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

myself

[honeygrl]

Personally, I disagree with his ideas that your bedroom is not a private place. I don't think it's the government's business what 2 consenting *adults* do in their home. BUT I do believe he has a right to his opinion on sexual orientation. I do not think he should be asked to step down over this issue.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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 part in the middle of the little curlies. The law bans anal sex between gay men, but not between a man and a woman. Equal protection under the laws is thus violated.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Since when does regulating adultery give a great benefit to society? Do you think making it illegal would stop it? Then again, people stopped doing drugs as soon as those were made illegal, didn't they?

So if my dad cheated on my mom, the best thing for all of us is if he was thrown into jail? I'd think counseling for my parents might be better than throwing my dad in jail. Why punish my whole family for my dad's actions?

[bray]

Freedom of Speech apparently is only defended by and for liberals in our Free Press. We are all waiting for Tim Robbins and Michael Moore to come to Rick Santorums defense and his right to have an opinion on a Supreme Court decision when asked. This current sandstorm to defame a Republican is as transparent as the reporter's husband who is the campaign manager for Presidential Candidate Catsup. The crime here is that someone is reporting for PravdABC who has direct ties to the DNC!! Shocked!! The fact that a Republican would have the nerve to give an honest opinion on homosexuality is the oldest trick in the 1 page DNC play book. If this reporter had any ethics at all she would have recused herself from any political reporting while her husband was running a national campaign, but then she is a DinoRat so why should we be surprised.

Senator Santorum made the crime to liberals of having an opinion on one of liberalisms sacred cows. The supreme priests of the religion of liberalism is feminism, race, environmentalism and homosexuality. To have an opinion on any of these issues instantly makes a conservative a xenophobe. The thought police have made these all third rail issues because PravdABC will instantly vilify any opinion in opposition to the liberal mantra. To say that homosexuality is a deviant behavior representing a mere 2-3% of the population and shrinking, immediately puts that opinion in the hate speech category. Orwell warned us but had no idea how efficient the PC police would become.

Senator Santorum was asked a question and unlike a politician imagined if a state were not allow jurisdiction of local morality laws then what would that also allow. The real question he should have went to is if homosexuality is allowed unimpeded by a local police would that include Man-Boy laws? The homosexual community is actively pushing for underage consent to allow older homosexual men to prey on young boys which is many of their preference. Would consent in ones own house be off limits for Man-Boy relationships?

Any subject of homosexuality is off limits to the liberals. The last thing they want to discuss in the national forum is homosexuality and health issues. The liberals were at war against tobacco because it was theorized to shorten a life by 6 mos to 2 years. It has been proven that before AIDS, homosexuality would shorten your life by 20 years but it is discribed to be a normal and healthy lifestyle. If only they were understood by us homophobes they would quit committing suicide. Some use a rope and others use anal sex for their death wish. To mention that a homosexual male has an 1800 times greater chance of catching AIDS than a non-drug injecting heterosexual is homophobia. To say that AIDS is a venereal disease that can be controlled by behavior is hate speech. Yeah, PravdABC is a great institution that is watching out for Senators who threaten our Freedoms. Paging Ms Sarandon??

This is not going to carry any water because these people are obviously carrying the water for the DNC and most people see through it. This was a ligitimate opinion on a very important discussion that needs to be had in America. The liberal opionion needs to be stated just as the Conservative opionion about homosexuality and AIDS. There needs to be a discussion about the overwheghted political power the 3% have aquired and has been allowed to overtax the 97% without any personal responsibiltiy.

Should there be policing a person’s bedroom? Perhaps it is time to discuss both the pros and cons without having to be called homophobe if you do not adhere to the homosexual position?? Homosexuality is not nearly as an important a discussion as what Free Speech and an unbiased Press’ responsibilty to report the news Rather than promote an elitist anti-American agenda. Only then will Free Speech and Freedom of Thought truely have meaning.

Pray for GW and The Truth

[Buckeye Bomber]

Oh lord. Do you understand what you said? I hope so. Your grammar and logic are atrocious. No matter. I'm guessing you are a drive-by lurker. Throw in your two nonsensical cents and leave.

Whatever. Believe what you like about homosexuality. Some of your facts may even be accurate. The fact is that the 14th amendment demands equal protection under the laws. And the Texas law specifically bans homosexual anal sex and not heterosexual anal sex. This violates the 14th amendment.

