I'm tolerant of people choosing to take those beliefs to heart within their own familes and in their own life choices, but it's unamerican to force them on private couples.
There's a lot at stake here, and we should think about what ought to be done to help families succeed.
Why don't religious conservatives focus on the more concrete threats to our social structure, such as gay marriage and adoption? I may be unpopular with my gay friends for suggesting this, but it's in their interest.
The government should stay out of the business of moderating people's consensual sex lives. But since "same sex" marriages and gay adoptions can lead to immigration and government benefits oddities, they should be out of the question. There should be no government recognition of any relationship except for the traditional male/female one, regardless of fertility. Many slippery slopes would be avoided, and with careful logic, all but the most radical of gays and lesbians wouldn't be offended. Free enterprise could do whatever it wanted, for example.
Santorum would do well to support people's freedom to choose their own lifestyle, while standing strong against the things really threatening our national interest in supporting traditional families and fair immigration limits. You don't have to look far to find gay couples complaining that they can't stay together because one of the pair is from a foreign country! And while I have no objection to letting a single parent adopt children, it's not in the state's interest to allow gay couples to do so. They should approach their adoption boards as individuals, and then be measured against happily married traditional couples for their potential as adoptive parents.
Santorum left the planet with his comments. But when he comes back to earth, there will be things he can do that would help this country while recognizing that a segment of the population isn't "traditional."
I'm sure Santorum is a good senator (I used to live in Pennsylvania) and he continues to deserve his constituent's support. On the other hand, I think he should keep his mind out of the gutter and focus on building a solid basis for healthy, traditional families instead.
Um, in case you hadn't noticed, adultery IS illegal in many states. Santorum's points were that you have to treat all "private" sexual matters the same. What's wrong with that?
Well, you are not exactly correct on your assessment of what he said. If we are going to take him to task for what he said, it should be done accurately. It appears to me that he is equating sodomy with bigamy and polygamy, not with adultery as you state.
big·a·my n. The criminal offense of marrying one person while still legally married to another.
po·lyg·a·my n. The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time.
Your argument is not supported by what Santorum actually said and the definitions above. Of course you are not suggesting that bigamy and polygamy should be legal?
As for consensual sex between two adults of the same sex, it is a matter of drawing a line. Prostitution, should it be illegal? Homosexuality, should it be illegal? On the later, we have crossed a societal line. Homosexuality – its practice, not just about it - is taught in schools.
On adultry, we crossed the line a long time ago and on prostitution, one state, Nevada, crossed it quite some time ago.
That said, I understand what you are trying to say, that homosexuality between two consenting adults should not be illegal. I’m inclined to agree with you.
Santorum's position seems to be that homosexuality should be illegal and on that I would disagree with him. We already crossed that line and I don't see as how we can, or should go back.
Santorum is not "over the top" to have said it though. Roughly half the country will agree with him.
Adultery IS illegal in many states.
Adulterers are not "private couples". They are people breaking a contract and sacred bond that is the basis of civilization. They should be punished.
Why don't religious conservatives focus on the more concrete threats to our social structure, such as gay marriage and adoption? I may be unpopular with my gay friends for suggesting this, but it's in their interest.
If sodomite conduct was still punished by penal sanctions like it should be, we wouldn't be having debates about fag adoption and fag marriages.
The government should stay out of the business of moderating people's consensual sex lives.
No, the stability and health of society requires it to get involved. This is why we have laws criminalizing statutory rape, prostitution, adultery, and sodomy. These laws promote healthy families and healthy people. There would not be a plague of AIDS, gonorhea, HPV, syphillis, herpes, genital warts and lice, etc. if it were not for people comitting these crimes.
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.
Your boundless tolerance overwhelms me.
Santorum also infers that beastiality, canabalism, slavery and all those other issues that opposition to is indefensible "in anything but religious, absolutist terms."
The only problem is that your open-mindedness has already been spread far and wide over the past few decades and polluted our society with all kinds of immorality and depravity. I really think there's nothing more for you to do in this area.
We intolerant religious zealots need to stand up and defend Senator Santorum however, its just part of that irrational insanity that grips us every now and then.
I have a different read on this. You imply that Santorum is attempting to regulate the bedroom. I see a very different agenda. Santorum is making a logical point and thinking several moves out in the culture war. The left is systematically driving toward legal recognition of alternative sexual practices as the equivalent of marriage. Santorum's point is that if you follow the logic of sanctioning (or perhaps even promoting) the gay lifestyle as an equivalent legal alternative to marriage, it is really difficult to draw the line at just monogomous gay relationships. For example: is a relationship between two consenting adults more legal than one among three? Why?
Conservatives believe in absolute standards and recognize that once you move off those standards you find yourself on a slippery slope where it becomes increasingly difficult to legitimately draw a new line at an intermediate point, because any intermediate point will ultimately be found to be arbitrary.
So exactly how are 200+ year old State anti-sodomy laws UN-AMERICAN? Or did you mean to say UNFRENCH?