PA POLITICS 27 RE IT DIDN T TAKE SANTORUM LONG
From: The Expatriate (look@no-spam)
Subject: Re: It didn't take Santorum long...
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:14:59 -0400


In article <dommanno-21136A.23182605072003@no-spam>,
"D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:

> In article <look-7E3EFE.12061005072003@no-spam>,
> The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> > > Those responsible for overturning the sodomy laws are opening the door > > to legalized incest.
> > Let's say for argument's sake that that happens. As long as the > participants are consenting adults, what's the problem?

Do you really want me to explain "the problem" with a society that allows marriage between siblings, or parent and child?

Too bad your question wasn't published in a forum where a significant number of people will actually read it. It shows your side's true colors, and would have done much to silence this mindless, knee-jerk criticism of Santorum.







From: "D.F. Manno" (dommanno@no-spam)
Subject: Re: It didn't take Santorum long...
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:09:04 -0400

In article <look-C305E5.03074007072003@no-spam>,
The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:

> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> > The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> > > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Those responsible for overturning the sodomy laws are opening the > > > > > door to legalized incest.
> > > > > > > > Let's say for argument's sake that that happens. As long as the > > > > participants are consenting adults, what's the problem?
> > > > > > Do you really want me to explain "the problem" with a society that > > > allows marriage between siblings, or parent and child?
> > > > Yes, I do. That's why I asked. I want to see if you have an argument > > that doesn't boil down to "God says it's wrong."
> > How about this: It's sick and gross.

IOW, you don't have an argument.

> If this isn't an adequate enough justification, then you and your > liberal pals are welcome to go on the record as disputing that position, > or rationalizing incest as a "personal choice" or some such garbage.
> > Go ahead. I dare you.

I asked you first.

"Sick and gross" is not a position, it's an emotional reaction. It's not sufficient reason to make something illegal. You'll have to do better than that.

> That you ask "for argument's sake" what's wrong with sibling marriage is > blatantly ludicrious. That you could ask what's wrong with sibling > marriage, "for argument's sake" or no, isn't putting me on the spot. > It's making you and your position look ridiculous.

1) First you were talking about "legalized incest," then you changed the subject to incestuous marriages. They're two different topics, and you haven't made a case aginst either.

2) I haven't expressed my opinion on the subject yet. You know nothing about my position, so you have no grounds to call it ridiculous.
-- D.F. Manno dommanno@no-spam "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)


From: The Expatriate (look@no-spam)
Subject: Re: It didn't take Santorum long...
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:07:18 -0400

In article <srhi-112F0B.07511316072003@no-spam>,
Me <srhi@no-spam> wrote:

> In article <3F0FDF54.9F475075@no-spam>,
> Tiger <Lana_sands@no-spam> wrote:
> > > "D.F. Manno" wrote:
> > > > > In article <look-8BBF72.22520711072003@no-spam>,
> > > The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't believe _anything_ the anti-abortion nuts have to say on the > > > > > subject. They lie.
> > > >
> > > > So _that's_ how you rationalize your support of infanticide.
> > >
> > > See, that the first lie. I don't support infanticide, because the > > > fetus is not an infant.
> > > --
> > > D.F. Manno > > > dommanno@no-spam > > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > > > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
> > > > > > > > > > > > So what is a fetus?? Jello with eyes?
> > A fetus is a fetus, just like a heart is a heart, a kidney is a kidney, > and so on. A fetus is a mass of cells that depends on its host body for > its excistence, just like any other organ in the body. This is basic > human anatomy. No mystery there, accept for people who try to traffic in > fantasy reasoning rather than fact.

Another basic fact of human anatomy is that hearts and kidneys will always be hearts and kidneys. Fetuses, OTOH, are always young human beings.

It doesn't matter if, say, you die as an adult in a car accident, or if an abortionist hacks you up from within your mother's body. That's one less life. You're still dead. No mystery there, except for pro-abortionists who refuse to acknowledge the awful truth of what they're advocating.