1. Sargon Bighorn says

    Oh so that “anyone” means your mom and your dad marrying their kids….Yeah Santorum you Ass. Those kids nailed him to the wall. BEHOLD the “rationalization” of the Radical Religious Extremist known as Santorum.

  2. says

    instafail: when you have to bring up something else you don’t like to explain why you don’t like the topic at question.

    “what do you have against pineapples?”
    -Well, I drove a HONDA last night and it was an AWFUL experience!


    he can’t argue why he’s against gay couples marrying by addressing gay couples marrying. he has to “argue against it” by bringing up something else he doesn’t like. that makes no sense.

    if it’s ok for him to marry the woman he loves, then why can’t Sue marry the woman she loves? because if Deb and Sue get married……uh…something about polygamy?

    way to fail, Ricky.

  3. antisaint says

    Good on all these college students for calling him out on this. It seems to be a situation he can’t avoid no matter what college he goes to. It’s a shame he’s too full of pride to just admit the REAL reason he won’t answer the question head-on.

  4. says

    What they should have said to him was “That’s a question you should ask Mitt Romney. He’s a Mormon. Mormons believe in polygamy. I’m talking about two consenting adults of the same sex. Nothing more.”

  5. Markus says

    “In fact, allowing hetrosexual to marry has ALREADY led to polygamy.”

    I love this response. Why have I not heard it before?

  6. RyanInSacto says

    Well, Mr. Santorum… how does it feel to finally have people paying attention to your asinine views?

    I find it kind of humorous that he keeps asking a question and then telling everyone to shut up when they begin to respond. Maybe he should just say, “This is going to sound like a question, but it’s really a statement, so please don’t respond and let’s move on to some other indefensible policy position that I hold.”

  7. Matt says

    Again, I don’t see a substantial difference between Santorum’s position and Romney’s. Why aren’t these same questions and stories trailing Romney everywhere he goes?

  8. says

    bringing up “polygamy” is an oft-used tactic that makes no sense, and yet is done so often that the low-thinkers of America think it’s a logical argument.
    it aint.

    it’s like how the marriage equality laws keep having to deal with “Children need a mother and father”….
    what does that have to do with LGBT couples marrying? it’s not a question of “can gay couples have children” , as they legally can. it’s about marriage.

    denying LGBT couples with children the right to marry doesn’t make any sense. it puts THE CHILDREN at a disadvantage. and not all lgbt couples will HAVE children should they marry, just as not all straight couples have children.

    but see how often it comes up? “gay marriage” = “children need two parents!!!”

    uh…why are you talking about children at all? we’re talking about marriage, not a right to parent.

    *le sighhh*

  9. Matt26 says

    He replied the same way these people always answer, if gays can marry, what about animals etc. What a man running for a nomination.

  10. Sergio says

    The answer that student should have given to Frothy Mix is that gays want the LEGAL rights to enter the LEGAL institution of marriage. Polygamy is against the law. Marriage is not.

  11. says

    the tricky thing is actually this – rick santorum knows and understands everything that we’re saying on here. literally. they know it. they know their arguments have no merit. however, they also know that the core voting base of the GOP is populated by the stupidest members of the scum of america. they believe it.

    you will not find high-ranking religious leaders who believe that the story of Adam & Eve is anything other than an allegory. truly. they know it’s not a literal historical account. but they tell their braindead flocks that it is.

    thus, they break the 9th Commandment. regularly. oh how it boggles the mind…

  12. antisaint says

    Isn’t Canada going on eleven years of marriage equality? How does he even figure his bullsh holds water at this point? I imagine these things are so on-the-spot but I sure wish one of the news hosts would bring that up.

  13. says

    Canada has also has had LGBT people serving openly in our military since 1992.

    LITERALLY. Since 1992. And the first legal gay marriage in Canada was in 2001. it’s only been officiall across the country since the mid-naughts, but 2001 was the first one, that started it all.

    but hey, the last thing an American Conservative politician wants to do is remind Americans that Canada exists.

    full and total LGBT Equality? Universal Healthcare? government-regulation on big business which is the reason Canada didn’t really join in the “global financial meltdown” of 2008? healthier children due to healthy food programs in school? higher literacy levels, lower gun-violence rates all the while with higher percentages of cultural ethnic diversity? please, Canada is a nightmare for the conservative right – it flourishes and proves them all wrong.

