Santorum to kids of gay parents: You'd be better off with a dad in jail

[Politico]

Will homosexuals and heterosexuals at some point silently agree that things worked a lot better for both sides when open homosexuals stuck to San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York?

Fair or not, and I certainly have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality unlike most folks I know, homosexuals will never be embraced by society at large to the degree they fantasize about. Unfortunately, they will always be treated as second-class except where they are heavily concentrated. The best they could have ever hoped for was having their own mecca in San Francisco. AIDS kind of prevented that, I guess.

....wow

I don't like the way the world is, but I did not make it and I am certainly not so naive as to think homosexuals will ever be readily accepted into the mainstream the way that preferring Pepsi over Coke is, for example. I strongly disagree with Santorum on anything related to homosexuals/homosexuality, but on that front, and it saddens me to say this, Santorum simply continues to speak openly the way that most heterosexuals think privately. Somebody ought to say it, so there.

[Politico]

Will blacks and whites at some point silently agree that things worked a lot better for both sides when negroes stuck to the ghetto?

Seriously.

When did the ghetto become equivalent to San Franscisco, Los Angeles, and New York? Those cities have nice qualities.

Seriously, trying to make the differences between heterosexuals/heterosexuality and homosexuals/homosexuality into something akin to racial differences is never going to work. It's just not. If you don't believe me, go ask the vast majority of African-American Democrats.

[Politico]

Will homosexuals and heterosexuals at some point silently agree that things worked a lot better for both sides when open homosexuals stuck to San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York?

Fair or not, and I certainly have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality unlike most folks I know, homosexuals will never be embraced by society at large to the degree they fantasize about. Unfortunately, they will always be treated as second-class except where they are heavily concentrated. The best they could have ever hoped for was having their own mecca in San Francisco. AIDS kind of prevented that, I guess.

So you would support rounding up all the gays and sending them to SF, LA and NYC? Maybe in nice little camps?

No, I would prefer homosexuals being openly accepted in society at large, but that is never going to happen. The most realistic alternative is a return to the way things were in the late 1970s (i.e., open homosexuals prosper in San Fransisco, New York and Los Angeles). Relations between homosexuals and heterosexuals were probably at an all-time high in that era, before the onset of AIDS.

[Politico]

Will blacks and whites at some point silently agree that things worked a lot better for both sides when negroes stuck to the ghetto?

Seriously.

When did the ghetto become equivalent to San Franscisco, Los Angeles, and New York? Those cities have nice qualities.

Seriously, trying to make the differences between heterosexuals/heterosexuality and homosexuals/homosexuality into something akin to racial differences is never going to work. It's just not. If you don't believe me, go ask the vast majority of African-American Democrats.

You mean the ones who think homosexuality is a choice?

No, I mean the ones who do not care whether or not it is a choice, but see it as undesirable trait in their offspring by virtue of its incompatibility with the survival of their offspring. After all, when you get right down to it most heterosexuals have one basic desire: survival. This includes, of course, survival of their offspring. Biologically, they are never going to really accept something that threatens the survival of their offspring whether it be in the near or distant future.

[Politico]

Will blacks and whites at some point silently agree that things worked a lot better for both sides when negroes stuck to the ghetto?

Seriously.

When did the ghetto become equivalent to San Franscisco, Los Angeles, and New York? Those cities have nice qualities.

Seriously, trying to make the differences between heterosexuals/heterosexuality and homosexuals/homosexuality into something akin to racial differences is never going to work. It's just not. If you don't believe me, go ask the vast majority of African-American Democrats.

You mean the ones who think homosexuality is a choice?

No, I mean the ones who do not care whether or not it is a choice, but see it as undesirable trait in their offspring by virtue of its incompatibility with the survival of their offspring. After all, when you get right down to it most heterosexuals have one basic desire: survival. This includes, of course, survival of their offspring. Biologically, they are never going to really accept something that threatens the survival of their offspring whether it be in the near or distant future.

