Gay Patriot Header Image

Does Rick Santorum hate gay people. . .

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:58 pm - January 16, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Gay Politics

. . .  or, is his opposition to gay marriage just, as he says, a “public policy difference”?  I have my differences with Santorum and cannot support his bid for the Republican nomination, but tend to the latter view.  I don’t think he hates gay people.

Joel Gehrke at the Washington Examiner posted about a woman in South Carolina supporter who asked him how to address her support for him.   Interesting how that wife answers first (before he follows up):

Can a public  policy difference, as the Senator puts it, be seen as a personal assault?

Reminds me I do need blog asking if social conservatives hate gay people.  Some do, but most, it seems, do not.  More on that anon.

Share

159 Comments

  1. If we can be “big enough” to change our cultural aversion to gay marriage, why would we not do the same for polygamy.

    Polygamy has had centuries to do it and has failed to do so. Gay marriage has done it in a comparatively shorter period of time, because it has assimilated. If gay marriage had issues with incest, child molestation and rape of minors more, equal (or even less than, considering the scrutiny gays face, as, currently, the onus is on the gays to prove themselves worthy of marriage) to traditional marriage, then, we wouldn’t be witnessing such an exponential climb to cultural acceptance.

    Gay marriages aren’t as different from traditional marriage as many think. Scientific advances and untraditional ways of bringing children into families (both traditional and gay) have placed less emphasis on procreation as the only means of doing so. Adoption, fertility drugs, surrogates, foster care, etc are the many ways of building a family. Perhaps they are more difficult or involved than the act of procreation, but they are no less meaningful in taking raising a child to be a positive, contributing member of society.

    Gender role arguments (i.e. traditional mother/father roles) don’t hold very strongly in the face of single parents everywhere (for whatever reason: a grandparent being the only figure available, deceased spouses, dead-beat dads/moms), traditional marriages with either or both parents who physically/sexually abuse their children, etc. If you asked the average kid if they’d rather be raised by two parents of the same gender who loved them, provided food and shelter, taught them to believe in themselves and offered them an overall fun, safe and educational childhood over two parents of opposite gender who either couldn’t offer those things and/or something much worse, my guess would be the average kid, gay and straight, would choose the former. As would I.

    Helio, I find your views of incest objectionable. Biology has very little to do with it. The act of of a parent having sex with a child is proven to screw a child up psychologically, regardless fo the gender of the parent. I find it questionable (and, well, offensive, though, I hope I’m misinterpreting you somehow) for you to concentrate solely on the biological ramifications. At the core isn’t what results biologically; at the core, is the damage done to the child being molested, pure and simple. Not to forget, it’s a bloody violation of their physical bodies.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — January 21, 2012 @ 1:24 pm - January 21, 2012

  2. Vince,

    Incest is not only about children. I am not certain what I wrote that implies that incest is limited to sex between a parent and child (adopted, scientifically gardened or naturally born.)

    Incest is sexual intercourse between blood relatives. Period. The concept revolves around inbreeding which often results in congenital birth defects.

    While incest is a nearly universal taboo, what is not universal is where the “close kinship” line disappears. In many places, consensual sex between adult siblings is considered a victimless crime and not of interest to the state. The assumption, I suppose, is that consenting adult siblings are keen enough to avoid pregnancy.

    I have no issue with your disgust for incest with a child. Nor am I an advocate for incest.

    Here is my issue in a nutshell: Gay sex is a total dead end activity. (I am not talking about a gay guy walking his semen down to the fertility clinic for use by a lesbian. Nor am I talking about a lesbian getting a semen donation and firing into the uterus of her mate with a turkey baster. I am limiting my definition of “sex” to be what the average raccoon or humpbacked whale can carry off.)

    Gay sex is biologically benign. Therefore, having sex with several willing partners is only a variation of lust and not associated in any manner with procreation. Having gay sex with a close relative is also biologically benign.

    Clearly, if one gay partner is inclined toward monogamy, then for psychological health, the other partner should probably be so inclined as well.

    But, from a purely rational perspective, if a group of gays wish to marry and include a few close kin the mix, I can not think of why they should be denied the permission.