  14. Paul B. says

    I was watching a tv add promoting one of those “male sexual enhancing” drugs,i.e. viagra. So, if you need a drug to “get it up”…therefore procreate…is marriage not an option for you? Do all existing marriages become null & void once the male partner reaches that stage in life? Better ask rick what his god’s latest memo said about that. After all, if using technology to create babies circumvents their “make children” excuse for hetero marriage, gays can use technology too, yes? Do the same rules apply rick? Of course, he would respond by talking about man on dog sex.

  15. Name: says

    Ugh all Presidential candidates are the same Democrat or Republican. They don’t believe in gay marriage, or their religion doesn’t believe in it, or they just hate gays.

  16. Bob says

    Then by his own definition of “reason,” polygamous heterosexual marriages are valid options given that he supports hetero marriage but not same gender marriage.

  17. says

    “If you think it’s OK for two, then you have to differentiate for me why it’s not OK for three.”

    OK Rick. YOU think it’s OK for two people to get married. Why do you think it’s not OK for a man to have two wives?

  18. Mary says

    Polygamy may have no necesssary connection to gay marriage per se, but the ARGUMENTS used to validate the legalization of gay marriage are similar to the arguments used to advocate polygamy. The Senator was NOT changing the subject. His point is that when you start defining marriage as any legal bond that makes an individual happy you can come up with some pretty extreme changes in law (polygamy, incest, bestiality). How will advocates of gay marriage answer these questions in the future? The intensity of their anger is not an argument, just proof that political consistency is frustrating.

    And come to think of it, why is it my business if a man marries two women? Does he tell ME who to marry? And do I have any actual PROOF that children raised in polygamous households are worse off then those in the broken homes of today? Any why is it my business to tell anyone what to do with his parents? Isn’t that a private family matter? And on and on it goes. Based on the reasoning usually used to advocate social change, liberals who don’t yet support polygamy or incest simply haven’t “evolved” yet.

  19. Silas says

    i have a question for Santorum: did you get your Intelligence and Logic out of Cracker Jack box?

  20. Silas says

    would someone that meets Santorum ask him if he got his intelligence and logic out of a Cracker Jack box? if i meet up with him i will…but is most likely not that i will meet up with him…

  21. says

    actually, Mary, you’re completely wrong as usual.

    marriage laws already exist. “gay marriage” is not a new law. it’s extending an aleady-existing law to include LGBT couples.

    polygamy would actually be an entirely new set of laws, as it would be an utterly different arrangement.

    do you understand this mary? if not, you prove yourself to be even more stupid than we already know.

    that said your last comment linking it to incest and then a dig at “liberals” proves you to be the scum-sucking worthless troll that you are. make no mistake Mary, you dying in a violent car wreck would be poetic πŸ˜€

  22. JFE says

    It’s pretty easy to answer this question, and I wish somebody would get around to it. State-sanctioned marriage should not be between more than two people because all the laws concerning marriage concern a 1 to 1 relationship. Inheritance rights? Assumed to be given to the surviving partner. Child custody? Managed between the two adults in the relationship. Next of kin? Automatically goes to the other in the relationship.

    This was dealt with most prominently in the Iowa marriage case. The justices asked the same questions Santorum is asking, and the lawyer involved did not get mad. He simply kept explaining the ideas behind same-sex marriage and eventually answered it appropriately:

    I wish ThinkProgress would do the same instead of calling his question “offensive.”

  23. says

    incest is illegal. bestiality is illegal. pederasty is illegal. the act of polygamy is illegal.

    gay couples marrying is not creating any “new” laws or rights, merely extending already-existing ones to LGBT Couples.

    anyone who can’t understand this should be sterilized.

  24. Mary says

    Kiwi, I don’t know what you’re talking about. True the “marriage” part of gay marriage is not new, but the “gay people marrying each other” part IS new. Polygamy, on the other hand, has always been legal in parts of the world, and has a much longer historical pedigree than SSM, which if I’m correct, is about 10-15 years old. To say that gay marriage is not a new idea because marriage has always existed islike saying that extending the vote to 10 year old isn’t a new idea because voting has always existed.

    If you want to choose to think that I view gay people or gay sex as the equivalent of bestiality, there’s nothing I can do about that. But I’ve said several times that it is the ARGUMENTS used to justify one that will be used to justify the other. And, I repeat, Kiwi, the intensity of your anger doesn’t constitute an agrument.

  25. says

    The strategy, and all the religious Republicans are using it, is to dismiss, demean, belittle and refuse to discuss the topic at all. If they don’t address it they are convinced it won’t matter to the voter. That’s what’s so cool about Bacchman, Santorum, Paul, etc – they are cutting their own throats. We have nothing to worry about with these people. They will be laughed out of the limelight.