Anal sex is the behavior more likely to transmit AIDS, not homosexuals. If heterosexuals engage in unprotected anal sex, they are being just as risky as the homosexuals. So if you're going to ban anal sex, at least make it not violate the constitutional amendments that are definitely there. The privacy debate is a whole other can of worms that isn't even necessary here.

[Buckeye Bomber]

I have an idea! When someone commits adultery, put them in the stocks for a week and then make them wear a red "A". That's perfect! Maybe we can even throw tomatoes at them.

[the808bass]

Since when does regulating adultery give a great benefit to society?

I'm sure there's a great deal many positives which adultery offers to society.

You said that "the government has no right to regulate behaviors unless there is a great deal of societal interest in the law."

Society has an interest in marriages continuing as families provide the building blocks of our society. Thus, according to your statement (which you seem to have a bit of trouble remembering from post to post), the government would have a right to regulate behaviors which would decrease the likelihood of families continuing together.

So if my dad cheated on my mom, the best thing for all of us is if he was thrown into jail?

I know it's hard to switch off the WOD mentality, but no one said anything about jail.

And, of course, you're picking apart the smaller pieces of my statements while the big picture remains. Namely, you tried to make a distinction between illegal forms of sexual behavior which the government could regulate according to you and homosexual behavior (which the government cannot regulate according to you). That distinction is nonexistent. Thus, in your scenario, the government has no basis to regulate any sexual behavior at all, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

[the808bass]

When someone commits adultery, put them in the stocks for a week and then make them wear a red "A".

Typing in stereo is fun, isn't it? It's much harder to respond to arguments. But, in the end, more rewarding.

[Zebra]

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

It isn't just about the homosexual drivers of the gay agenda--the 2% or whatever. It is those non-gay voters who have been successfully influenced by the social conditioning. Words like "gay" (rather than homosexual"), "homophobe", "intolerant", "basher" and "diversity" are touchstones that have gained acceptance in an increasingly politically correct world. Same-sex partner benefits, state recognition of same-sex unions, the erosion of barriers to permitting same-sex couples to adopt, the breakdown of traditional military prohibitions, the proliferation of anti-discrimination and hate-crime laws pertaining to gays, etc. These advancements of the gay agenda have gathered support from hardcore Dems and "socially enlightened" Republicans and Libertarians, and, of course, their enablers in the media and academia.

I am "fortified with conviction" and on your side here, but I have seen nothing until Santorum's comments to "fortify me with optimism" on this issue.

BTW, should a Liberal call [me] a racist-sexist-bigoted-homophobic-Nazi, I can assure you that he would be the one in need of a change of underwear.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

You are still yammering on Underclassman? Yaaaawn. Good Lord get a life, you were doing this when I left work over 3 hours ago! You've posted about half of the comments on this thread, most of them attacking AveMaria rambling onto all kinds of streams of consciousness, and then accussing this new person of employing that very strategy. Studying to be a Defense Attorney at OSU?

I certainly hope AveMaria doesn't think everyone on here is a pretentious Master-Debator like yourself.

Now you are up to your hypocritical tricks again attacking this editor-surveyor, who must have been too bored by your ranting to comment to you rather than us and you lecture him, We act like we're little children yet bring it on home with; I don't care how creative your little insulting names are in your head. THEY ARE STUPID! I remember my sophist roots when I was in school... Shame. Do you have the capacity to step outside of this arguement you've so bitterly staked out for yourself to see how foolish and emotional you appear?

I was annoyed by what I detected as your sophist instincts early (I on the other hand have graduated with a degree in Psychology and am pursuing my Masters and can read you like a book) but I don't have to fear any longer that I need to head people off on this observation, you are proving this arguementativeness to anyone who can read. I am enjoying greatly now, its laugh out loud funny.

Keep up the good tantrums!

[Buckeye Bomber]

The government has no right to regulate sexual behavior between two consenting adults in the private residence of one of the two or more adults involved. And you can quote me on that.

[Tribune7]

Very good post.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

I agree then, Santorum hasn't given me reason to think he's going to be emboldened if that is behind your sketicism. He seems to be lying low and waiting for it to blow over. That's tactically debatable. I don't know where I stand on that.

We indeed will have to wait in order to read his stance. I also agree that the social conditioning is the most important factor as you illustrated. Look no further than the idiocy of this thread. (ha)We just need to remain steadfast that even though the media is on the constant conditioning warpath the truth will over come because people aren't dumb. Look at Ronald Reagan, all before talk radio and NewsCorp.

