Potential 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum told a right-wing news outlet that it is “common sense” for the state to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and adopting children.
The former Republican senator from Pennsylvania spoke with CNS News editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey, who asked Santorum about marriage equality and same-sex adoption, which he described as, “if the state takes a child and sticks it into a same-sex couple.”
Santorum agreed that marriage equality and same-sex adoption are a violation of natural law that the state should not sanction.
63 comments
Once again, fundies show that they're willing to do every despicable act, even stop orphans from getting loving parents, if it clashes with their twisted morality.
People like Rick are scum.
“This is common sense. This is nature.”
No and no. It is not common sense to deprive a child of a loving home in favour of an institutional upbringing based on your fairy story rules. It is not nature that a child always be raised by a female and a male. Many creatures are supported solely by their mother, some the father, some are left entirely to their own devices after birth. Some are raised in packs by multiple parent figures. Nature is as diverse as human beings. Deal with it you fucktard.
“if the state takes a child and sticks it into a same-sex couple.”
What. The. Hell. Proper phrasing, learn to do it.
You know, maybe the child would be grateful to have a family in general. Like, instead of an orphanage.
As for whether the state is doing a service to the child, reality disagrees with you. As for whether the state is doing a service to society, I thought there was no such thing as society. Which is it, or, as usual, do you hold mutually exclusive principles and pick the one that gives your desired result in any given context?
Santorum, as a presidential hopeful should concern himself with the law of the land, not natural law. He should take an interest in the wellbeing of citizens, not of church adherents.
If he does not do this, then he is a theocrat and not at all suitable to preside over one of the world's non-theocratic countries.
In other words, no one should have it because you think it's yucky.
Y'know, there are two open spots in my preschool class, Ricky.
Not doing a service to the child? May I relate to you a story I heard straight from the social worker who handled the case?
A young woman's baby had been removed from her for severe neglect and abuse. What was her favorite form of abuse? She stuck the infant with dirty needles when she cried in an attempt to shut her up. The little girl was eventually diagnosed with HIV and developed AIDS. This stellar mother of the year didn't care when her baby was hungry, or dirty or practically handed a death sentence. She only cared when she found out her daughters foster family was a gay couple who could afford her medication, fed her, clothed her, kept her clean and as healthy as possible and above all else, actually loved her like their own daughter.
Please tell me how fostering and eventually adopting that little girl with a gay couple did her 'no service'.
Rick Santorum is labouring under the misconception that his superstitious notions are "natural law." He should study nature a little more, he wouldn't be so stupid.
There are species who eat their young, there are species where the female eats the male after copulation, there are species where the female dies as she gives birth, so that the new kids can feed off her carcass. All these things are natural. There are also occurrences of homosexuality in many different kinds of species.
A home where there are two mothers or two fathers is a thousand times better than having no home at all.
The Fritzl home had a mother and a father. A father who took a fancy to his daughter, who stuck her in the basement and raped her repeatedly for 24 years, who kept her down there even after she had his children, who let one of their children die down there.
Why is it that conservatives deliberately misunderstand what the phrase "natural law" means? If it is possible for an action to be done, then it is not a violation of natural law. Therefore, not only is this an example of the appeal to nature logical fallacy, it isn't even a very good example of that fallacy.
By the way, I wonder if Rick knows what his name has come to mean among the gay community. If he does, he is probably not happy. Maybe this is his idea of revenge? (Never mind that he's the one who started it?)
Okay but homosexuality is "nature" too (or natural if you want to be a pedant). So therefore, if homosexuality is natural then it's a violation of natural law to deny them the opportunity to raise children (either their own biological children, with the aid of donors and surrogates, or unwanted children made by heterosexuals).
“This is common sense."
image
No that's not common sense. What's common sense is realizing that Republicans are fucking morons and so is anyone that votes for them.
Now if we could just get some fiscal responsibility into the Democrats...
"This is common sense. This is nature."
Nature? This! Is! AMERICA!
Like the Word of God, "common sense" and "natural law" always fit exactly with the speaker's personal opinions.
I'm not American, but from what I've seen, I highly doubt that Republicans are any better than the Democrats when it comes to budget spending. Not at the federal level, anyway.
This is common sense.
No, common sense dictates that a child is better off with gay parents than it is spending the rest of its life without parents. Also, wasn't "common sense" (or at least your strange, perverted version of it) 60 years ago used as the argument against interracial marriage?
This is nature.
Gay animals exist in nature ergo any appeal to so-called "laws of nature" have absolutely no weight. Also, wasn't interracial marriage deemed "unnatural" 60 years ago?
@ Murdin:
I'm not American, but from what I've seen, I highly doubt that Republicans are any better than the Democrats when it comes to budget spending. Not at the federal level, anyway.
Their entire plan for "reducing" the budget so far is to cut taxes on rich people and repeal the weak centrist healthcare-reform bill we recently passed. Considering that the latter was projected to save hundreds of billions of dollars for the federal government alone...yeah, the GOP isn't doing so well on the "fiscal responsibility" front. Except when you consider that in the U.S., "fiscal responsibility" is code for "screw the poor, give more money to rich people".
@ John_in_Oz
That was how I was introduced to the term :-D
Santorum #teehee#:
Nutbunny:
"This is nature."
No Ricky, don't go there in your air-conditioned SUV, on streets paved for you with refined petrochemicals, gravel, and the sweat of blue-collar organized labor. "Nature" is, "Sometimes the bear gets Ivan." You wouldn't know nature if it was gnawing on your entrails.
Rick Santorum: Member of the sub-species Ignoramus Sanctimonious.
People like Rick who oppose abortion often say "What about the baby's choice?" when they hear the term "pro-choice." So I toss that back at him now--yes, Rick, what about the kid's choice? Grab a dozen kids from a group home, tell them about some families that would be willing to take them in, and see how many would turn down the ones headed by same-sex couples just for that reason. Then STFU with your bigoted self.
Actually, in most cases in nature, if an child is orphaned it just fucking dies. It is only thanks to the institutions of our liberal democracy that there is adoption at all.
Rick Santorum is a jackass of the highest magnitude.
Speaking of common sense and natural laws and nature, eh?
*chuckles* ....no, actually ROFL'ED!
“The state is not doing a service to the child and to society by not putting that child in a home where there is a mother and a father,”
There is just one problem with that Rick: Its not happening. There are far more children in the system than there are households willing to take them in, temporarily or permanently. Are you ready to tell children that they cannot have a forever home because it would mean putting them in the care of two men or two women? I doubt it. From my experience you "traditional values" types love to talk big in front of the camera, but you've got nothing to say when you are facing reality.
My knowledge of this issue comes from being a foster father and adoptive father. Where does your knowledge come from? Don't tell me it comes from "common sense," or "nature." There is nothing natural or sensible about bigotry, especially when it hurts children!
So, every single parents should be stripped of his or her parental rights, and the child moved to a "mother and father" family instead?
Where's the natural law in marrying, at all? Nature don't need marriage certificates, a fleeting or permanent attraction is all that's needed. Most kids in Nature is reared on their own, some by a parent, and rather few by both parents.
Where's the service to a child to leave it in a Third World orphanage, or on the streets to fend for itself, through theft and prostitution? I'd rather have two mommies in a First World home, than a brothel madam and a sugar-daddy on a Third World street.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
