SANTORUM UNDER FIRE----MUST HELP HIM

Chris Tremoglie

[Trace21230]

"I agree...I think it was a politically stupid thing to say, and believe he will apologize."

He most certainly should apologize. Of course, if he does that, then the far-right will accuse him of being "soft" and a "sell-out."

[See the million+ AWB threads for proof.)

Reprehensible comment. Apology should be issued immediately. Why do our leaders consistently provide ammo for the left? It's frustrating.

Trace

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Just where else does he want to look inside my house beside the bedroom? Has he forgotten the 9th Amendment? I have a right to privacy and a right to be left alone, free of government interference in my life as long as I do not violate the rights of others.

The 9th Amendment does not guarantee a right to sodomy or adultery. Both crimes were very strictly punished by all the states at the time of the adoption of the amendment.

The notion that you are free to do what you will so long as you don't violate the rights of others is fatuous. Society has always placed restrictions in this area regarding bigamy, adultery, polygamy and polandry, prostitution, staturoy rape, homosexual conduct, bestiality, and similar.

Don't get me wrong. I do think that homosexuality is an abomination in God's eye. I just don't like the measures that the government would have to take to enforce laws against it.

The enforcement of the laws would not be through the government snooping in your bedroom, but from sworn complaints by people who are victimzed by these acts, or if the police would observe somebody performing these acts in public (such as homoexuals at rest stops and public bathrooms).

We need to move beyond the childish idiocy that sees a government agent peeking in your bedroom at night to ensure you aren't comitting adultery. In the real world, it will be your spouse, not the government, who swears out a criminal complaint against you.

[Remole]

It is my guess that the senator is talking about the presumed right to privacy in the area of sexual activity. And it is his point that sexual activity is by its very nature a matter that affects public order. Hence, society has the right and the duty to regulate it in some way--whether by specific edicts or by a vague exhortations or by some methods in-between. His point is a matter of principle: if the US Supreme Court affirms that homosexual sexual activity is protected by the privacy "right" found in Court decisions over the past 45 years, then it is saying that all sexual activity is "private" and outside of any social regulation.

[Trace21230]

If you think Santorum's comment was "a dumb thing to say," just wait and see what the reactionary homophobes post on this thread.

Santorum will look like the purple tele-tubby.

Trace

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"A couple of butt pirates going at it," to use ABC's term, is strictly a consensual act that violates nobody else's rights.

Not true. Speaking strictly on a socio-political plain, allowing homosexual sex to be legal allows its consequences, rampant venereal diseases, to spread through society and cause society financial burdens and social harms. The AIDS pandemic is a perfect case in point. We've been spending BILLIONS each year to cure a disease which is purely voluntary in its infections. Current expenditures are up about $30 per man, woman, and child in the US. We spend BILLIONS on free health clinics, condom give-aways, needle-programs, and similar to counter the spread of this voluntarily acquired disease.

You cannot maintain with a straight face that the Public Health of society would not be better served by criminalizing and driving this plague underground. Nor can you seriously maintain that a free society will ever stand by and not attempt to stop the spread of incurable deadly diseases within its midst.

[Political Junkie Too]

Whatever Santorum may have said, this is another example of Republicans being held to a different standard for their speech than are Democrats. How many Democrats in the past few years have said indefensible things that have fallen on deaf ears, while Republican comments are twisted and turned into anything that supports an agenda that demonizes with the purpose of weakening the Republican party?

-PJ

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I'll make sure to remember you are with the "pro-adultery" crowd.

[sinkspur]

His point is a matter of principle: if the US Supreme Court affirms that homosexual sexual activity is protected by the privacy "right" found in Court decisions over the past 45 years, then it is saying that all sexual activity is "private" and outside of any social regulation.

Is fornication between consenting unmarried heterosexual adults protected? If it is, your argument is shaky. If not, why not?

[sinkspur]

I'll make sure to remember you are with the "pro-adultery" crowd.

See #48, Abdullah.

[sinkspur]

Are you one of those Catholic monarchists who favors a state religion?

