Frothy Santorum Just Doesn't Get It

Here we go again, after saying that he says little about gay marriage, Frothy had a combative exchange with students, a quite childish one if I may add. But the way he reacted was not just the problem, but his Socratic answer of dumbness was quite expected from this smelly Frothy mix.

Read more...

But then all would be good if Frothy knew what type of questions to ask. He kept alluding to polygamy, asking that if anybody can chose to marry who they want then why not allow more than two people to get married. This is another tried and tired argument of the extremists who their underlying reason to ban gay marriage is of course animus against homosexuality. The reason why we do not allow polygamy is because we have animus against adulterers, and the same is true for those who want to marry animals and children. So of course Frothy would place us gays in the same category as incest, animal and child rapists because after all he and his ilk have is animus against gays and their 'lifestyle.'

But Frothy's argument cannot be taken at all seriously. For the most part polygamy is not allowed for heterosexuals nor homosexuals. That means that there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender, both of which are predisposed and cannot be chosen, while being a polygamist is most likely a chosen lifestyle, most of it based on religious beliefs. 

In actuality polygamists can marry at least one of their partners while homosexuals cannot marry anybody of their choosing. Polygamists can at least enjoy the benefits of marriage with at least one of his partners. And then of course the polygamist can then divorce and then marry his other concubines and enjoy that marriage, then he can go down the line of brides marrying them one by one. Heck he can even start again from the beginning of the line and begin the marriage cycle again. Polygamists can marry and enjoy the fruits and benefits of marriage WITH a partner of his choosing from his circle of concubines while a gay man cannot with anybody. And you tell me if that's fair.

So this argument is quite at best amusing but most likely composed of the same material as the composer who puts it together.

Tweet