And that's not a futarded way to think at all.

Why do you suppose there is so much animosity towards homosexuals then? Do you really think many people have a problem with what people do quietly in the privacy of their own home? It's far more than that at its core.

[Politico]

so when people realize (choose in GOP world) that they are gay in their teens, should they then be carted off to the Castro District of SF and given a one month pass the a bath house? Or should they be allowed to finish high school locally?

And will the federal guvment be paying for moving all the gays to their appropriate designated zones (I assume you will call them Pink Empowerment Zones or something like that)

I know you are being facetious, but unlike liberals I do not think the government is a solution to much of anything. There is certainly nothing whatsoever the government should be doing with homosexuals or homosexuality.

I believe homosexuality should be readily accepted. But I also realize that it never will be. Saying that makes me on par with Santorum is silly.

[Politico]

Will blacks and whites at some point silently agree that things worked a lot better for both sides when negroes stuck to the ghetto?

Seriously.

When did the ghetto become equivalent to San Franscisco, Los Angeles, and New York? Those cities have nice qualities.

Seriously, trying to make the differences between heterosexuals/heterosexuality and homosexuals/homosexuality into something akin to racial differences is never going to work. It's just not. If you don't believe me, go ask the vast majority of African-American Democrats.

You mean the ones who think homosexuality is a choice?

No, I mean the ones who do not care whether or not it is a choice, but see it as undesirable trait in their offspring by virtue of its incompatibility with the survival of their offspring. After all, when you get right down to it most heterosexuals have one basic desire: survival. This includes, of course, survival of their offspring. Biologically, they are never going to really accept something that threatens the survival of their offspring whether it be in the near or distant future.

So... homosexuality is bad for the survival of children... how, exactly?

You do realize how humans are bred, right? And, from a biological perspective, our bodies and their instincts are still in the stone age...

[Politico]

Getting back to the original point, I am saying this: Santorum speaks openly what most heterosexuals are thinking privately. I do not fall into that category. But I am not naive either and I am sorry if that makes some of you uncomfortable.

[Politico]

Will blacks and whites at some point silently agree that things worked a lot better for both sides when negroes stuck to the ghetto?

Seriously.

When did the ghetto become equivalent to San Franscisco, Los Angeles, and New York? Those cities have nice qualities.

Seriously, trying to make the differences between heterosexuals/heterosexuality and homosexuals/homosexuality into something akin to racial differences is never going to work. It's just not. If you don't believe me, go ask the vast majority of African-American Democrats.

You mean the ones who think homosexuality is a choice?

No, I mean the ones who do not care whether or not it is a choice, but see it as undesirable trait in their offspring by virtue of its incompatibility with the survival of their offspring. After all, when you get right down to it most heterosexuals have one basic desire: survival. This includes, of course, survival of their offspring. Biologically, they are never going to really accept something that threatens the survival of their offspring whether it be in the near or distant future.

So... homosexuality is bad for the survival of children... how, exactly?

You do realize how children are bred, right?

So f-cking what?  Children should be ostracized by their parents and society because they're not going to reproduce?

If we're going to be so retarded as a civilization, we might as well just all go extinct.  There's no point if we're just going to be animals who wear clothes and pretend to be civilized.

Biologically, there is no point to life except surviving and reproducing. We are really just animals who happen to have the gift (or curse, if you want to depress yourself) of thought.

[Politico]

I am sorry for rocking the boat. Let's go back to regular tuned programming where we do not try to figure out why there is animosity towards homosexuality among heterosexuals. We can also be so naive as to think homosexuality will ever be readily accepted into the mainstream the way that preferring Pepsi over Coke is. This will make us all feel better, and feeling good about ourselves is all that matters.

[Politico]

Getting back to the original point, I am saying this: Santorum speaks openly what most heterosexuals are thinking privately. I do not fall into that category. But I am not naive either and I am sorry if that makes some of you uncomfortable.

