Replies

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.

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?

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.

Thanks for posting. someone with the nuance between the extremists on either side. At least imho.

but i do think these laws against adultery and homosexuality are pretty as useful as bumps on a log in this day and age. Here in the supposed anti-sodomy Texas, we have a Lesbian *sherriff* - elected - who is raising some adopted 'daughter' with her, um, 'wife'? Exactly how is such laws enforcing traditional morality relevent anymore? these are museum-piece laws with little purpose except to remind us of bygone moral standards.

so I would go with: (1) Santorum is right in his comments in terms of legal matters at hand. (2) These matters are not Consitutional matters. (3) localities and states should not have laws outlawing consensual non-commercial sexual behavior between adults, as these are matters for adults to decide for themselves. and (3b) that shouldnt preclude some regulation to potect families, children in divorces, adoption by appropriate family types, etc, to wit - just because adultery isnt a crime, that doesnt mean it shouldnt be ignored in divorce settlements etc. If the homosexual activists are serious that this is just a 'private' matter, then they wont be pushing for adoption by lesbians and gays, which certainly is no longer a private matter, but a matter of how to raise children.