Religion should not be a disqualifier from office, but no one should be banned from using it as a measure in which to judge a *candidate* for office if they so choose. It is another way of determining the worth of the candidate in the voter's eyes.

@YJ,

lol.

As to your second point / question -- simple. I do object to Santorum if he said that. (Honestly, I try to listen to Santorum as little as possible, so I don't know exactly what he said). But nobody was here in the forum saying it. I didn't bring up Savage, you did. I directly addressed the people repeating it here, and I would be happy to address any local (webdip) conservatives who think gays are all child molesters, any time.

@ semck - I'm sure you do, but that doesn't change the fact that in some social circles, and not even like, really crazy, insular ones, it's entirely acceptable to say that. You can get people to swear it IN COURT. You have people who have built ENTIRE careers around repeating this complete and utter bullsantorum (sorry bullshit wasn't strong enough), and you're worried that people protesting this are being "potty-minded". I object.

No, Mafia, I'm not saying that people protesting this are being potty-minded. I'm saying that people being vulgar and sordid are being vulgar and sordid, and will be recognized for same, and the fact that they're directing their sordidness at what may be a justifiable target is no excuse. Since when has sinking to somebody else's level been a good idea?

In what way is calling someone "poop" sinking to the same level as slandering literally millions of people?

@semck - Being vulgar and sordid is everybody's right to an extent. Yes, I know saying fuck all the time reflects on me. But in the circles in which I travel, fuck is a common everyday word, just as much as bullshit (although I like bullsantorum really well!) and hell and asshole and now fucktard. We've started using that one at work when someone does something really fucking stupid. But then they are said as terms of endearments in some ways amongst our tight knit group of geeks and the sales droids who are trying to sell our services.

@Mafia, Sure, sorry, it may not be the same level. My bad. But it's a wrong level, is my point, and it hurts the case, instead of helping it. This seems so obvious I can't see why anybody would disagree.
Suppose you live in rural, oh, I don't know, Tennessee, and you have a deep suspicion of gay people. And somebody comes on television and says that they're all molesters, all sex-obsessed filthy-minded perverts. And then the gay response is to call him the oily mix of lube and feces that is a byproduct of anal sex. Tell me just what impact you think this would have on your evaluation of gay people?
Nor is it because the response of the gay people, in this case, is justified. Hateful, angry speech is not the answer. A correction of the facts is what might have some chance of working, over time.
Do you think the civil rights movement would have been accelerated if Martin Luther King had gone on television and called Governor Wallace a low mix of cum and shit? My guess is it probably wouldn't have been that helpful at all, however satisfactory it might have been for people who already agreed with him. Nor would it actually have been justified. It would have been a vulgar expression of personal venom, which has no hope of raising the dialogue or convincing anybody, and should thus be decried by all.
And that's all.

@Draug, agreed. It is when such things gain currency as actual cleverness in some political subculture that I begin to worry, for that subculture has decided that it is content to trade influence and rationality for venom and anger -- never a good sign.

The King haters called him a womanizing pimp anyway, so what difference would it make if he kissed Wallace's ring? Hint: the civil rights movement didn't "accelerate" by pandering to the enemy. The right has remade MLK into this image of a walk-on-eggshells-around-whitey type of figure. Well, the ones that don't still call him a communist. Everyone should read "Where Do We Go From Here"?.

@putin, Sorry, but I said nothing about kissing rings or pandering. This one ranks low on the reading comprehension scale, even for you.

"for that subculture has decided that it is content to trade influence and rationality for venom and anger -- never a good sign."

Don't start nothing, won't be nothing. But if you're going to start something, we're going to finish it.

Yeah, the civil rights movement would have somehow been undermined if anybody ever insulted the Bull Connors of the world. Somebody tell Malcolm X.

I think you don't know what lube is to start with. It is not the same thing as cum.

It's not the job of the gay rights movement to put a veneer that would be acceptable to a homophobic rural Tennesseean... Tennesseeite... Tennesseoean... person from Tennessee on the gay community. The point isn't to change the gay community and make it acceptable to homophobes. The point is to change homophobes and make them accept the gay community as it is.

Do you think the civil rights movement would have succeeded if it had all been respectable people sitting around and talking about facts? You think it wouldn't have worked without real anger, real people getting upset, without protests, and riots, and violence? Without venom and vitriol? If it was all polite discussions of statistics and constitutions and ways and means?

