Rick Santorum Takes Mo, Mn, And Co!

[Slappo]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1328817772' post='2384338']
I've been around here quite some time and know [i]exactly [/i]what people are interested in. Never the less, I feel it necessary to point out the contradiction of clamouring for a "limited government" while supporting an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. For starters, marriage is a state issue. Secondly, the whole thing is bogus anyway.

IMO, of course...
[/quote]

What defines marriage is neither a state or national issue.

It's a natural law issue.

Just because the United States Constitution is not equivocal to the natural law, does not mean that natural law can be thrown out. As a matter of fact any law that is in direct contradiction to the natural law is no law at all.

[PhuturePriest]

Go Rick Santorum go! Beat Mittens and Obama!

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1328839167' post='2384594']
Is Santorum pro-torture, or is he pro-waterboarding under the pretense that waterboarding is not torture?

Because it seems clear to be that waterboarding is torture, but it's still a crucial semantic difference. I don't think it's safe to [i]presuppose [/i]that waterboarding is torture. It should be argued, instead.
[/quote]

Santorum has stated that he supports the used of "Enhanced Interrogation" techniques. Those techniques are torture. I get your point about making the case, but it's semantics. I'm pretty confident in feeling that making someone feel that they are drowning in order to get information out of them is torture. So is using hypothermia, painful body position, forced nudity, muzzled dogs used for intimidation, standing for hours at a time, sleep deprivation, forcing someone to listen to noise at extremely high decibel levels, isolation, and enclosure in extremely small spaces. AFAIK the pressure over waterboarding led to its discontinuation by the CIA, but that's hardly the only technique used. I feel no personal qualms over having read about the issue and made an independent decision that this is torture.

You could make an equivalent argument about an abortion supporter who legitimately feels that at 6 weeks gestation, a human fetus is nothing more than a group of cells and that an abortion would not be murdering a human being. Would you then say, but wait, they REALLY believe that they aren't committing murder, so I should give them a pass on that position? Of course not. I say that in the same way you should not give a pass to a conservative Catholic candidate who supports torturing people, just because he might seriously have convinced himself that it wasn't really torture. Truth is truth.

[eagle_eye222001]

Even if Santorum is pro-torture, he's still loads better than Romney and Newt. If torture was major, I would be voting Obama.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328819722' post='2384365']
Right. And most of those groups have conflicting understandings of what marriage is. The Protestants don't define it in sacramental terms. There is no single definition of marriage.

It promotes stability and helps against poverty. But more importantly, people tend to order themselves into monogamous relationships and raise families. The state has to have some legal structure surrounding that pattern for things like insurance law, child custody law, et cetera.
[/quote]I've been looking for something along these lines tonight: http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=14296 This site is also good: http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/

If we believe that marriage is a gift from God built into the very nature of men and women, then by definition, religion will always be in the best position to defend a true definition of marriage. Religion will always know the mind of God better than a government can.

Throughout history marriage has been defined as a permanent bond between a man and a woman. What gives a government a right to come in and change this? Was it government that first recognized this particular relationship first?

As an aside, as it's probably been made clear by now, I don't think that government has any authority to overstep the bounds of natural law, which is precisely what it is doing here. Divine Law--Revelation--made known through the Catholic Church (I am a Catholic so I will take this stance) is better able to define marriage, especially because it is built into human nature and is a gift directly from God Himself. The only way that government can ever have the authority to define marriage is if God is not the author of creation.

[Nihil Obstat]

I watched that video of Hitchens having himself waterboarded. I really have no doubt whatsoever that it's torture.

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1328843949' post='2384646']
I watched that video of Hitchens having himself waterboarded. I really have no doubt whatsoever that it's torture.
[/quote]

And yet that imbecilic hypocrite Hannity continues to, in between his 'moral-majority' pontificating, defend 'Rummy' (his affectionate name for Donald Rumsfeld), despite the mans responsibility for the systematic abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib and other places. God bless the moral majority.

[Groo the Wanderer]

been waterboarded.
not fun

overrated though. no real danger - all psychosomatic

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1328841781' post='2384619']
Even if Santorum is pro-torture, he's still loads better than Romney and Newt. If torture was major, I would be voting Obama.
[/quote]

I FEEL LIKE I AM TAKING CRAZY PILLS.

Does the dignity of human life mean nothing to people anymore? Does the indignation over human wretchedness only apply if the victim isn't born yet?

My God people, you're actually saying that torture is a minor issue if it means one horrific politician getting one up over another equally horrific politician? You somehow don't care that you're endorsing the power to TORTURE A HUMAN BEING over to a government, so long as the guy signing the order doesn't have the last name Obama? Seriously??

May God have mercy, because apparently none of His children will.

[StMichael]

I see, a Ron Paul drone.

There is a huge clarity between Santorum and Obama.

But I won't bother as anyone who can look to Ron Paul, the racist, the insane as a standard, I have no time to waste.

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1328817360' post='2384331']
Rick Santorum is just another neo-conservative, a new breed of "Republicrat" who believes in the same principle of "big government intervention" as every Democrat in the last 120 years. Sadly, other than Ron Paul, that's pretty much the entirety of the GOP these days, and so I don't think you can really differentiate between Santorum and Romney in the way you did.

The one dramatic distinction is with the various social issues that Rick is super conservative about. But even there--he supports some of the several different ways the federal government can "intervene" in "protecting traditional marriage." If you think that the federal government ought to be involved in that matter, I suggest you pick up a Constitution and read the 10th Amendment,
[/quote]

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1328846309' post='2384684']
I FEEL LIKE I AM TAKING CRAZY PILLS.

Does the dignity of human life mean nothing to people anymore? Does the indignation over human wretchedness only apply if the victim isn't born yet?

My God people, you're actually saying that torture is a minor issue if it means one horrific politician getting one up over another equally horrific politician? You somehow don't care that you're endorsing the power to TORTURE A HUMAN BEING over to a government, so long as the guy signing the order doesn't have the last name Obama? Seriously??

May God have mercy, because apparently none of His children will.
[/quote]

Having a few humans tortured (with Santorum as president) is loads better than losing a million human beings per year as we are doing now (Obama).

You cannot use torture and abortion as equal evils. In one case, a person dies. In another, they live (although disrespected).


Let's start with Santorum. Once the abortion issue is taken care of and we stop losing a million unborn babies a year, we can concentrate on other issues such as torture. He is the smallest evil. He will also defend marriage.

And for the record I am not solely anti-Obama. If Romney or Newt gets the GOP nomination, I am very likely to write in Ron Paul, or Rick Santorum as Romney and Newt are not to be trusted by their records.

The responsible Catholic vote is Rick Santorum in a day when marriage is under severe attack and Planned Parenthood has just kicked Komen's rear end. Also, I trust Rick to be more fiscally responsible than Mitt or Gingrich.

Edited February 10, 2012 by eagle_eye222001

[StMichael]

I'd rather we "torture" our enemies then be tortured by the central government.

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328845291' post='2384669']
And yet that imbecilic hypocrite Hannity continues to, in between his 'moral-majority' pontificating, defend 'Rummy' (his affectionate name for Donald Rumsfeld), despite the mans responsibility for the systematic abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib and other places. God bless the moral majority.
[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1328846913' post='2384691']
I see, a Ron Paul drone.

There is a huge clarity between Santorum and Obama.

But I won't bother as anyone who can look to Ron Paul, the racist, the insane as a standard, I have no time to waste.
[/quote]

I see, a statist drone.

See, we can do it too. Unfortunately it brings the discussion precisely nowhere. You can go ahead and try again if you like.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328841846' post='2384620']
Throughout history marriage has been defined as a permanent bond between a man and a woman.
[/quote]

you are quite mistaken, actually. countless cultures around the world throughout history do/did not define marriage that way.

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1328847022' post='2384695']
I'd rather we "torture" our enemies then be tortured by the central government.
[/quote]

That is what Jesus told us after all. Torture is totally razzle dazzle as long as its your enemy doing the bleeding, screaming and dying.


[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1328846996' post='2384692']
Having a few humans tortured (with Santorum as president) is loads better than losing a million human beings per year as we are doing now (Obama).

You cannot use torture and abortion as equal evils. In one case, a person dies. In another, they live (although disrespected).


Let's start with Santorum. Once the abortion issue is taken care of and we stop losing a million unborn babies a year, we can concentrate on other issues such as torture. He is the smallest evil. He will also defend marriage.

The responsible Catholic vote is Rick Santorum in a day when marriage is under severe attack and Planned Parenthood has just kicked Komen's rear end. Also, I trust Rick to be more fiscally responsible than Mitt or Gingrich.
[/quote]

These posts, downplaying torture, go against everything people have told me it means to be Catholic.



The person who would put gays getting married over people being bound, abducted, and mercilessly tortured is not some i care to know.


[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1328846913' post='2384691']
I see, a Ron Paul drone.

There is a huge clarity between Santorum and Obama.

But I won't bother as anyone who can look to Ron Paul, the racist, the insane as a standard, I have no time to waste.
[/quote]

Show me one piece of evidence that Ron Paul (and not some random person who worked on his campaign trail once) is even remotely racist. just one would be lovely.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Jesus_lol

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1328849895' post='2384711']
you are quite mistaken, actually. countless cultures around the world throughout history do/did not define marriage that way.[/quote]I can provide many examples of this bond between a man and a woman (or a man and many women, but that's really multiple marriages rather than one). What examples of different forms of marriages do you know?