  26. Sergio says

    Wow Mary… Do you call what you wrote “reasoning?” I shall say it is A complete lack of reasoning; the same lack of reasoning used by Frothy Mix. Marriage equality and polygamy are very distinct from one another. Lets see if you get this:
    Marriage = a legal agreement between two consenting adults, recognized by all states and by the federal government, giving a set of hundreds of privileges and benefits to the COUPLE entering this contract.
    Polygamy = crime, and although it may be between consenting adults, it does not give any set of legal benefits and may get you in jail.
    So, “the ARGUMENTS used to validate the legalization of gay marriage are [NOT] similar to the arguments used to advocate polygamy” because we are not looking for “gay marriage” or polygamy, we want MARRIAGE EQUALITY. The same marriage heterosexual couples can legally enter and enjoy the many legal benefits that it affords.
    Your argument is old and tired, and more people are waking up everyday to the truth about opponents of Marriage Equality — that they have no arguments; and that discrimination is the only reason for their fight. Religion beliefs are only an excuse for them to hide behind it. They are cruel selfish bigoted ignorant people whose eyes cannot see anything other than their pathetic miserable lives on Earth and their souls are rotten. To quote Mr. Grinch, the three words that best describe you are as follows:
    “Stink, stank, stunk!”

  27. Josh says

    Back for seconds, marytroll? It’s like a game of whack-a-mole.

    Legally recognized civil marriage for same sex couples is going to be a nationwide reality within less than 5 years. No precedent? Does there need to be? Laws reflect lived social reality, but for starters there is precedent in the adelphopoiia liturgy of Medieval Europe.
    Perry vs. Schwarzenegger demonstrated that the state has no compelling reason to deny couples equal protection. Period. Kids or not, lovers on the side or not, marriage is a long term CONTRACT. History is all flux, but when your founding national document commands fairness, and human pair bonds happen among all different sex configurations, this is the logical outcome.

  28. says

    Oh, lord, he just made the dumbest argument possible. Good thing he’s not before a Court, because he would have been laughed out of it. Even the audience had to titter his “rational” argument was so ludicrous. No wonder he perpetually looks like he’s about to soil himself.

    The merits/problems of polygamy are entirely beside the point. I always tell people who bring up the polygamy red herring, that if they’re in favor of polygamy, take it to the Court, take it to the legislature! Not my concern. Since polygamists are historically men with multiple wives (i.e. heterosexuals) it has far more in common with “heterosexual marriage” than with “gay marriage”.

    If Frothy opposes marriage equality he needs to rationally explain why same-sex couples (we’re only talking about couples not fivesomes, Ricky, you know, like napkins are not paper towels) should be excluded from civil marriage. Others have tried: religious teaching, procreation, elimination of the human race, and all the arguments fail, rationally.

    But his “argument” fails even to be an argument. It makes a mockery of the term before a group of young people about 1000X more rational than he is.

  29. MattS says

    Mr. Santorum believes that a man should be able to marry a woman. Ask him why he believes a man shouldn’t be able to marry two women. Let HIM answer the question. His bible doesn’t forbid it. It’s common in there.

    Why are WE having to speak out against these things? They must have reasons for them, right?

    Let them tell us THEIR reasons against polygamy and incest, and then let them tell us their reasons against same-sex marriage.

  30. MattS says

    It burns me up that he wants THEM to think about things, when he obviously has not ruminated on them at all.

  31. GregV says

    The groups arguing for the decriminalization of polygamy have NOT (and, logically, COULD NOT) use arguments in court that are anything even remotely similar to the arguments in favor of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

    What polygamists want is to not be criminalized.
    What same-gender married couples want is to be treated identically (no more and no less) under the law as any other couple that is married, without changing ANY calculation, right or responsibility that exists in regards to marriage laws.

    Polygamists (and their lawyers) understand that such a request for them is logically impossible, and they are not asking for it.
    I could give a thousand examples of hypothetical situations of why it works this way, but here’s a random one:
    A man is in the hospital in a coma. The doctor needs his next-of-kin to make a decision regarding his potential end-of-life care. The doctor will ask his spouse (male/female, black/white tall/short/medium-sized is all of NO CONCERN whatsoever.)

    If this same man is registered to 15 spouses, what does the doctor do? Does he ask the first wife the man married, or the first wife who arrives to talk to him, or does he require a majority vote of wives or a unanimous decision, etc. etc. etc.

