In Defence of Sen. Rick Santorum - Criticism of Gay Sex Acts is Not Equal to Racism

myself

[AveMaria]

If the Moderator will permit me, I want to post this message to express my concerns over the hysterical attacks on Sen. Rick Santorum, by the organized gay lobby.

I am new here, and I just registered, after having been a lurker for 3 weeks. I am from Philadelphia, and my representatives in the Senate are Arlen Spector and Rick Santorum. I am a political independent, who is fiscally liberal but conservative on social issues (I admire FDR, Truman, and LBJ). I have strong disagreements with Sen. Santorum's political philosophy mostly over issues concerning the poor and underprivileged in Philadelphia, and because I am from the Social Justice tradition of the Catholic Church, while he is more of a Calvinized Catholic on economic and social justice issues. But I take the teachings of the Church on traditional morality and family, very seriously. And part of those teachings obligate me to defend Santorum, a man I disagree with vigorously on economic issues, if I feel that he is being attacked unfairly. Here are some of the myths I want to challenge, as a way to help those who want to defend Santorum among progressive circles:

MYTH #1: The Constitution guarantees a right to Privacy.

The reality is that there is no right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution. There are many things you could do within the privacy of your own home that are illegal. It is illegal to use drugs in your own home, even if you may be using marijuana you cultivated as a potted plant at home, and did not buy from a dealer. And as Sen. Santorum pointed out so eloquently, polygamy, bigamy and Incest are illegal, even when practiced by consenting adults within the confines of their own home. What Sen. Santorum was trying to say is that - if a state has absolutely no right to regulate homosexual sodomy on privacy grounds, then on what legal basis would the state challenge a man living with three women, or a father having an affair with his 21 year old daughter?

MYTH #2: Sen. Santorum's statement challenged those strongly committed to diversity and multi-culturalism.

On the contrary. Most of the world's cultures and major religions do not agree on much. But one thing they all agree on, is that homosexual acts (not people) are sinful, repugnant, disgusting, sick, nauseating, and perverse. That is true if you are a traditionalist Catholic, a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, a conservative Protestant, an Orthodox Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a traditionalist Buddhist, a Sikh, etc. Even the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of the Tibetan Muslims, who has ties to Hollywood elites, is on record as having described homosexuality as a sin. I was amazed to discover that even the peace-loving and Pacifist Bahais, oppose gay sex acts. What more multi-culturalism can you ask for?

MYTH #3: Criticism of homosexual Acts is the same as racism.

So many people have suffered from the pain of racism in the past, and there are many racial minorities who suffer today in terms of housing discrimination, discrimination in department stores, restaurant tables, and other humiliations. Too often in the past, the Christian Church failed to forcefully condemn racial bigotry as a sin. As a way to compensate for such glaring injustice, many well meaning white liberal Christians who care about social justice issues as much as I do, are too willing to endorse deviant acts as "okay", as a way to prove to themselves that they are not bigots.

But they fail to realize the fact that sodomy is BEHAVIORAL ACT, and not an unchangeable physiological feature like skin color. The pain of racism is very real, because people cannot change their skin color. But men can will themselves not to commit acts of sodomy, by keeping their pants zipped up. Racial minorities understand this very clearly, and that is why a majority of blacks and hispanics in California supported the recent ballot proposition defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

MYTH #4: Texas sodomy laws punish people for who they are, not what they do, because gays are born that way.

Let us assume that homosexuality is partly genetic. If you go to any state with sodomy laws, and declare publicly that your orientation is homosexual, you will not be arrested. But if the state learns that you dropped your pants and "did it" with someone of the same gender, that constitutes a sex act in violation of the sodomy laws. You are not being punished for your self-declared orientation. You are being punished for specific sex acts. Get it?

Another example. My family has a long history of alcoholism, and I believe that alcoholism is genetic and runs in families. But, although I am genetically inclined toward alcoholism, I do not fear being arrested on a DUI, simply because of my Irish alcoholic genes. In order to be arrested, I actually have to go to a pub, fill my gut with alcohol, and then drive recklessly on the freeway. But if I can keep my "alcohol genes" under control, then so can a person with a "gay" orientation.

