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.

[briant]

If someone wanted to marry their 70 year old sister could they? No genetic defects to worry about, unless...

[2nd Amendment]

I'll take you up on that one. First of all I don't equate dietary habbits with sexual perversion. Jews follow the old Testament which forbid the eating of Pork. Christians believe that the New Testament fulfills the O.T. and supercedes it in some areas. Under the age of grace we are free to eat anything. It is still wrong for us to eat pork in front of a Jew or Muslim if our purpose is to instigate trouble or drive them away. We are to be sensitive to the consciences of others and seek to show a Christlike example.

[Brilliant]

You're right, it's the 15th that mentions race isn't it? But the whole purpose of the 14th and the reason it was passed was to protect former slaves. Now that I see that it's not specific to race, it seems more likely to me it will get overturned. However, in doing so, the Court will have to overturn 210 years of Constitutional jurisprudence. It still seems like a stretch.

[Buckeye Bomber]

No, they couldn't marry them. It seems in some states they couldn't have sex with them either. But as I've said many times on the board, sex is a private matter, marriage is a civil matter.

[Buckeye Bomber]

THE 14TH AMENDMENT SEEMS LIKE A STRETCH!

Equal protection is equal protection. No citizen is different is the principle on which the amendment was passed (although at that point, I suppose it was no male citizen).

[sinkspur]

First of all I don't equate dietary habbits with sexual perversion.

A Jew or a Muslim might.

This is the kind of arbitrariness we get into when we begin to enshrine religious morality into law.

Especially religious morality that does not affect innocent third parties.

[AveMaria]

[.....Although, the biggest problem I see now is that the Texas law says HOMOSEXUALS CAN'T DO THINGS THAT HETEROSEXUALS CAN! Do you understand the words I am saying?....]

Oh yes. I understand. But, you see, I have never recognized the gay rights movement as a legitimate civil rights movement, like that of blacks.

The gay rights movement seeks to confer "rights" on actual behavior that people can control. But the racial segregation laws punished people, not based on their behavior, but on the color of their skin. There is a HUGE difference.

What was truly outrageous about racial segregation, is that all blacks, no matter how they behaved, were treated as second class citizens - without any exceptions.

White gays never had to endure that. A white gay man could conform to standards of behavior expected from heterosexual white men, and he was accepted. We never had any difficulty accepting Rock Hudson as a Movie star in the 1950s.

But blacks faced a color bar that was so severe, that no amount of wealth, behavior, prominence, or talent, could overcome it. Sammy Davis Jr. performed in big 5-star hotels in Las Vegas in the 1950s, but he was not allowed to sleep in those exclusive hotels, unlike his performing partners, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. Davis' wealth and fame meant absolutely nothing to the racial segregationists of the time. Have the white middle-class gay activists ever faced anything of the sort?

Homosexual acts constitute behavior that people can control, and people can change from heterosexual to gay. There are many ex-gays, who have publicly testified to abandoning their deviant lifestyle.

I oppose the whole concept of "gay pride", because deviant behavior is nothing to be proud of. If anything, homosexuality should be viewed as a shameful act like masturbation, and people should not be proud of their maturbatory skills. How would a "masturbation rights" civil rights group be received?

[Buckeye Bomber]

I apologize, I misunderstood your comments. I now see you were saying that the overturning is a stretch, although I disagree with you. But once again, I'm sorry. Throwing out jurisprudence is fine by me if it's unconstitutional.

[AveMaria]

[....Almost all parents would like their children to marry someone in the same racial and religious groups as themselves- should interracial and interfaith marriages be banned?....]

No. I believe in equality of all people. Not equality of all behavior.

[Buckeye Bomber]

We have this little thing called the 14th amendment. I posted it earlier. Maybe you should read it. Equal protection isn't just about race. It's all citizens. The state of Texas may have better legal standing if all sodomy was banned, not just that between homosexual males.

[sinkspur]

I believe in equality of all people. Not equality of all behavior.

So, heterosexual sodomy is OK, but homosexual sodomy is not?

[Buckeye Bomber]

Should sex outside marriage be banned?

Should sex with birth control be banned?

[nmh]

If our founders thought highly of homosexuality, then we would NEVER have had SODOMY LAWS. The Constitution does NOT guarantee perversion privacy. If the perversion is known then there is a consequence.

BTW, being a homosexual is NOT genetic. People turn to homosexuality because of sexual abuse or sexual idenity problems. As for the rest of your post, you are VERY confused. I don'thave the time or interest in straighteneing you out. Maybe someone else likes to try their hand at irrational people.

[AveMaria]

[....Privacy may not be a set-in-stone amendment, but equal protection is....]

Equal protection applies to people, not behavior. All people are equal under the law. But not all behavior is equal under the law. Get it?

Some socially useful behavior (e.g. religious traditions) can benefit from equal protection. But some useless behavior (gay sodomy) should not benefit.

[Buckeye Bomber]

It doesn't matter.

1) The Texas law bans anal sex between 2 males, but not that between a man and a woman.

2) The 14th amendment requires laws apply equally to all citizens.

3) The law will be struck down.

[sinkspur]

But some useless behavior (gay sodomy) should not benefit.

Is heterosexual sodomy also "useless behavior"?

[Buckeye Bomber]

NO, you are wrong. A law can not ban a behavior for one group and not another. Do I have to repost the 14th amendment clause that specifically deals with this?

[Buckeye Bomber]

I'm glad you are here to decide what behaviors are useful. There's nothing worse than a populist who wants a bigger government with more powers to tell us what to do.

[briant]

But not for the reason you stated. If they were infertile they still couldn't marry.

[briant]

2) The 14th amendment requires laws apply equally to all citizens.

Like the draft lol.