Santorum Won't Talk About Transgender Girl Scout Cookie Boycott, Says Romney Lies, Launches Attack Ad: VIDEO
01/17/2012

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/01/santorumgs.html#ixzz1jlCN0Tb3

Rick Santorum won't say if he'd let his kids participate in a boycott of the Girl Scouts over its policy of inclusion for transgender children, Buzzfeed reports:

Yorktown_santorumSantorum took a pass when asked his stance on the Girl Scout cookie boycott prompted by the organization's inclusion of a transgender child in Denver -- specifically, whether or not he would allow his own children to participate in such a boycott.


BuzzFeed


Santorum Neutral On Transgender Girl Scouts

Posted about 8 hours ago | Retrieved from the Internet on January 17, 2012 by SJ

He won't take a stance on the hot LGBT issue that's not gay marriage

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/santorum-neutral-on-transgender-girl-scouts


(Getty Images / EMMANUEL DUNAND)

MT. PLEASANT, S.C. -- Rick Santorum avoided weighing in on the controversy over a transgender Girl Scout at a press conference today aboard the USS Yorktown.

Santorum took a pass when asked his stance on the Girl Scout cookie boycott prompted by the organization's inclusion of a transgender child in Denver -- specifically, whether or not he would allow his own children to participate in such a boycott.

Hard to believe the biggot is neutral on anything!

Quote from: Robertina on January 17, 2012, 05:30:18 PM
Hard to believe the biggot is neutral on anything!

How is he a bigot?

Rick MixtureOfLubeAndFecalMatter didn't say anything bad about trans people???  I had to look out my window to make sure the sky didn't turn neon green.

Quote from: Jamie D on January 20, 2012, 02:03:59 AM
How is he a bigot?

He has a well-documented history of bigoted ranting against gays and lesbians

Quote from: Butterflyhugs on January 20, 2012, 04:14:04 AM
He has a well-documented history of bigoted ranting against gays and lesbians

He has a well-documented history of following the tenets of his religion, and being forthright about that.


From a Piers Morgan interview last August:

Morgan: . . . Your views you've espoused on this issue are bordering on bigotry, aren't they?

Santorum: Uh, no. I think just because we disagree on public policy, which is what the debate has been about, which is marriage, doesn't mean that is bigotry just because you follow a moral code that teaches there's something wrong. ... Are you suggesting that the Bible and that the Catholic Church is bigoted? Well, if that's what you believe, fine. I think that ... well, actually I should say not fine, I don't think it's fine at all. I think that is contrary to both what we've seen in 2,000 years of human history and Western Civilization. Trying to redefine something that has been, that is, seen as wrong, from the standpoint of the church and saying a church is "bigoted" because it holds that opinion that is biblically based, I think is in itself an act of bigotry.

Morgan: Well, I'm a Catholic, too. And I just think that unfortunately we're in a different era now. We're in a modern world. And the fact that you know---

Santorum: Piers, Piers, I don't think the truth changes. I don't think right and wrong change based on different eras of time. There are some truths that are in fact eternal and are truth and based on nature and nature's law. And that's what the church teaches, that's what the Bible teaches, and that's what reason dictates. And if you look at it from all of those perspectives, I think it's a legitimate point of view. I certainly respect people who disagree with it. But I don't call them bigoted because they disagree with me.

There are about 240 million people who identify themselves as "Christian" in the United States, of which about 70 million are
Catholic. We have about 10 to 12 million in the GLBT community.

It does us absolutely no good to yell "Bigot!" every time someone disagrees with us, especially when that person, like Santorum, who is willing to respect the views of those who believe differently.

I am not Catholic.  I don't think I can change the views of a devout Catholic.  But I can engage a Catholic in a constructive dialogue, perhaps to our mutual benefit.

especially when that person, like Santorum, who is willing to respect the views of those who believe differently.

You mean the Rick Santorum who compared gay marriage to man-on-dog sex?  Thanks, but I'll pass on that kind of respect and keep on thinking that the guy is really just the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.

Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2012, 11:28:47 AM
especially when that person, like Santorum, who is willing to respect the views of those who believe differently.

You mean the Rick Santorum who compared gay marriage to man-on-dog sex?  Thanks, but I'll pass on that kind of respect and keep on thinking that the guy is really just the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.

Let's look at the context of Santorum's statement and see if you have portrayed it correctly.  From NYMag,com

Before he ran for president, many people had only heard of Rick Santorum because of two things: his well-documented Google problem, and the incident that spawned it — a 2003 AP interview in which he warned that the Supreme Court granting the right to have gay sex in your home would essentially mean you also have the right to bigamy, polygamy, and incest. He also added, "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."

I interpret, reasonably and logically from the quotation, that Santorum differentiates "homosexual" behavior and unions, from bigamy, pedophilia, and bestiality.