Keep that chin up Zeb!

[Buckeye Bomber]

Get a life? I am doing homework while I write this. I just happen to be at my computer, so this what I do for fun. I like to be engaged in politics. I suppose that probably explains my current lack of a girlfriend (although I'm sure my defense of gays would give people other ideas).

Ahh, the classic youth argument. You don't attack my ideas, you just attack my ideas. I see how it is. You are studying for your masters, and I am just a lowly undergraduate. This is the sort of thing that makes professors into gods of liberalism, spouting out their tripe to impressionable undergrads. If you have a problem with my opinions, or even my phrasings, attack those. Please don't try and use my age against me. Oh, and I'm actually studying psychology and political science here at OSU, and I plan on attending law school to specialize in Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Describing insulting names as stupid is not an ad hominem attack. It's merely using the adjective I believe most aptly describes those little tidbits of crap that seem to be thrown about so much these days by the right and the left. I believe strongly in calling a spade a spade. Let's hear your defense of "Hitlery" or "Dummocraps". I'm sure it will be very profound and intelligent-sounding.

I love the use of the word sophist. It subtly reinforces your superiority to me, and somewhat accurately describes my (very real) enjoyment of debate. Although I'd of course debate whether my reasoning is actually poor, I'm amused greatly.

None of this changes these facts:
1) The Texas law before the US supreme court bans anal sex between homosexual males but not between anyone else.
2) The 14th amendment to the US Constitution requires states apply their laws equally across all citizens.
3) The Texas law is therefore unconstitutional.

I love my syllogisms. They make things so clear.

And master-debater is a term of honor in my book.

[Tribune7]

2) If anal sex is legal for heterosexuals

Sodomy laws apply to heterosexuals. Marv Albert was convicted of Virginia's sodomy law.

[Buckeye Bomber]

The Texas law before the Supreme Court does not apply to heterosexuals. That mis probably where the law will be struck down.

[Tribune7]

Should the states be allowed to ban masturbation?

Do you understand the state rights debate?

[Buckeye Bomber]

*Hmm, how do I answer this question? I could be sarcastic and say no. I could say, yes, but you might doubt I do anyway. I think I'll say yes, just to look like a big man in front of all the other Conservatives.*

Yes, I understand the debate over state's rights. However, I do not believe the federal or state government has the right to regulate behaviors in the privacy of our own homes whenever the behaviors in questions are offensive or sinful to some or many people unless there is some definitive and clear (not emotionally linked, preferably based on some sort of science) reason to do so.

[Tribune7]

However, I do not believe the federal or state government has the right to regulate behaviors in the privacy of our own homes

Others believe and have believed differently. Among them was Thomas Jefferson.

whenever the behaviors in questions are offensive or sinful to some or many people unless there is some definitive and clear (not emotionally linked, preferably based on some sort of science) reason to do so.

There is usually a reason why things are offensive. Who determines whether a law is "emotionally linked" or "based on some sort of science"?

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Although I'd of course debate whether my reasoning is actually poor, I'm amused greatly.Well at least you are honest about sophistry. It also points to the root of my passion in this debate; A total hatred argueing for sport. I've seen it go bad too many times. That interests me more than this issue.

You don't attack my ideas, you just attack my ideas. You're right...I guess, if I can infer that you mean personal rather than ideas twice. I was trying to cut to the chase, but it is poor form. I am sorry.

I will take your 1st of 3 items as true, and say then that they are valid. While I seriously doubt the law refers to homosexuals by name, the larger point here is Santorum's right to make the comparison that overturning this issue, not for reasons you list but because of a bedroom-zone of Right To Privacy is a far more dangerous precedent Constitutionally than any fear that leaving it creates a "bedroom cop." You argued earlier about the importance of precedent and the Constitution. While I disagree passionately, I will say that there are many who would agree with law is based on precedent, and that makes this case all the more important.

I've noticed you hit on the Prof aspect a few times, that does make people more arguementative, being shovel fed that tripe. Take heart, this is the last time in your life, as long as you live, that those fools have any power over you and you can spank them in any debate once you graduate. Liberalism is dead in the real world

And master-debater is a term of honor in my book Don't say that! Say it out loud real quick 3 times and you'll get the silly joke referring to an earlier topic on here. (Most people don't, feel free to slip that into debates)