politicartoons | Santorum

Very hateful. Where is the outrage of fair people?

I suppose there's not a lot of tolerance for intolerance.

So, you demand tolerance, which you don't have. Then, how you can demand tolerance, while you don't have one?

It's kind of like how killing is always bad, except in self-defense.

Actually, if the comparison was true, it would be rather on the side of the traditionalists.

If I understand what you are saying, nobody is telling the traditionalist to marry someone of the same sex.

Right, but they are telling traditionalists not to think that same sex relations are wrong - "accept it".

To accept that gays should be able to enjoy the same rights that they have enjoyed, just as they have had to accept that blacks can now vote and eat in their restaurants, and so on. I suppose they can go on thinking it's wrong, or a sin, but we're just saying that they should not deny others their rights. It's like abortion. People can believe that abortions are wrong, and they can adhere to that belief in their behavior (by not getting an abortion themselves), but they should not be trying to deny other people from exercising their personal right to have an abortion.

They have the same rights-they can marry anybody of opposite sex. Race issues are totally irrelevant here, more relevant would be "why can't I marry myself".
Did Santorum ever tried to block gays from entering a restaurant? I don't think so. Why is this hatred a of the man?

People just want to be accepted. We don't want to be told that we are inferior or a malfunction. It's the 21st century. Surely, it is about time.

Ok, but what it has to do with marriage?

People want to enjoy a committed love relationship, and marriage is our highest form of doing that, and it is now seen even by our laws that denying that to gays is like denying blacks the right to vote. In another 20 years, more conservatives will probably come to accept this, just as they have gradually come around to accepting civil rights for blacks.

They have the same rights-they can marry anybody of opposite sex.

And of the SAME sex, now.

Again, do not bring up race - it is not even close. But let's get back to initial point: just because somebody is against same sex marriage, doesn't mean he should be vilified. The left is the most intolerant group of people.

Again, do not bring up race - it is not even close. But the comparison is. Blacks were denied rights afforded to white people because of the color of their skin. Gays were denied rights afforded to straight people because of their sexuality. In both cases, a group of people were discriminated against for simply being who they are.

You misunderstand the definition of tolerance.

People are welcome to believe whatever they want. I tolerate their beliefs. I expect the same courtesy in return.

They are not welcome to take action that infringes on others' rights to equal protection under the law. By taking such public action, they are tacitly agreeing that their action be open to public scrutiny, commentary, and criticism. Also, as their actions are harming others, I have no duty to tolerate them.

The use of "people who ask for tolerance are really intolerant themselves" is almost always a (tired) attempt to deflect attention away from actual issues that need to be addressed. It plays well to folks who don't prefer to actually think about anything beyond what the "lizard" part of their brains responds to, but it's an oversimplification and intentional misrepresentation of what the "tolerant" are actually saying and/or doing.

Also: I don't like the cartoon. Portraying Santorum as a chimp is needlessly insulting and does nothing to further the dialogue regarding his policies or positions.

NOBODY is behaving as the thought police.

NOBODY cares if Kim Davis, in her heart of hearts, accepts gay marriage as wrong or right.

What we DO CARE about is if Kim Davis is going to do her duty as a CIVIL SERVANT.

I can think religion is dumb. I cannot outlaw your religion.

Kim Davis is using her power, to enforce HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, upon people who DO NOT SHARE HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

Again, I don't care if she accepts it. I care if she does her fucking job.

You should be made aware that THE VERY SAME ARGUMENTS against gay marriage were used against inter-racial marriage decades ago.

THE EXACT SAME.

So you need to learn some history before you open your mouth and look quite unlearned.

Portraying Santorum as a chimp is needlessly insulting and does nothing to further the dialogue regarding his policies or positions.

That's exactly my point.

With the same token you can say - felons are denied right to walk around freely, right afforded to non-felons just because they didn't commit any crimes; group of people were discriminated against for simply being who they are.

If you had taken you meds, you might be able to understand that same arguments work differently in different situations.

Do you see how you were a little rude to Enders with that "meds" comment? I imagine you did that because he was rude to you with his "unlearned" comment. You see, that's what I think the cartoonist is doing: Santorum was rude with his anti-gay comment, and, in return, the cartoonist was rude with his chimp cartoon.

As far as I know, Santorum never was rude to anybody. He only expressed his believe that this lifestyle is wrong. I think, you're stretching a bit here.

He went beyond lifestyle. If his comments remained at lifestyle, that would be FINE

He went beyond lifestyle. HE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE LAW

The Law, DOES NOT CARE, that you or Santorum think gays are "icky" or "unnatural" that's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

No, you can't. Felons are in jail because of their actions, not because of who they are. That comparison makes no sense.

Criminals commit crimes because who they are. Ever heard of kleptomania? You can't have it both ways-people have a free will, or they don't.

So, before the Obama singlehandedly dumped DMA, whoever was talking about gay marriage would be subject to persecution. The law DOESN'T CARE that you think that gays are the same, that's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Which means I can portray you as a chimp, no offense to either.

It still doesn't make sense as an argument here. First of all, not all criminals have a biological predetermination to commit crime. However, for the sake of this argument, let's only consider those who do (such as kleptomaniacs). Stealing, assaulting, raping, murdering, etc., are all crimes because they have a severe negative impact on a secondary party (the victims of said crimes), and so there are justifiable repercussions for their actions.

Now, to get back to your original point regarding race vs. same sex marriage. There is no justifiable reason to deny someone equal rights based on their skin color or sexual orientation. Those who are currently rambling against same sex marriage have no objective legal grounds to do so, only subjective personal convictions (ranging from religious beliefs all they way down to good old fashioned bigotry). This is incredibly similar to the opposition black people faced (and, to a degree, still do face) when they were fighting for equal rights (though in that case, the opposition was less rooted in religion and more in racism/stupidity).

If I am walking down the street and someone mugs me and steals my wallet, I would want that person to face consequences because their choice affected me. If I walk down the street and pass by a wedding where two men are getting married, this literally has no effect whatsoever to my life. That's the difference, and that's why your example doesn't work.

Santorum

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject