you to complete your lives living off of people like me that pay 50% of the taxes while you and your like minded slugs pay nothing. Obamy the great divisionist-in-chief.

For starters, I don’t think that is what Santorum was doing – equating the two.

I checked out the infamous quote from the 2003 interview. You’re correct he didn’t. In fact he said “it’s not”

She brought up all kinds of points, and I don’t agree with her on some
of them, but she made some really valid points, and very reasonable
reasons for opposing it, in her opinion.

I haven’t heard any that stand up to scrutiny.
The argument that marriage between one man and one woman has been the foundation of society and somehow SSM would damage that simply doesn’t hold up to an honest look at history. Marriage has had various parameters from society to society and has changed without society crumbling. There is zero evidence that SSM would harm society in any way.

This is an equality and civil rights issue even though the right doesn’t want to acknowledge it. How can we justify denying one group equality with a slippery slope argument? The very same slippery slope arguments were made concerning interracial marriage. It’s about the rights of consenting adults, and more than that it’s about basic human dignity in a society. If other groups want to make an argument then let them, and let that argument stand or fall on it’s own merits , but they have nothing to do with the civil rights of our gay citizens.

When I say ignorant I mean just not knowing, unaware of the facts. A lot of people react emotionally to SSM and have spent little or no time really looking into it. If you can find it watch the documentary “The Bible Tells Me So”  Religious indoctrination in this country has taught that homosexuality is a sin, a perversion, an abomination, for generations and this has permeated much of society and caused a lot of pain and grief. Now we have more knowledge and studies to expose how wrong those old traditions and teachings are. It’s one thing to have an ill informed opinion, quite another to actively work to oppose someone’s civil rights and equality because you insist on clinging to false teachings and indoctrination. That is hateful. It’s every bit as hateful as racists saying “I don’t really have anything against black people, as long as they know their place”

You said you don’t think it is a valid argument, slippery slope. So,
does that mean you don’t believe groups do practice or advocate for
those rights, already?

I’m saying other groups have nothing at all to do with this issue, and that the SSM issue should be discussed seperately. I’m saying the old canard that one thing might possibly lead to other bad things is not a valid or intelligent argument.
 

 I pay more in taxes then you probably make in a year. How many people do you employ? How many jobs did you create in the last three years? How many companies did you start in the last three years. You and your me, me me mentality makes me puke. I know what kind of society I want to live in and I am willing to pay the price to get it. You’re the pathetic white guy who is so worried that some black woman somewhere is getting $500 a month in food stamps you would give up your freedom and rights to stop her from getting it. The only one divided here is you. Your a racist or your just stupid.

I really hope Santorum wins the nomination just so you lliberals heads will explode!!! That would certainly help clean up the gene pool and get rid of a few more socialists!!!
You people remind me of the cattle on our ranch…..one leader with one clearly defined path in the grass and a lot of mindless followers.

I’m saying other groups have nothing at all to do with this issue, and that the SSM issue should be discussed seperately. I’m saying the old canard that one thing might possibly lead to other bad things is not a valid or intelligent argument. 
**
I guess that would be how the law is framed, if it is changed/written to allow for gay marriage. Like the law that Santorum was discussing, the way it was written was allowing for other kinds of sexual relations to occur, “ 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. ”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/207032/rick-santorum-right/robert-p-george 
“If this is true, then not only sodomy, but also fornication, adultery (e.g., spouse swapping, “swinging”), polygamy, group sex, prostitution, adult brother-sister or parent-child incest, and (depending on one’s views about the rights of animals and their capacity to consent) bestiality are protected as specifications of the constitutional right of privacy. All of these acts and practices are, or can be, consensual. If consent provides the standard of inclusion within the right of privacy, they must all be admitted.”

How can we justify denying one group equality with a slippery slope argument?  - I think because it opens the door, depending on how the law is interpreted, to allow for other groups to demand equality…
The traditions and teachings, and practices have evolved and changed many times throughout our history. As you said, homosexuality was once considered a perversion. Pedophilia was once a common practice. Polygamy is still practiced, yet illegal, but not really enforced. While most of us see homosexuality as a norm, there are others, I guess, who still see it as a perversion, just as you and I see pedophilia as a perversion. But, is it fair to accuse someone of hatred just because they haven’t evolved their thinking that it is a perversion, or at least, outside the norm? Like I said, I believe people are born that way, some people believe it is a choice… they really believe that people are choosing a path that was/they considered wrong. 
Marriage was a religious institution,  until it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definitions and regulations. I guess that is why the Church tries to hang on to it’s conservative view of what marriage is/should be. 
That’s why I believe they need to get the gov. out of Marriage, all together. 
I read this yesterday. http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Constitutional-issues-abound-in-gay-marriage-3253299.php

I just stumbled on this today: 
Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military

Senate on Thursday evening voted 93-7 to approve a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, it also repeals the military ban on sex with animals–or bestiality. 
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senate-approves-bill-legalizes-sodomy-and-bestiality-us-military 

WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR ANYONE CONTRACEPTIVE?????? IF YOU WANT TO SCREW HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF!!! OH ALMOST FORGOT LIBERALS DO NOT BELIEVE IN SELF RELIANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!! THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RUN EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES AND GIVE US EVERYTHING FOR FREE……..LIBERALS ARE IN FACT MINDLESS COMMUNIST FOOLS.
ABO

That’s funny Mr. Puke! Typical liberal, think you are smarter than EVERYONE else on the planet! If anyone disagrees with your idiology they are automatically stupid. You hold on to this silly notion that anyone that does disagree with your opinion they must be uneducated…..let me assure you I am very educated and hold more then one degree. Thanks for once again for confirming you and your kinds ridgid idological ignorance!
As far as that little income thing….I strongly doubt your theory as to the difference in yours and mine!:) Since you are so inquisitive as to the number of people I employ…..I believe it is about 231. A number of those did in fact start work last year. I did not start any new companies last year but have a couple in the works as soon as I can get a handle on the economy which should be about the time Obama is replaced.
It’s funny how easily the word racisim rolls off the tongue of liberals, obviously this is the answer to all things for liberals when challenged and there in lies the simple minded indiocrasy of your blind idology.
There will always be people in poverty and in need and those should always be taken care of. But as is human nature, when one becomes used to being taken care of for free one gets used to free and will abuse and expect to be taken care of forever. Thus the base of the liberal/socialist idiology, unicorns and rainbow dust.

What would Jesus do?

No Indepcon is actually quite correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ABO

Eh? You make a comparison between liberals and cattle, and being a rancher you say you want to get rid of cattle? You’re not making sense at the most basic level, cowboy. I’m not going to even try and pick out the bones of reason from your carcass of stereotypes.

Try making sense and I’ll try to respond.