    I also agree with you that recent history has seen a great deal of cultural acceptance of gays in general and a growing indifference toward whether gays should be permitted to form same sex marriages. As a result of this opening up of cultural acceptance, I have joined with those favoring civil unions for gays.

    But I am not blind to what clever lawyers and gay activists can use as precedence to overturn the institution of marriage entirely.

    Many, many, many commenters on this site have already expressed their opinion that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely and let marriage just be a quaint custom some enter into by way of their church.

    I, too, have asked on this site many times if we have reached the point where there is no compelling state reason to regulate marriage. That is to say, throw out all the laws that involve marriage. Let all children be bastards on their own from birth. Let every individual hold property individually and disperse of it according to his wishes alone. Let there be no legal benefit of any sort to any form of union between two or more people.

    You think it through. Opening marriage to same sex partners is a major shift in culture, ethics and morality. Our legal system was predicated on a lot of cultural understandings about the institution of marriage and those understandings would necessarily be open to reexamination to see how they mesh or conflict with the new definition of marriage. I do not oppose that from the standpoint that it “inconveniences” the state. I do oppose gay marriage because I do not see how it improves the culture, the ethic, the morality of the existing order.

    These are not “welcomed” thoughts on a site such as this. I do not mean to be obnoxious. But I think it is fair for those who dislike my thoughts to have a clear statement of my reasoning. I heartily welcome thoughtful debate.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 21, 2012 @ 2:28 pm - January 21, 2012

  3. Helio, I hear your argument. However, I will reiterate, gay marriage has been the only “non-traditional” scenario in the sea of tabbos, unlike polygamy, that has proven to be beneficial to society. Sibling coupling is an anomaly at best which hasn’t provided proven any social benefit and, biologically, has proven the opposite. I will reiterate again that societies are built and sustained not by procreation only.

    However, I see the benefit for society to offer civil unions for all. I see the benefit for society to encourage two consenting adults to enjoy certain rewards for entering a legally recognized committed relationship and raising children. Marriage has provided that institution for opposite-sex partners and has been a proven example for offering such a contract to two consenting adults. Gay-marrieds, unlike any other “taboo” have assimilated to this construct exponentially more successfully than any other without even being offered the full benefit and recognition of traditional marriage.

    Yet, tens of millions of Americans argue over the sanctity of that one word, despite the long-running tradition of martial laws’ violation of church and state and the long-running tradition that, technically, gay marriage had always been legal, until the recent unconstitutional legislative and propositional actions to outlaw it.

    If it was always going to be one man and woman procreating to propagate the species, then it would have remained that way. We’ve evolved beyond that. By not renouncing fertility drugs, surrogates and the like, one accepts that propagating the species has moved beyond one man and one woman having intercourse. Once we started and accepted science extracting eggs and sperm from the body, once we accepted tinkering with the basic math of procreation, all bets were off. To use a surrogate is sinful (was not Ishmael a bastard child who served as a lack of belief in God’s will and covenant?), to use fertility drugs is sinful, therefore anyone married who engages in such practices are sinful and their marriages are a slap in the face to God. To denounce gay marriage on grounds that it’s unholy would negate one to denounce any kind of procreational enhancement.

    If we were to rely solely on good-old fashioned unadulterated missionary position sex without any scientific influences, considering the diseases and chemicals we face today, I imagine man’s numbers would be dwindling to the point of the scenario visited in the film Children of Men with one pregnant woman left on this planet. While it’s a science-fiction premise and the 2027 setting seems rather extremely premature, it’s not a scenario that I would find surprising if we lived in a world without procreational enhancements like fertility drugs. We’re a dying species without evolution.

    Gay marriage, like fertility-drugged induced pregnancy, would not be possible without the evolving of the species.

    “Monogamy is the state of higher evolution … with the right person.” Friday Night Lights

    Comment by Cinesnatch — January 21, 2012 @ 3:37 pm - January 21, 2012

  4. Vince,

    However, I see the benefit for society to offer civil unions for all.