[Gee Wally]

Alright, so here is the ordering of priorities in your mind as I see it: Homosexual intercourse > other more pressing matters > masturbation. Am I right?

Thank you for letting me know what my priorities are, but I have no idea what you're talking about here. Is this supposed to pass for intelligent discourse? Let me state this plainly. My "priority" is fidelity to the Constitution of the United States. I am 100% opposed to judicial legislation by the Supreme Court in areas reserved to the states. If you want a constitutionally protected right to be a wanker, to copulate with sheep, to shove animate and inanimate objects into every orifice in your "partner's" body, get an amendment to the Constitution. Don't back-door it, no pun intended, into a "constitutional" right by contorting the written Constitution. In today's debauched society, you might even be able to get 3/4 of the states to go for such an amendment.

That being said, I have not opined how I, as a state legislator, would vote if one of these measures came before me. And I don't intend to. The discussion pro and con for these laws is a proper matter for legislative debate. But to my knowledge, it is a purely hypothetical at this point in time. I'm not aware of any states where anti-sodomy laws, or anti-masturbation laws are pending before the legislature. Of course, Texas might be taking a look at its law (if the Supreme Court will let them).

[Buckeye Bomber]

Just because one law is unconstitutional and still upheld doesn't mean all unconstitutional laws should be upheld.

On another note, women could get pregnant to avoid the draft. All of my female friends have said that they would if females were going to be drafted. Horrible, but probably a somewhat common attitude

[Buckeye Bomber]

Alright, I understand your point of view, but continue to disagree with it. I believe privacy is a right to which we are entitled. The 9th amendment seems to be a good place from which it ought to come. But I suppose this is a matter to be decided in the courts. One man's judicial activism is another's striking down an unconstitutional law.

But the Texas law should be struck down because it clearly violates the 14th amendment.

[AveMaria]

[....Muslim Americans and Orthodox Jews would say that eating pork is a disgusting abominable sin....]

[...Should we ban pork because some people find the eating of it sinful?....]

To help answer that question, let me first explain a ballot proposition that was approved in California recently. For years, horse owners in the state of California had been slaughtering their horses and selling the meat in France, Italy, Belgium, and elsewhere, where horse flesh is considered a high-priced delicacy.

But the voters in California approved a ballot initiative known as proposition 6, that outlawed the slaughter of horses for food. The law passed because Americans have a different value system from the sophisticated Europeans and their exotic dishes. For more read this: http://members.tripod.com/~animom/horses.html

I assume that, from that law, people do not have a constitutional right to eat any animal they want. Koreans certainly can be arrested if they were to eat dog meat in the US, which is not illegal in their country.

I suppose that, if Muslims and observant Jews ever became a majority in the US, there would be nothing to stop them from outlawing pork.

[briant]

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The thing is, I dont know what this means. Can I smoke a joint? I guess not, even it the state says I can (medicinal MJ in California). (Which I think is a good analogy to this.) As for equal protection-what if a woman is topless and a man is in public. What happens? If the law is applied to all the people does it allow differnt rules for m/f? Common sense says yes but...

I think this quote alone means nothing, as you now from the WOD, but thats another barrel of monkeys.

[Buckeye Bomber]

We're talking about banning behaviors unequally. Are only heterosexuals allowed to eat horse meat? No. No one is allowed to do so.

[the808bass]

There is no societal interest in regulating the private bedroom behavior of homosexuals.

I think that the life-span of the person who engages regularly in homosexual acts is an argument against your statement.

[trustandobey]

Thank God for men like Senator Santorum! I just wish there was a way to thank him enough for fighting for what he believes.He has my undying love for putting Hillary in her place. If only there were more like him.

[Buckeye Bomber]

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I think this line is pretty clear, and I apologize if you don't know what it means. If something is illegal, it can't be illegal for some people and not for others. There is a definite difference between what occurs when a man goes topless and when a woman goes topless. I think we both know there is a little bit of a difference between the equipment provided on the chests of men and women. Although laws banning breast feeding in public have been struck down repeatedly.