@semck - I see your point now. And you are correct. When trying to win people to your side on an important issue, vulgarity and pandering to the lowest common denominator is *not* the way to go. You are correct in that. It's the old "catch more flies with honey than vinegar" or "stick to the higher ground" approach that will win out in the end and resorting to name calling in the public forum always hurts the name caller more than the name callee.

Here's a thought, Semck, how about you rein in your own side and stop bitching about small acts of resistance to the bullying of your hatemongering allies. Thanks.

"You think it wouldn't have worked without real anger, real people getting upset, without protests, and riots, and violence? Without venom and
vitriol? If it was all polite discussions of statistics and constitutions and ways and means?"

Yes, the Freedom Riders should have asked the nice Klansmen to please not kill them.

@Mafia,

Yeah, thanks for the explanation. I am aware of what both are, and did not say I was creating a completely equivalent remark; just that both were vulgar.

Anyway, that's fine, but if the gay community wants to present itself as a bunch of angry and vulgar people, it won't just be rural Tennesseans that get fed up with it.

@Putin,

I addressed this point earlier. I already pointed out then that you wouldn't comprehend my explanation. Seems I was right.

@Draug, well said.

@Mafia - you don't need to stoop to such a low level as name calling to call someone out. Violence in the 60s caused more harm than good on *both* sides of the issues. Let's look at Vietnam. A peaceful protest at Kent State results in four dead students. Did that help the government's side of things, killing those students? No! More recent was the riots in LA because of the Rodney King trial. Did that help the minroity communities in South Central LA get respect? No! Pulling a truck driver from a cab and beating him within an inch of his life did not help the cause at all. Violence begets violence in a vicious cycle. Anger turns to hatred which turns to violence if not checked with some level of civility. Be angry, but express it by standing up for yourself and your cause without stooping to the offender's level. Civil disobedience does not require violence.

http://derailingfordummies.com
Let's see, I think we have "You're being hostile", a touch of "You're not being Intellectual enough" (I don't get that one often to be honest), a tiny bit of "You've lost your temper so I don't have to listen to you anymore", a whole huge heap of "You're damaging your cause by being angry" and for good measure a generous helping of "You're as bad as they are".

"Anyway, that's fine, but if the gay community wants to present itself as a bunch of angry and vulgar people, it won't just be rural Tennesseans that get fed up with it."

Wait so because santorum sai what he said, does the whole christian community come off as "angry an vulgar"

Hmm, let's see. This started out a conversation about Santorum speaking about JFK's speech, and the merits (or not) of his complaints.
It became a thread about people comparing Santorum to lube and feces.
But the person who complained about that was derailing it. Riiiight.

No, @SC, and Mafia does not speak for the gay community, but he kind of claimed to in his prior post. That's all I was responding to.

(In other words, "the gay community" does not actually portray itself as a bunch of angry and vulgar people, but Mafia sounded like he thought it would be a good idea if they did).

"I addressed this point earlier. I already pointed out then that you wouldn't comprehend my explanation. Seems I was right."

Because you're not serious about it. This is hackery masquerading as above-the-fray neutrality.

@Putin - The war between the KKK and the Freedom Riders clearly was the responsibility of the KKK. As I said, Violence begets violence. In this case, it could be argued the Freedom Riders were the victims of the violence and defending themselves. If the south had obeyed the orders of the Supreme Court and the ICC, there would have been no need for them to make a point, but they rode the busses and waited for others to resort to villence first. I actually admire how they went about affecting change. The blame for the violence lays on the KKK and the other racists who refused to recognize the courts ruling on the matter. So that was not a very good example.

actually the LA Riots put race relations under the microscope in a way that conference papers and peaceful protest never had

I disagree Draug. There is a lot of value in stooping to the shocking and vulgar. Quickly, off the top of your head, how did GLAAD respond when Santorum made his now infamous remarks equating homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality?
Now quickly, what did Dan Savage do?

Look, there aren't any conservatives on this thread, or any other recent thread that I'm aware of, who have actually called gay people child molesters. I respond to real people on actual threads, I don't rant against third persons who aren't even around. Who do you think I am, obi?

there were two posts about the whole "santorum" second meaning issue before you used it as an attack on us, even though many, including me, the OP never used it. If you didnt want this to become that discussion why did you make it that way.

The bottom line remains, how the hell Santorum actually said this and how the hell is he a serious candidate.