    I am not sure what you mean by this. But as an aside, those who debate me on the civil union idea think it is a slippery slope that will open up civil unions to other currently “taboo” partnership combinations and proclivities. My “rebuttal” is that society has to be convinced of the “worthiness” of the application before membership in the civil union club is approved. Thus, you maintain the definition of marriage, but you offer an “accommodation” based on statute and how the union benefits the state.

    technically, gay marriage had always been legal

    This can not possibly be so. There are very, very clever gay lawyers and it does them a disservice to imply that they can not get a “technicality” cleared up.

    If it was always going to be one man and woman procreating to propagate the species, then it would have remained that way. We’ve evolved beyond that.

    Bad choice of word here. The biology of procreation has not evolved. Test tube babies are possible because of man’s ingenious mind. Perhaps science will discover a way to clone a baby from a strand of human hair. But that is not evolution in any sense of the term.

    As to the fertility business, I suspect you would agree that the Octo-mom is not a miracle of science so much as she has used technology for less than moral, cultural, ethical, sensible, loving, thoughtful, admirable, role modeling, purposes. She is a narcissist who abused the beauty of science. Now, I do not propose shutting down fertility clinics because she went over the top. I offer her up as an example of how smug we can be and how ham handed we can be when we deign to play God. She has presented the state with a licensing and regulatory nightmare only because she is the poster child for reckless irresponsibility. By over-extending her womb, she has invited the state into her womb.

    Furthermore, we have every reason to go slow on cloning, growing body parts, farming body parts, selling access to willing, vacant wombs, etc. This is a huge arena for considering ethics.

    What you hail as the Brave New World of substitute biology is not as it seems. Court cases arise over the parental right to frozen sperm and cases where an implanted, fertilized egg produced an “unsatisfactory” child. When artificial procreation is accompanied by all manner of legal understandings, the state is dragged into a very murky area of what was once just the miracle of birth.

    I am not so swayed nor impressed by the science of man in this area. That is why I referred to the raccoons and the humpbacked whale. Unless they are being interfered with in a zoo, they are left strictly to their natural instincts.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 21, 2012 @ 4:25 pm - January 21, 2012

  5. Polygamy has had centuries to do it and has failed to do so. Gay marriage has done it in a comparatively shorter period of time, because it has assimilated.

    Actually, if you look at cultures across the world, polygamy in its various forms wins out handily over monogamy of any form.

    Gay-sex marriage, on the other hand? Ha.

    Gender role arguments (i.e. traditional mother/father roles) don’t hold very strongly in the face of single parents everywhere (for whatever reason: a grandparent being the only figure available, deceased spouses, dead-beat dads/moms), traditional marriages with either or both parents who physically/sexually abuse their children, etc. If you asked the average kid if they’d rather be raised by two parents of the same gender who loved them, provided food and shelter, taught them to believe in themselves and offered them an overall fun, safe and educational childhood over two parents of opposite gender who either couldn’t offer those things and/or something much worse, my guess would be the average kid, gay and straight, would choose the former. As would I.

    That says it all; the only way in which gay-sex couplings can be seen as equal to heterosexual ones is if one compares the best possible gay-sex couplings to the worst of heterosexual ones — single or abusive parents.

    Unfortunately, society does its best to discourage abusive parents and single parenting. So why would we want to encourage a relationship that its proponents like Cinesnatch insist is just as bad for society?

    The problem is, Cinesnatch, you can’t make an honest comparison between gay-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage, because opposite-sex marriage is clearly superior in every regard societally. Hence your obsession with trying to pick nits and tear down opposite-sex marriage; you have nothing positive to offer with gay-sex marriage, so your only hope is to make opposite-sex marriage look bad.

    This is what makes your self-centeredness transparently obvious. It is in EVERYONE’S interest to support heterosexual parenthood, fidelity, and responsibility and to set up structures, both social and legal, to facilitate and encourage it. If heterosexual parenthood were pushed to perfection, there would BE no “unwanted” or foster kids.