Once again, if one unconstitutional law stands, that doesn't mean they all should. Perhaps there just hasn't been a test case able to challenge the other bad laws.

[Buckeye Bomber]

By that argument, should smokers be forced to stop smoking? That seems to be a rather unhealthy choice.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Trust and obey? Wow.

If there were only more people who supported laws that were gross violations of the 14th amendment.

[briant]

There is a definite difference between what occurs when a man goes topless and when a woman goes topless. I think we both know there is a little bit of a difference between the equipment provided on the chests of men and women.

Well, isn't that what were talking about here, lol. And you glib response of you're sorry if I dont' get it...Look at the laws and the ones that are upheld. I know a lot of people think they know more about the constitution than all these legislators and judges and maybe they do, but don't pretend this is some simple litte point you win with one quote. If it's that simple why do we have prostitution statutes, drug laws, etc.

[the808bass]

By that argument, should smokers be forced to stop smoking?

It's your argument. I didn't say it was a convincing one.

You tried to make a distinction between homosexual behavior and other behavior which are clearly outside the boundaries of societal mores of our day. You said that other behaviors that are illegal are illegal because society has an interest in regulating them. I then pointed out an interest society has in regulating homosexual behavior and you shot down your own argument. So are you admitting there's no distinction between the behaviors which you said society could regulate and homosexual behavior?

[Buckeye Bomber]

"We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family." ~Sen. Rick Santorum

It's also a shame we don't have more people who have no idea how the grammar of the English language works. Is a coherent, logical argument a little to much to ask?

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

It had better, or we are in big trouble in this country.

D*mnitt Zebra, go change your underwear!

Seriously, enhance your calm...As it has been pointed out here so many times, when homosexual issues are put to a vote, they lose badly. Every time. Even here in the looney Left coast of CA. Stop letting these empty cans rattling the most intimidate you. I know they have passion, and that's fine, but the numbers that 10% of males are gay have been proven to be bogus, something like 1.5%-2% yet no one wants to hear this. Even if it was gospel truth, 10% doesn't win any elections, save for the upcoming Democratic primary. (Vote Sharpton or Dean! Vote early and often.)

If you Republicans don't get some optimism fortified by conviction and start acting like a majority rather than exibiting bladder control problems every time a Liberal calls you a racist-sexist-bigoted-homophobic-Nazi you're without hope.

[Buckeye Bomber]

I say the government has no right to regulate behaviors unless there is a great deal of societal interest in the law. It's not a societal benefit to increase people's lifespans (in fact, more people dying might decrease our social security bills in the future... hmmm... kidding!). I speak of the society as a whole. If you can prove to me that homosexuality or smoking or something else increases my tax bill or decreases our readiness to fight off enemies domestic and foreign, maybe you'll have an argument. I want some statistics to prove that though, not just your guesses. Although any tax increases are likely due to socialized medicine's effects on our country.

[editor-surveyor]

"Despite paranoia to the contrary, I think this principled stand brings more people to the GOP than it repels."

And this is what they don't want us to figure out. As long as the Republican party foolishly mimicks theDummocrap party, the Dummos have nothing to worry about.

AveMaria, stick around here and you'll soon see the truth about FDR, Truman, and LBJ. (I hope you already know about Carter)

[Gee Wally]

But the Texas law should be struck down because it clearly violates the 14th amendment.

What part of the 14th Amendment does it violate?

[the808bass]

I say the government has no right to regulate behaviors unless there is a great deal of societal interest in the law.

Like, say, adultery? I don't imagine that this will suit your whims, somehow.

If you argue that it is not a government interest to increase lifespans, on what basis do you argue that deformed children are a governmental concern? It seems that you're forming your argument to suit your beliefs rather than approaching this inductively. Just my $.02.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Every time I see it, I have to say something. Dummocraps? Honestly. Can't we just say they're policies are dumb? We act like we're little children. This goes for all terms that go both ways. Calling a Democrat a Communist for advocating a little bit of welfare is just as bad as calling a Republican a fascists or a racist. It cheapens all logical debate and turns it into a game of name-calling. I don't care how creative your little insulting names are in your head. THEY ARE STUPID!