I know very few heterosexuals who have views anything like those of Santorum, and if anything his views make them more uncomfortable than homosexuality itself.

I know very few heterosexuals who are truly comfortable with homosexuality. Perhaps it is a stretch to say that Santorum speaks openly what most heterosexuals are thinking privately. It certainly upsets me to think that, but I do get the sense that it is true to a large extent. There is a reason why there is so much animosity towards homosexuals.

[Politico]

I am sorry for rocking some folks' world. Let's go back to regular tuned programming where we do not try to figure out why there is animosity towards homosexuality among heterosexuals. We can also be so naive as to think homosexuality will ever be readily accepted into the mainstream the way that preferring Pepsi over Coke is. This will make us all feel better, and feeling good about ourselves is all that matters.

It's simple: because some people are stupid and fear things that are different.  You're not being helpful by validating such idiocy.

I wish I could agree, but unfortunately I really don't think it's that simple in this case otherwise African-American Democrats, for example, would be much more open to seeing it the way that you see it.

[Politico]

And I just want to bang my head against a wall every time someone talks about "instincts" and biological determinism.  Humans have this thing called a frontal lobe, people.  We might as well lobotomize ourselves if we're going to concern ourselves only with the survival of the species and all that jazz.

Unless we really change our tune in the next thousand years, I really hope an alien race wipes us out before we truly become a blight upon the galaxy.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with any of this.

[Politico]

LOL at "I accept gays, they should just stick to three major cities" attitude.

Hey, I happen to have close ties to Los Angeles! And how do you know whether or not I'm gay?

[Politico]

What a stupid thread. Of course I'll be labeled a bigot on par with racism if I speak up, so I'll keep my trap clamped shut. This is ing ridiculous.

Do share...

[Politico]

LOL at "I accept gays, they should just stick to three major cities" attitude.

Hey, I happen to have close ties to Los Angeles!

That justifies everything you're saying entirely!

How do you know whether or not I'm gay?

[Politico]

Biologically, there is no point to life except surviving and reproducing. We are really just animals who happen to have the gift (or curse, if you want to depress yourself) of thought.

If I had my way then posts containing large amounts of reductionist, pseudo-scientific and pseudo-evolutionary bollocks of the type displayed above would get the poster in question immediately banned...

Survival of the fittest is how Darwin put it, but I suppose that is a bit too reductionist and pseudo-scientific since it does not conform to our liberal view of the world. If you want to get scientific, do you really believe not being interested in breeding (e.g., being homosexual) is compatible with ensuring the survival of your fittest genes?

It seems to me that the world works this way: Parents want to see their kids have kids, and this is a cycle that has continued for the genes of the aforementioned parents for quite some time. Obviously any threat to this cycle is not going to be taken to that openly by the aforementioned parents.

[Politico]

Biologically, there is no point to life except surviving and reproducing. We are really just animals who happen to have the gift (or curse, if you want to depress yourself) of thought.

If I had my way then posts containing large amounts of reductionist, pseudo-scientific and pseudo-evolutionary bollocks of the type displayed above would get the poster in question immediately banned...

Survival of the fittest is how Darwin put it

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Darwin never said that.

That was a Social Darwinist who said that.  Very different, of course, from Darwinism itself.

I will take your word. I have no idea whether or not Darwin himself coined the phrase "survival of the fittest," but it is most definitely a succinct description of what Darwin called "natural selection." I always thought Darwin used the phrase himself, but I may be wrong.

[Politico]

Liberals are so open-minded and tolerant until they find out there are different ideas than their own.

I have been neither vulgar nor inappropriate. If you want vulgar and inappropriate on this subject matter, try having this conversation with African-American Democrats in Detroit.

[Politico]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore if people really believe that social darwinist, biologically deterministic, hippy-dippy "we're all just animals" f-cking bullsh-t.

Just find out what makes you happy without hurting others, and don't worry about the rest of society. Never ever forget: We're not all in this together.

[Politico]

Liberals are so open-minded and tolerant until they find out there are different ideas than their own.