[Remole]

I am not making an argument; I am just trying to clarify the point that the Senator is making. And to speak to your hypothetical situation: the principle is still valid, namely, that our culture and US Supreme Court decisions over the past 45 years or so have made people believe that sexual activity is simply private, on the order of blowing one's nose. Santorum attempted to show the foolishness of that development. He is not the only one to do so, but the reporting of his opinion is sure to draw attention to him.

By the way, to speak to your hypothetical situation: I am not sure that such behavior IS "Protected": I assume it is a matter of local statute. What you are wondering, I guess, is whether I think that it SHOULD be "protected." And my answer is no. From the perspective of public order, no society should completely de-criminalize fornication between consenting unmarried heterosexual adults. The consequence of wholesale license is children born outside of the bonds of marriage, and we see the sad effects of that all over the place.

[sinkspur]

From the perspective of public order, no society should completely de-criminalize fornication between consenting unmarried heterosexual adults.

How would you propose to regulate this? Would you have jealous girlfriends reporting ex-boyfriends to the cops?

Should police patrol the halls of college dormitories?

I'm certainly not a libertarian, but you realize this is the same kind of thing the Islamist states do.

The consequence of wholesale license is children born outside of the bonds of marriage, and we see the sad effects of that all over the place.

So,should I not have a gun because I "might" kill somebody with it?

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Why defend Santorum for what he said? His comments were over the top. He infers that adultry should be illegal. I respect his opinions here, but they're not defensible in anything but religious, absolutist terms.

According to the laws passed down from God to Moses, adultery is illegal. As far as defending Senator Santorum's views, I don't think he's called on others to do so. And finally, you mix the words religion and absolutism as though they were synonymous. Personally, I have no use for either, but when you referred to absolutism, perhaps you were thinking of the philosophical term, absolute?

Ironically, many who think the same way you do would have been appalled at the strong Judeo-Christian views championed by this nation's founding fathers.

If the proponents of homosexuality are successful in legitimizing their behavior in the minds of the citizenry, then I believe we will live to witness the final death throes of our great republic.

[Badray]

Both of your comments deserve more time and attention than I can properly give them right now. I will reply to you both later. Thank you.

[G Larry]

What part of the gay lifestyle doesn't involve bigamy, polygamy, & adultery?

[jimt]

Nobody's freedom has been violated unless you think freedom includes fredom to sin.

"Thou shalt honor the Sabbath Day and keep it holy."

Shall we bring back the Blue Laws and start jailing people for shopping on Sundays? Or Saturdays? Or Fridays? Maybe force business closures on all three days, as Christians, Jews and Muslims each call them variously the Sabbath?

Freedom includes ALL actions that don't violate someone else's rights. And having me conform to your religious beliefs is NOT one of your rights. As Physicist pointed out, two adult rump rangers in the provacy of their homes are not violating anybody's rights.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

See #48, Abdullah.

LOL

[Remole]

Please, notice how I expressed the issue: "no society should completely de-criminalize": I hope you notice that I left it at that. I expressed the issue as a negative: no society should de-criminalize it. That means that, the law having also a rhetorical effect, some statute against fornication is preferable to NO statute against fornication. HOW that statute would be crafted, under what circumstances a society could carry out "search and seizure" etc etc, is a matter of another thread.

Now, as to consequences. True, as long as your pistol is in its holster, you are not shooting up the neighborhood. The rhetorical, exhortative effect of a law against fornication may be positive in a similar way.

[jimt]

provacy = privacy

[sinkspur]

The rhetorical, exhortative effect of a law against fornication may be positive in a similar way.

Laws should not be on the books for "rhetorical, exhortative" effects. I have a Church for that.

Keep the finger-wagging out of the legislative process; nobody, but nobody, pays attention to it anyway.

That means that, the law having also a rhetorical effect, some statute against fornication is preferable to NO statute against fornication. HOW that statute would be crafted, under what circumstances a society could carry out "search and seizure" etc etc, is a matter of another thread.

Of course it does because you don't want to be laughed off of this thread! Where would this nonsense stop?

Should we have "exhortative statutes" forbidding people from getting drunk in their own homes?