Rick Santorum? New canidate for president focuses on gay marriage

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign-20120107,0,4461003.story

Quote :

Reporting from Manchester, N.H.—
For the second time in as many days, Rick Santorum waded into the issue of gay marriage, suggesting it was so important for children to have both a father and mother that an imprisoned father was preferable to a same-sex parent.

Citing the work of one anti-poverty expert, Santorum said, "He found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children's lives."

FOR THE RECORD:
Rick Santorum: An article in the Jan. 7 Section A about the New Hampshire primary reported that GOP candidate Rick Santorum said in 2005 that gay marriage is no different from "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." He said this in an interview with the Associated Press in 2003. A Los Angeles Times article on Oct. 2, 2011, also gave the incorrect 2005 date. —


Allowing gays to marry and raise children, Santorum said, amounts to "robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn't true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it's true."

At a private boarding school Friday, the Republican presidential candidate's voice grew emotional as he argued that only a man and woman should be able to marry. "Marriage is not a right," Santorum said. "It's a privilege that is given to society by society for a reason.... We want to encourage what is the best for children."

The audience, half students and half local residents, reacted with snorts and applause. The students at Dublin School, which runs from ninth through 12th grade, were primed for Santorum's visit, said headmaster Brad Bates. He said three students in the audience had gay parents, though they were not among those who asked about the topic.

Santorum's comments once again drew attention away from his efforts to craft a blue-collar economic message. On Thursday he tangled with college students over same-sex marriage. In that encounter, a woman in the audience asked whether the right to happiness was grounds for gay people to marry, and Santorum responded by asking whether she believed more than two people could have that right. "If you're not happy unless you're married to five other people, is that OK?" he asked, prompting boos from the audience.

Santorum's combative stance against gay rights — particularly his remark during a 2003 interview that gay marriage is no different from "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be" — have distinguished him as a hero of those who oppose gay rights and brought him a passel of trouble from activists who support them. The former Pennsylvania senator has been a conservative crusader on social issues, which had far more political resonance in Iowa than in New Hampshire.

The candidate's comments underscored a sharper tone in the campaign Friday, with much of the skirmishing among a handful of Republicans bidding for a second-place finish behind presidential front-runner Mitt Romney.

Jon Huntsman Jr. took after Ron Paul over a video ad apparently posted by supporters of the Texas congressman, leading Paul to condemn the spot. Newt Gingrich defended a statement regarding African Americans and food stamps, as well as his lucrative work for Freddie Mac, the federal mortgage guarantor.

Romney, reflecting his confidence in New Hampshire, wrapped up a two-day swing through South Carolina, the next state on the campaign calendar, before returning to the Granite State.

Back in Iowa, where the former Massachusetts governor eked out an eight-vote victory, questions surfaced about the accuracy of Tuesday night's caucus count. State party officials, however, stood by the results.

Romney held a commanding lead in a New Hampshire poll released Friday by Manchester's WMUR-TV, with 44%, compared with 20% for Paul, 8% for both Gingrich and Santorum, 7% for Huntsman and 1% for Texas Gov. Rick Perry. They will debate twice in New Hampshire this weekend, starting Saturday night in a two-hour session on ABC. On Sunday morning, they will appear on NBC's "Meet The Press."

As for Tuesday, weather is not expected to affect turnout. Temperatures have been unseasonably warm, hitting the 30s and 40s Friday, with no snow forecast until after the primary.

At a rally in Conway, S.C., Romney kept his focus on President Obama, accusing him of "crony capitalism" and hostility to "free markets and free people." Romney ignored the drop in the unemployment rate, to 8.5% nationally, and instead criticized the president for "racking up deficits over a trillion dollars a year."

Romney left it to his traveling companion, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, to lead the attack on two rivals, Santorum and former House Speaker Gingrich. McCain faulted both men for pursuing congressional earmarks, saying that channeling federal dollars to favorite projects was the "gateway to corruption."

Santorum waved away the criticism, saying he was simply doing his job.

Paul, who has taken a surprisingly relaxed approach to campaigning, finally arrived in New Hampshire on Friday afternoon. The third-place finisher in Iowa spoke for just about 15 minutes at an airport rally in Nashua, reprising his call for a more circumscribed foreign policy.

It is these kinds of people that make me sick. How can a potential leader of a country hold a prejudice against a group of people? If he gets elected, I'm moving to Canada.

I'm conservative, and Christian, and I see no problem with gay marriage.

The people that view it as a sin, I can understand, but it's irrelevant. Christians beleive that we are all inherently flawed and therefore will all sin. Allowing gays to marry won't promote sin-simply by existing we will commit sin. I'd suggest that anyone who is against homosexuality because it is so sinful commit suicide in order to rid the world of excess sin.

My two cents. I don't fully understand the arguments against it, other than prejudice. I've yet to hear a legitimate argument that isn't "go burn the fags"

People seem to always forget that Christianity isn't the only religion around. Honestly, why should they care? In their eyes, homosexuals will be condemned to hell so what does it matter if they're "sinning" or "going against nature".

Also this:

Crim LOLPRANK wrote:

People seem to always forget that Christianity isn't the only religion around. Honestly, why should they care? In their eyes, homosexuals will be condemned to hell so what does it matter if they're "sinning" or "going against nature".

]

Exactly!

And I'm going to need psychotherapy for that definition. Urbandictionary is one of the few websites I am afraid to go on.

That's not urbandictionary. I forget who, but this one guy got back at Santorum by defining that "thing" with his name.

Lolz, frothy? Someone studying this phenomenon far too closely...

The best argument I have heard is "It's wrong cause they can't have kids..." Pretty much everything else was "burn the fags". Though if all of the homosexual couples got together and adopted, there would be a lot less people in foster homes and in Africa starving, and in China being a third child, etc.

Also. 10K messages?

People believe in that sort of crap because it's different, and that the bible says one must be with thy wife - however, love is unrestricted and they probably misinterpreted it as you MUST have a wife. However the term wife is used on a more broad and general term. Thou must be with thy wed, which leads to the commandments, do not covet thy neighbor. However, this is in the newer bibles. There are quotes in the old Testament that go by:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)

Which I find absolutely gross. However, apparently this was done after the wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone. And then the testament happened.

Which may have been a way to prevent that from happening again. Still though, this doesn't give people the right to judge others. Isn't that also in the bible? The New Testament?

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2)

I rest my case.