I have been neither vulgar nor inappropriate. If you want vulgar and inappropriate on this subject matter, try having this conversation with African-American Democrats in Detroit.

I consider you claiming that I will never be accepted in society (without any real evidence or convincing testament), and that implying that I should move to New York, San Francisco, or some other "sanctuary city" if I want to be accepted, sort of inappropriate and vulgar on your part.

Well, I am sorry you see it that way. I didn't make this world. I'm just trying to describe it the way I see it from my vantage point. I certainly wish it were different. There is absolutely no reason why people should have hostility towards homosexuals like Santorum and others do. But they do, and I am not sure things will ever be for homosexuals in society at large the way that they are today for African-Americans, for example. The way I see it, and I certainly do not like this, they will always be treated as second-class except where they are most heavily concentrated. That's why I suggested that perhaps relations would be better if things reverted to the way they were in the late 1970s where most homosexuals either kept a low-profile or moved to San Francisco, New York or Los Angeles...

[Politico]

Will homosexuals and heterosexuals at some point silently agree that things worked a lot better for both sides when open homosexuals stuck to San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York?

Fair or not, and I certainly have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality unlike most folks I know, homosexuals will never be embraced by society at large to the degree they fantasize about. Unfortunately, they will always be treated as second-class except where they are heavily concentrated. The best they could have ever hoped for was having their own mecca in San Francisco. AIDS kind of prevented that, I guess.

So you would support rounding up all the gays and sending them to SF, LA and NYC? Maybe in nice little camps?

No, I would prefer homosexuals being openly accepted in society at large, but that is never going to happen

"Well, I have nothing against negroes, but integration is never going to happen"

I'm pretty sure you could take all of Politico's posts in this thread, change the context, and it'd be seamless.

If racial issues are identical to sexual issues, can you explain why support for even gay marriage is so low among African-American Democrats?

[Politico]

Will homosexuals and heterosexuals at some point silently agree that things worked a lot better for both sides when open homosexuals stuck to San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York?

Fair or not, and I certainly have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality unlike most folks I know, homosexuals will never be embraced by society at large to the degree they fantasize about. Unfortunately, they will always be treated as second-class except where they are heavily concentrated. The best they could have ever hoped for was having their own mecca in San Francisco. AIDS kind of prevented that, I guess.

That's trolling and you're kicked for a week.

If I was trolling, you'd know it. I know how to troll, and this is NOT trolling.

[Politico]

Liberals are so open-minded and tolerant until they find out there are different ideas than their own.

I have been neither vulgar nor inappropriate. If you want vulgar and inappropriate on this subject matter, try having this conversation with African-American Democrats in Detroit.

I consider you claiming that I will never be accepted in society (without any real evidence or convincing testament), and that implying that I should move to New York, San Francisco, or some other "sanctuary city" if I want to be accepted, sort of inappropriate and vulgar on your part.

The way I see it, and I certainly do not like this, negroes will always be treated as second-class except where they are most heavily concentrated. That's why I suggested that perhaps relations would be better if things reverted to the way they were before slavery where most blacks either kept a low-profile or moved to Africa.

We could do this all day.

I support gay marriage. The leader of the Democratic Party, your party, does not. Furthermore, gay marriage is more staunchly opposed by African-American Democrats than any other group in America. Why is that?

[Politico]

You just might be the worst poster on this entire site. If you don't like bis, gays, and lesbians, please just come out and say it and stop doing this "Well I don't like it, but everyone hates gays" bullsh**t.

I have no problems whatsoever with homosexuals and I am not disclosing my personal sexual orientation on here, so you really have no idea whether or not I am even a homosexual. I thought it was self-evident that many other people have problems with homosexuals, exemplified by yet another anti-homosexual comment by Rick Santorum, so I tried giving an explanation as to why this is the case. I may very well be wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You do realize that if it was really a similar issue then the victims of segregation would most presumably be the first to rally to the cause, right?