Rick Santorum Says Marriage is Beer, Marriage is a Napkin, Marriage is Water

And… this thing is running for president?!

funny how people disrespect reality by using words that mean the opposite of what the intended meaning is, such as moral over wrong which is two very different things XD looks like he cant differentiate between the two!

Where is he speaking, Costco? I swear I saw a tuxedo for sale behind some potato’s. C’mon dude, if the election is a year away and you’re still trying to talk over the Vitamix lady you’re in more trouble than just creating paper towel analogies. You know what else paper towels are good for Rick? Cleaning up old santorum.

What Rick Santorum is saying.

(This has some
length to it so I hope it all gets through. 
It is two and a quarter pages single spaced with a 12 point font.)

The first thing he says
is basically, “I love the sinner but I hate the sin.”  We have all heard this before so there is no
reason to go over this very unchristian statement again.

The part about twenty
people or five people marrying is just a slippery slope argument without first
saying if you allow two men or two women to marry then you will have allow
twenty people to marry or a father and daughter to marry.  We have heard this before with pedophilia, incest
and bestiality being the final conclusion so I will not go into how wrong this
argument had become; it is also as Lawrence O’Donnell pointed out a way to
attack his Mormon opponents in the presidential campaign.

In the part about the
napkin he is making a metaphysical argument that is not clear unless you can
hear it and recognize it’s as it is being made. 
He says a (paper – here he did not say paper but he should have) napkin
can also be called a paper towel but that does not change the fact it is a napkin.  The same argument can be made this way purple
is the combining of two colors red and blue (the napkin) but if you change one
part of purple.  Let’s say replace blue
with yellow you change it into a paper towel because a paper towel is red and
yellow which makes the color orange.

This is all a metaphysical
argument then he does a logic move to marriage by saying marriage is the same
way the napkin is equal to opposite sex marriage (red and blue only to make
purple) and if you redefine marriage to include the same sex marriage of two
men or two women (red and yellow to make orange) you change marriage into
something different.   Just like
replacing yellow with blue in the color combination of red and blue argument
turns purple into orange.

He then goes on to say even
though they sound the same and look the same (paper) napkin and paper towel
they are not the same because you altered the fundamental nature of the object
being examined.

Here is where is argument
is wrong however he is basing his argument on Natural Law an idea first wrote
about by Saint Thomas Aquinas.  (Note for
the record – Rick “frothy mix” Santorum is a Roman Catholic and from his
biography has been one all his life and the Roman Catholic denomination loves Saint
Thomas Aquinas.  So I am afraid he has
been brain washed into thinking the Roman Catholic way of thinking is the only
valid way of thinking.  Because we all
know the CIA and the former KGB are little children playing at the game of
brain washing compared to the Roman Catholic denomination.  Let’s just say Rick “frothy mix” Santorum knows
the inside of the metaphorical Maytag washer and dryer very well.   As the
saying goes, “You can take the fag out of the Roman Catholic denomination but
you can’t take the Roman Catholic denomination out of the fag.”  Trust me I know more than a few fags that
have left the Roman Catholic denomination but then went on to try to rebuild a
gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, women for priests, marriage for priests,
etc. mini version of the Roman Catholic denomination down to the smallest
detail.)  Now I have to admit as a good
Anglo Catholic I have not studied Natural Law (and if someone else knows more
about Natural Law correct this part) that much but from what arguments I gather
it means that God has established his law on the earth and in Roman Catholic
terms it takes the form of Natural Law. 
So anyone that goes against what the individual (I say individual
because I can study Natural Law and come to an understanding of what Natural
Law is and is not and someone else can study Natural Law and come up with a
different understanding of what Natural Law is and is not and then we can argue
about who is right) understands to be Natural Law is going against God’s law
and going against God’s law is always SIN. 
So if nature tells us it is normal (whatever normal is)for a male and a
female procreating (red and blue makes purple) any other arrangement is going
against nature such as two men or two women (red and yellow makes orange) and
any such arraignments is SIN.

Because he is Roman Catholic
and starts with Natural Law as a premise for his argument he misses the fact
not everyone is Roman Catholic and there are others especially in the Anglican
tradition that follows the teachings of Saint Jean Calvin de Genève who believe
marriage is a sacramental rite of the Church (by Church I mean the true Catholic
Church as defined by Saint Augustine of Hippo “all of the faithful in all times
in all places”) given by God to all of his children (I know this is redundant but
there is still a big part of America that still needs to hear it.  All of God’s Children includes the GLBT
community) his argument goes wrong from the beginning and should be recognized
as a bad argument from the beginning and if he wants to make a bad argument
just say, “Your argument is flawed and I do not believe what you are saying on
this issue and here is why (then give your reasons why they are wrong hopefully
in a good logical argument.” (Lawrence O’Donnell does this from a political
position in the third clip and I think he is good from his perspective as a
political commentator.)

The final part of his
talk is just Roman Catholic’s, Mormon’s and Fundamentalist’s (the

Church as they believe it to be) fears
of the government (the State) forcing them to recognize same sex marriage which
is hypocritical on their part because they have no problem using the force of
the State to control the lives of same sex couples to live by their religious
teachings (all of the states that have constitutional amendments banning same
sex marriage – ex. Ohio, Texas, Tennessee etc. -) and if they could they would
ban abortions for women if it were not for Roe v. Wade.  This is because for now they have the higher
ground in society and do not want to share the marriage privileges they enjoy
with same sex couples.   Doing so would
demean the superior status in society they have come to expect.

Now for why I wrote this especially given a
recent Infomatic about people who respond to anything and everything they see
on the internet.  (By the way I am
getting out al level two – meaning I have something to say and I will say it
and stop at that.) If we in the GLBT community do not know what our opponents
are saying we CAN NOT respond with valid arguments of our own and we are left
with the less than intellectually valid and snarky (which is sometimes necessary)argument
of, “Again, shut up, shut up, shut up.”  Such
an argument does not always help but it does feel good to tell people like Rick
“frothy mix” Santorum to, “Again, shut up, shut up, shut up.”