Comments

  1. Steve says

    To be fair, he has a point. It’s just that there is nothing wrong with any relationship between consenting, non-related adults. The government should stay out of defining relationships.

    The problem with recognizing polyamorous relationships is a legal one. All laws are already written with two people in mind. But it’s impossible to account for all possible constellations with more than two are involved. Polygamy only works in a legal sense, but it’s inherently patriarchal and unequal.

  2. says

    Well, you know how straight people are. The men are all rapists, and how many times have we seen the straight women on girls gone wild, or in a wet T-shirt contest at spring break?

    This clown is just another one of those wife swappers.

  3. Paul R says

    He and Kobe Bryant need to learn to shut up and stop creating defenses when there are none.

    Who exactly is pursuing constitutional rights for polyamorous relationships? Oh, that’s right. No one.

  4. CPT_Doom says

    By linking his comments to Lawrence v. Texas Santorum is arguing that decriminalizing homosexuality is the beginning of the end for marriage. Therefore, in Santorum’s view, gay and lesbian people should be locked up in jail for existing in order to protect his sex life. Pathetic with a capital “Pa.”

  5. dizzy spins says

    polyamorous relationships?!?! Like they had…in the Bible? How many wives did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have anyway?

    And as far as “dog and man” being a “correct” legal argument, the term he’s ignoring is ‘consent.’ You could argue bigamy on consent grounds, but animals can’t give legal consent.

    He knows that as well as we do–he’s pandering.

  6. just_a_guy says

    Just because “slippery slope” canon of argument could “correctly” defend ANYTHING from slavery to rape does NOT make it “correct” in ANY honest sense.

    In context here, his polygamy thing is stupid, too: No one is asking for plural marriage except the Mormons (who fund Prop 8 and NOM) and plural marriage is unconstitutional because it oppresses women and undermines the state.

    Response, santorum guy?

  7. SeriouslySick says

    What are some of the current notions of masculinity in the eyes of the heterosexual today? I was asking the African Studies guys the same thing, so I thought I’d ask here in the douchey cracker thread. Nothing any of them says about themselves seems to encompass any functional world view these days, and I’m starting to worry. I ask because I figure if I know “What is masculinity, in effect, what is a man?” then I can get on to understanding what his (my) rights are and getting some of those rights for myself. I know, that’s so gay, right? Anywho, thanks in advance.

  8. says

    The simple legal argument is this: civil marriage exists because providing protections for couples helps society by increasing stability. Polyamorous relationships, though moral if all parties are treated equally, are not as stable as couples, so don’t benefit society in the same ways.

  9. says

    Great. Not only do we have Rick trolling for clients for his new legal firm Taitz, Santorum, & Rove; but now we’ve got trolls calling out ‘cracker’ and ‘that’s so gay’.

    WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE ATTENTION DEPRIVED?!?!?!

  10. Rin says

    This will sound draconian from a female, but I used to be against polygamy because I felt it oppressed females, but…the gay marriage debate changed my mind in a positive way.

    If marriage is for the purpose of legal and financial security then why not allow these 2nd, 3rd, and 4th wives have that, too? They are putting out, they’re having kids–shouldn’t they deserve legal security? Shouldn’t their children?

    If marriage is only a romantic state then why have the government involved at all? Just solve the issue by removing tax benefits for married couples. Then everything is equal.

    If they change marriage laws, I’m starting to think remove the word “marriage” make everyone get a civil union and make it just “between consenting adults”.

  11. Dan Cobb says

    Look, when you use rhetorical parallels to equate man-on-man love with man-on-dog, then your equation looks like this:
    man and man = man and dog. You’re essentially calling a gay man a dog, and animal, a beast. The term “Naziism” gets used all too often these days, but de-humanizing people by making them out to be less than human is exactly what the Nazis did, and exactly what they used to exterminate people. And this is EXACTLY what Santorum is doing –at least the de-humanization part. This is just outrageous. In an earlier Post, “STEVE” says, “to be fair, he has a point”. No he doesn’t have a point at all. And Santorum’s “explanation” that it’s a “legal argument” is just a meaningless phrase intended to obfuscate and back-pedal from the plain meaning of what he said. This man is toxic in the extreme.

  12. Dan Cobb says

    STEVE, (by dear boy), do you REALLY believe that when he equated man-on-man with man-on-dog sex, that he was making a “legal argument”?!? You REALLY believe that?? Wow.

Leave A Reply