    You don’t seem to recognize that fact. You don’t seem to recognize the value of marriage to society at all; you only see something you don’t have and want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 21, 2012 @ 6:23 pm - January 21, 2012

  6. To use a surrogate is sinful (was not Ishmael a bastard child who served as a lack of belief in God’s will and covenant?), to use fertility drugs is sinful, therefore anyone married who engages in such practices are sinful and their marriages are a slap in the face to God. To denounce gay marriage on grounds that it’s unholy would negate one to denounce any kind of procreational enhancement.

    Completely untrue.

    First off, the issue with Ishmael was Abraham and Sarai’s disobedience and lack of faith. Indeed, as one reads in Genesis 16, 17, and 25, God blessed Ishmael and his mother Hagar, and indeed out of Ishmael’s birth God brought many great things.

    This is the problem, Cinesnatch. You have the typical liberal issue of judging the worth of a child by the circumstance of their birth and insisting that nothing good could come of a child being born under less than desirable circumstances. Christians and conservatives emphasize that great things and good things are always possible regardless of the circumstances of one’s birth, and the greatest evil is to judge and destroy life before it has even happened.

    Second, the use of fertility drugs is allowed when they are used to treat ovulatory and hormonal dysfunction. However, procedures that wholly separate or confuse the marital relationship relative to children, i.e. surrogacy, and ones that involve producing multiple fertilized embryos that are not all implanted or subjected to a process that has a very high likelihood of killing them, i.e. freezing, are not allowed.

    This is where the belief of liberals that Christians are “anti-science” gets in the way of discussion. If anything, Catholics in particular have successfully used scientific studies and techniques, such as improvements in fertility detection and hormonal balancing, to facilitate matters for couples that are having difficulty conceiving. Lutherans, such as in my denomination, have developed guidelines for when IVF can be considered and used and worked with fertility specialists to develop techniques that balance what can be done with what is acceptable from an ethical standpoint.

    Furthermore, what both Catholic and Lutheran denominations have focused upon is that would-be parents who are having difficulty conceiving must, MUST receive counseling to evaluate exactly why they would like to have a baby, the implications, and the stability of their relationship, in addition to fertility assistance. In other words, they use the infertility as a chance to evaluate, take a deep breath, and be sure you are ready for a child before you start trying everything to produce one — because the welfare of the child can and must be paramount.

    Notice that difference. Liberalism advocates having the sex and killing the baby. Conservativism and Christians emphasize thinking through what you’re doing before you have the sex, and will not facilitate procedures that kill children or open the very real possibility of marital discord.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 21, 2012 @ 6:53 pm - January 21, 2012

  7. NDT,

    I am humbled. Years ago, I decided (as a coward) not to argue on the basis of scripture or to defend my Christian beliefs when confronting issues of state in the daily comings and goings in the public square.

    You have addressed the issues from a religious standpoint brilliantly.

    When someone like Senility quotes scripture, I cringe at the realization that I have no energy for taking a numbskull to task. That means, I have sheathed my sword and left the arena.

    In a world where morality is more and more based in the “common sense” of pimps, reprobates and mildly educated egoists there is an ever greater call for those who will “gird their loins” and meet them head on.

    Bravo! to you for taking the stand in what they (the amoral and moral relativists) see as sky-cloud bull feathers.

    Go with God, God bless you and thanks for being there.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 21, 2012 @ 9:07 pm - January 21, 2012

  8. Heliotrope, you’re handling Vince quite nicely (no innuendo intended) but I do find two of his statements at cross purposes.

    First, he argues that polygamy has a long history of failure. By what standards? i’d point out that I know some polyamourus couples (a married couple and their ‘extended family’) that have outlasted my two marriages. By that standard, It’s 2-0 Polygamy.

    But the plural of anecdote is not ‘data’.

    At the same time, Vince says that SSM has ‘proven itself’ in record time. I have to wonder what basis he uses for comparison.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 22, 2012 @ 1:51 pm - January 22, 2012

  9. The idea that SSM has “proven itself” in record time, I suspect comes from the gaggle you walk with. When you, your friends and associates generally agree about SSM, it is probably fairly easy to project that there is a groundswell out there agreeing with you.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 23, 2012 @ 8:23 am - January 23, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.