Does society, through its government and laws, have the power to define and regulate "marriage" and lawful relationships?  I hope that we can agree to dismiss pedophilic and bestial relationships from the realm of socially permissible behavior.  That leaves the question of whether an activist Court sanctioning same-sex marriages, outside of the legislative process, can be seen as opening the door to bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, and polyamory.

I don't see, in the quote, where Santorum likened homosexuality to bestiality.

My personal view is that an relationship between consenting adults is none of the government's business.

We don't know Santorum's views precisely on the issues of transgender people in girl scouts.  But keep in mind that he might just not want to muddle his message going into the South Carolina Primary. He has a very clear and controversial position on gay marriage, etc. which plays well with conservative protestant voters in the South.  But smart politicians know not to dive into every issue. So far he has shown just the right touch (for better or worse depending on one's perspective) to get many of these voters to go with him in the primaries.

Quote from: Jamie D on January 20, 2012, 11:22:05 AM

Morgan: Well, I'm a Catholic, too. And I just think that unfortunately we're in a different era now. We're in a modern world. And the fact that you know---

Santorum: Piers, Piers, I don't think the truth changes. I don't think right and wrong change based on different eras of time.

This is where Santorum is dead wrong, and why his views in today's world are and should be considered bigoted.

Any social scientist will tell you outright that societies in any given time period collectively decide their own concepts of morality. Just look at how views on slavery and women as property have changed; anyone who holds those archaic views now clearly has a prejudice problem. The same goes for people who actively campaign against extending equal rights to LGBT folks, bible-mandated or not.

He opposed to birth control, not only for unmarried people but even for married people.  He's weird. (And that's not even considering the dead baby story, or the fact that his wife used to date the OB/GNY who delivered her (Very Creepy).

Quote from: Butterflyhugs on January 20, 2012, 03:40:42 PM
This is where Santorum is dead wrong, and why his views in today's world are and should be considered bigoted.

Any social scientist will tell you outright that societies in any given time period collectively decide their own concepts of morality. Just look at how views on slavery and women as property have changed; anyone who holds those archaic views now clearly has a prejudice problem. The same goes for people who actively campaign against extending equal rights to LGBT folks, bible-mandated or not.

Santorum is not a moral relativist.  He is, instead, a moral absolutist, who believes that some actions can be seen as absolutely right, or absolutely wrong, without regard to context.  Santorum is not a bigot, because he is tolerant of points of view different from his own.  He just disagrees with those points of view - as is his right.

Your second paragraph describes why I believe in dialogue, outreach, and education to build a political majority.

Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2012, 06:36:12 PM
He opposed to birth control, not only for unmarried people but even for married people.  He's weird. (And that's not even considering the dead baby story, or the fact that his wife used to date the OB/GNY who delivered her (Very Creepy).

He's a practicing Catholic.  Birth control is frowned upon by the Catholic Church.  Are the "fruitful" Kennedys "weird" too?

The child was premature, born at 20 weeks gestation (in 1996), and survived just 2 hours.  I am sure the Santorum family loved that child, and its loss was as devastating as losing any other child.  Santorum believes in the natural law right to life.

Birth control is frowned upon by the Catholic Church.

Yeah, but he's running for President of the United States, not Pope.  His personal religious superstitions should not be enshrined into law.  And any quick peek into a Catholic Church will tell you that American Catholics don't really follow that prohibition anymore - much less want to see it extended to cover everyone else.

And have you ever heard of anyone else bringing a dead premature baby home for the night?  I spend 12 years in Catholic School, we were never taught that.

Quote from: tekla on January 21, 2012, 11:36:43 AM
Yeah, but he's running for President of the United States, not Pope.

This.

I'm pro-life. I just don't see threatening people with violence as an effective way to reduce abortions. I'd like to see all the pro-lifers working to expand options for pregnant women so they don't feel under so much pressure to make a difficult choice. I think it's also rather hypocritical that a lot of them are also primarily responsible for the feelings of guilt that many women feel for getting pregnant out of wedlock. If they really want to reduce abortions, they'll lighten up on the guilt trips.

Quote from: tekla on January 21, 2012, 11:36:43 AM
Birth control is frowned upon by the Catholic Church.

Yeah, but he's running for President of the United States, not Pope.  His personal religious superstitions should not be enshrined into law.  And any quick peek into a Catholic Church will tell you that some American Catholics don't really follow that prohibition anymore - much less want to see it extended to cover everyone else.

And have you ever heard of anyone else bringing a dead premature baby home for the night?  I spend 12 years in Catholic School, we were never taught that.

Not personally, but I have been to wakes held in the home of the deceased.  Except for the age of the decedent, I don't see much difference.  I am sure the Santorums felt they lost a family member, and who am I to criticize the way they grieve?