I now pronounce you Politics and Controversy: Santorum and the Slippery Slope

Yonder wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

So, um what does this have to do with jobs, the deficit, federal spending? I enjoy a fabulous, lavender smoke screen as much as the next guy. It just seems a more prudent campaign would center around the issues most people care about.

Actually the far right candidates like Perry and Santorum have tied stuff like this. When they say kings like "returning to the values that made America great" they are implying that implementing these conservative values will impact several areas of the nation.

Did I miss the part where Eisenhower railed against sodomy? I like to think he and his congress were preoccupied with nuclear war, the national highway system, the power grid. I can even let a little "under god" slip by if you are paving roads and building infrastructure to make the world jealous.

Isn't that what made the us Great in the 50's and 60's?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

If the argument is that society's laws can't reflect its morals without some objective benefit, that has implications on any number of other issues.

On the other hand, the argument that society's laws can't reflect its morals without some objective benefit when the prohibited conduct is intimate between consenting adults has far fewer implications.

True, but that's also a much weaker argument. Your addition is already a subset of "no objective benefit", correct?

No, it's the other way 'round--"no objective benefit" is a subset of it. There are three reasons working here why society should not impose its morals with laws: no objective benefit can be shown AND it reaches into an intimate area of life AND all parties affected are consenting adults. That makes it a much stronger argument, much like government needs more justification to search a woman's vagina than to search her handbag, or government needs more justification to break up a contract when everyone involved is in comparable negotiation positions.

Your creditors should have a harder time repossessing your false teeth than your Ferrari--I don't see any good arguments that 'intimacy' shouldn't exist as a consideration in restraining government power. And I bet a lot of those implications you're talking about involve power imbalances and unilateral acts.

edited for clarity: Remember, you're making a counter-argument here based on showing there are unwanted implications of using a certain kind of argument to support gay marriage. Anything that eliminates those implications makes the argument stronger. You can certainly show that additions that eliminate implications are hard to support, but I think you'll have a tough time trying to argue the government shouldn't give greater respect to things of an intimate nature or government shouldn't be more hands off when there isn't a power imbalance in the consenting parties. Your attacks on those elements of intimacy and consent will have implications themselves like the ones detailed above.

KingGorilla wrote:
Yonder wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

So, um what does this have to do with jobs, the deficit, federal spending? I enjoy a fabulous, lavender smoke screen as much as the next guy. It just seems a more prudent campaign would center around the issues most people care about.

Actually the far right candidates like Perry and Santorum have tied stuff like this. When they say kings like "returning to the values that made America great" they are implying that implementing these conservative values will impact several areas of the nation.

Did I miss the part where Eisenhower railed against sodomy? I like to think he and his congress were preoccupied with nuclear war, the national highway system, the power grid. I can even let a little "under god" slip by if you are paving roads and building infrastructure to make the world jealous.

Isn't that what made the us Great in the 50's and 60's?

I am hitting +1 as hard as I possibly can.

Yeah. And if you really want to piss them off you can mention that their old school Big Stick-carrying Teddy Roosevelt is the one who came up with the National Parks system and was a huge force for ecological conservation and trust busting.

KingGorilla wrote:

Did I miss the part where Eisenhower railed against sodomy? I like to think he and his congress were preoccupied with nuclear war, the national highway system, the power grid. I can even let a little "under god" slip by if you are paving roads and building infrastructure to make the world jealous.

Isn't that what made the us Great in the 50's and 60's?

What Santorum (and everyone who says this, in any political race, from all political parties, ever) knows is this - saying vague, positive statements like "what made America great" allows the listener to mentally fill in the blank.

KingGorilla wrote:
Yonder wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

So, um what does this have to do with jobs, the deficit, federal spending? I enjoy a fabulous, lavender smoke screen as much as the next guy. It just seems a more prudent campaign would center around the issues most people care about.

Actually the far right candidates like Perry and Santorum have tied stuff like this. When they say kings like "returning to the values that made America great" they are implying that implementing these conservative values will impact several areas of the nation.

Did I miss the part where Eisenhower railed against sodomy? I like to think he and his congress were preoccupied with nuclear war, the national highway system, the power grid. I can even let a little "under god" slip by if you are paving roads and building infrastructure to make the world jealous.

Isn't that what made the us Great in the 50's and 60's?

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/Eisenhower_Bayonet_Point.jpg)

Eisenhower's stance on States rights vs. Civil rights in the 50s

Hey, hey, hey! No need to take things out of context, drag the General's name in mud, making it looks like he sided with that activist panel of judges.