    Santorum’s argument (and the one you seem to be buying into) would be like a Saudi man saying:
    “If we allow a female to sit in the driver’s seat of a car, then what’s to stop us from letting six people sit on each others’ laps in the drivers’ seat (and that would be dangerous!)”
    Or a sexist university dean in Afghanistan might say:
    “We only have room for 20 students in our pre-medicine program. If end sex discrimination and admit 20 PEOPLE instead of 20 MALES, then where’s our standard?…What, then, is to stop us from letting 2000 people in that tiny lecture hall?”

    Individual aracteristics like race and sex and height and creed are analagous when addressing issues of discrimination. Changing the “number of people” in a situation does not make a parallel.

  32. jaragon says

    It might be unwise to attack this ignorant clown to much or he will use the sympathy moron vote to get elected President.

  33. Randy says

    Rick of course dodged the question.

    Too bad he fails to see that if two-person same-sex marriage leads to polygamy, so does two-person opposite-sex marriage.

  34. TJ says

    Well, Mary, let’s look at the options you mentioned regarding the “if it makes you happy” argument. Bestiality is cross-species, but also without the possibility of consent. An animal cannot give consent because it cannot enter into contracts, it can’t consider consequences and make a reasoned decision. Therefore, SSM is not anything like beastiality.

    Incest – in addition to genetic problems associated with inbreeding, there are very specific roles and responsibilities associated with family involving power, trust, etc., especially when we are talking parent-child dynamics and particularly underaged children. This would include any pedophila, and also involve the inability to give consent, enter contracts, etc. which
    preclude bestiality. Incest/pedophilia have nothing in common with SSM.

    As for polygamy, well, you got me there. Just because it is illegal doesn’t mean, necessarily, that polygamous relationships are not viable ones. My experience encountering people in group relationships has been that they don’t work out. But weather they do or do not has no bearing on the viability of SS relationships, or SSM.

    SSM involves individuals capable of entering contracts, making reasoned choices for their lives, and desiring to create stability, increase intimacy, promote the welfare of their families, and strengthen society. There is no connection to beastiality, incest, or pedophilia.

  35. Jexer says

    @Mary- You’re attacking this all wrong.

    Committed same-sex relationships ARE LEGAL. They’re just NOT RECOGNIZED by the federal and most state governments.

    This isn’t about legalizing a criminal relationship (ie: pedophilia, bestiality, incest, polygamy/bigamy)… this is about allowing the state to RECORD and RESPECT the legal relationships between TWO consenting adults regardless of their particular genders.

    The law should be blind to the gender of its citizens.

  36. he's no spock says

    As the product of a Catholic education Santorum no longer has the capacity to use reason and logic. The religionist approach has always been to start with a conclusion and build a foundation of sand to support it.

    Arguing with someone like him is a waste of time. When confronted with a logical argument they always change the subject or get that look a dog has when he can’t figure out which hand you hid his cookie in.

  37. bruce says

    This guy is one of the biggest dorks to ever grace a podium…anywhere!

    Seriously, America, Santorum has yet to show even the slightest ability to give a “straight” answer to the question of gay marriage.

    I can only hope that one day he will be confronted with a gay son or daughter who asks for his “blessing” for their marriage. Something tells me he will run the other way, however.

    He is a hateful hypocrite…and nothing more.

  38. millerbeach says

    Aidenracoon, very well said. Where is “mary” on this one? Perhaps licking her wounds. As for Rick, well, he is and always will be, his own worst enemy. Just put a hot mic in front of his mouth and listen with amazement as the stupidity flows like a waterfall. When I heard he “allegedly” did well in Iowa (vote tallies now being called into question) I knew that red-hot spotlight was about to shine on lil’ Ricky. Oh, goodie!, I thought, and I was not disappointed. Hey, he got that google term for a reason! LOL Oh, and Ricky, you make a lousy Christian with all that hate clogging your heart and brain.

  39. jason says

    Rick Santorum comes across as a dork. Gay marriage is monogamy, the complete opposite of polygamy. If he doesn’t understand this, he doesn’t deserve to be President.

    However, it should also be pointed out that President Obama does not support gay marriage either. Obama is basically the same as Santorum.

  40. V-8 says

    Mary, same-sex marriage has taken place for hundreds, if not thousands of years, throughout the world…. America is a young country and should not be seen as the standard for all….

    other countries abolished slavery before the US, other countries let women vote before the US, other countries allowed for interracial marriage before the US, other countries let gays in their military before the US, and other countries have allowed for same sex marriage before the US…. so it is just a matter of time…..

    Little Kiwi, I heart Canada, I call it The American Dream, thanks for rubbing it in πŸ˜‰

  41. says

    Mary —

    Your reasoning is about on a par with Santorum’s. If the question is about a binary marriage between two persons of the same sex, how does that automatically lead to polygamy?

    The point is, societies determine the definition of marriage. If at some point in the future American society decides that polygamy is acceptable, that’s what will happen — but that’s not what we’re talking about now.

    It’s obvious he doesn’t have a rational answer to the question. (And for Santorum of all people to appeal to reason in this discussion is beyond funny.) He does what the other cultural warriors do when confronted by a hard question — he changes the subject.

  42. says

    I’m so tired of all this BS from Santorum and his fellow travelers. You want a definition of marriage? How about we go back to Joseph W. Campbell, who laid it out quite plainly. To summarize:

    Marriage is a rite of passage. It marks the acknowledgement by the community of a new status for a couple who establish a new household.

    And that is a definition that really has held true throughout history.

  43. George M says

    Jason he is Nothing like this moron
    However it should be pointed out that Obama wouldn’t take or stop your marriage.
    How do you type eye rolling, anyone?

  44. arf arf arf says

    Oh, oh. Looks like Santorum screwed the pooch. So to speak. Not that he would countenance man-dog relationships.

  45. says

    “Obama is basically the same as Santorum.”

    Only in your twisted fantasy world, dear Jason. Guess you missed it when Santorum compared homosexuality to bestiality, when Santorum claimed he would invalidate the legal marriages of same-sex couples, when he cheered his support for a federal amendment that would write discrimination into the Constitution.

    In essence, not basically the same or even remotely the same. Like the other sad Rick, you’re incapable of making an argument.

  46. classychazy says

    I don’t care who you marry or how many people. What goes on in someones bedroom or household is their own damn business as long as your not living off the States coffers. Polygamy maybe against the law, but so is marrying of same sex in some States. Hell here in Ohio oral sex is prosecuable offends. So this just shows some laws are stupid and outdated.
    @ little kiwi if Canada is so great why do we have droves of people coming to America for organ trasplants? I don’t care what country you live in there are bigots and idiots among us everywhere you go.

  47. says

    classy, you have no credibility. you keep insisting, against factual reality, that marriage is not completely legal for LGBT couples in Canada. it is.

    organ transplants? what on earth are you talking about? do you know which Canadians go to the US for medical treatment? rich white ones that have more than enough money to pay for the kind of treatment that the majority of americans cannot, and will not ever, afford.

    not exactly noble.

    and no, it’s not “illegal” for gay couples to marry. it’s simply not recognized. it’s not considered valid. it’s not a “criminal offense” for two gay people to marry, and anyone that can’t understand that distinction is an idiot.

  48. Drew says

    Elephant In The Room = It is totally ok if five men or three women wanted to get married. To me, WHO CARES?!

  49. classychazy says

    @Gregg that was the best damn to the point argument I have ever read here.
    Pediphiles, rapaists should be give a fair trial then taken out and shot! Beastiality, incest, are just disgusting!
    If I was going to have a plural marriage it would be men. I sure as hell could’nt have “sister wives” I would’nt want another woman to be cooking in my kitchen…

  50. classychazy says

    @kiwi I do know Canada does give same sex the right to marry. I looked up the site you told me about. I apologize for this mistake. All I was pointing out to you is no country is perfect.

  51. Matt says

    You can’t argue with his solid point, all you can do is smear his name (ironically, with a neologism that reminds people just how depraved and disgusting gay sex is – the anus is for shitting, folks, not depositing sperm into) – you fail.

  52. says

    Most mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygamy but are complicit to polygamy abuse in their own backyard. Mormon legislatures and law enforcement in Utah and Arizona are pathetic weasels at best when it comes to protecting innocent women and children from polygamous pedophiles. For example, when the FLDS moved to Eldorado, it took Texas a matter of years to convict Warren Jeffs and twelve of his pedophile followers, and all they were doing is the same thing they’ve been doing for generations in Mormon communities in Utah and Arizona. And the FLDS crimes are getting WORSE. Recently Utah’s Mormon Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, was ordered by judge Lindberg to pay nearly 5 million in FLDS debt for mishandling their trust account. Meanwhile, Mormon leaders and their followers, in the twinkle of an eye, can raise tens of millions of dollars to fight same-sex marriage when their own streets are overrun with “lost boys” and “child brides”. There are literally hundreds of polygamous cults behind Zion’s wicked Curtain. i hope Romney gets the nomination and Zion’s secret curtain falls around his corrupt feet. I’ve seen the documentary film Banking On Heaven, and as far as I’m concerned the majority of Mormons are a bunch of backward mind-controlled zombies.