[William McKinley]

Not a bad piece, even if it gets Santorum's quote wrong in the same way the AP originally did (notice the parenthetical [gay]).

[HEY4QDEMS]

If gay sex is private, why isn't incest?

Because my sister can't keep a secret. just kidding

[Hodar]

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery."

Right to incest? One equates consentual sex between adults to rape of a minor? Sorry, in the other cases, the partner is willing, and has the choice whether to participate or not. In the case of incest, the MINOR is unable to cooperate, as they are entirely dependant upon their rapist for food, shelter, clothing and necessities of life. And that's not mentioning that inconvenient little law about age of legal consent.

[smith288]

I think Santorum is wrong. But I can't explain why, and so far, neither can the Human Rights Campaign.

So he thinks Santorum is wrong but has no idea why? Here is a hint, if a person was banging dogs, and Santorum said dog banging is gross and disgusting, natural human nature would be defensive but in reality, they would know he was right because it just aint natural. A moment of clarity for this person perhaps?

[sharktrager]

His argument regarding banning incest to prevent confusing relationships, in my opinion, has the same problems the homosexal argument has. It opens too many doors.

Fits, and in my mind most obvious, if one is concerned about avoiding confusing relationships, we have to outlaw divorce. Clearly the change from spouse to ex-spouse is confusing. This is especially true in the case of married couples with children.

We also would have to prevent women from having children with more than one father. The children must be very confused if they have different fathers.

No more marriage after being widowed. If you do, we have 2 people who have filled the role of spouse. Too confusing.

Can't have inter-racial marriages. How will the child be able to fit in with either group?

2 people from different religions? Nope. How does the child worship?

People from different parts of the country better not get married either. There are very different customs in different areas. Very confusing. And don't get me started on accents.

The thing is, these arguments are all subject to being taken to an extreme once you open that door. Some of the things I list sound pretty good, until you see how the same logic can be twisted.

[RAT Patrol]

homosexuality isn't a choice Prove it. If we are going reorder all of society over this, prove it.

[RAT Patrol]

I'm a lifestyle conservative and an orientation liberal. The way I see it, stable families are good, homosexuality isn't a choice, and therefore, gay marriage should be not just permitted but encouraged.

I wonder, what gives him the right to decide that monogamy should be encouraged? Isn't that private too.

[Eva]

Santorum was saying that there is no guaruntee to privacy under the constitution. The comparison that he should have used is that there is no guaruntee to the right to use drugs if you do it withing the confines of your home. He said that Texas has the right to make laws as they see fit in Texas. He added that if New York wants to overturn their sodomy laws, that is their perogative. He said he would disagree with that decision,but it is the right of New York to pass laws as they see fit.

[babygene]

"since gays "are not less productive—or more DANGEROUS—members of the community by mere dint of their sexual orientation." "

Hasn't this jerk ever heard of AIDS? ...and their sexual "orientation" is not what the court is about to decide on.

[js1138]

In a world that paid attention to reality, there would be public health reasons for banning sexual acts that spread disease.

[Servant of the Nine]

Santorum sees no reason why, if gay sex is too private to be banned, the same can't be said of incest.

Exactly right, and you can throw in Bestiality and Necrophilia too.
The answer is that The Constitution does not prohiibit the States from criminalizing these activities.
Just because a State can constitutionally pass a law does not necessarily mean they should.
Most States have decided that criminalizing homosexuality is wrong and have repealed their laws against it.

That is what States Rights is all about.

So9

[Lil'freeper]

Interesting that Slate of all mags is actually addressing the real issue- namely the limits of law- and not some supposed bigotry on Santorum's part.

[joesnuffy]

Thats the problem with a "free" society.. without the internal police (aka the conscience) given to man through The God of Abraham Isaac & Jacob and His Holy Spirit

Man being evil by his own nature tends to always push the envelope of morality- not to excerise freedom- but to destroy "the confines" of a decent and just society...carnal man sees no freedom in marriage and family...no salvation in law...and no road to destruction in the unleashing of his own destructive nature

On the other hand all a free society needs to justify its morphing into a tolatarian one is the destruction of the internal restraint of its individuals...therefore its needs for externally imposed restraint... Sharia Law *Nazi Germany* Stalinist Russia* Maoist China*

[legman]

There is something more important here than the specific moral and philisophical arguments of this issue.

The larger issue is this. What is the standard of morality? This is a religious argument, regardless of how one tries to position it. Whether it is a standard proposed by Judeo/Christians or a standard proposed by Secular Humanists, it is a standard that is religiously held and preached.

The humanists would like to paint Judeo/Christians as being intolerant -- as trying to impose their version of morality on everyone else. Yet they are intolerant of people like Senator Santorum.

This is bigger than this particular attack. It is an attack on people of Theistic faith and the very foundation of our nation's heritage.

[discostu]

The difference is that incest is bad for the genepool and gays don't breed.

[ChadGore]

Re: I'm a lifestyle conservative and an orientation liberal.

??
I don't even think the writer knows what that means.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Incest as a non-violent sexual practice among consenting adults is constitutional, but incestual marriages can be banned because governments can regulate contracts. The whole notion of contracts are based on that the state will make them binding, so states (of the feds) can choose which contracts they want to stand behind. Homosexuality is the same way. Private moral repugnancy has NOTHING to do with constitutionality. We're not a theocracy.

[Concerned]

So, would homosexual incest between adult brothers in their OWN home be legal or illegal?

[Defiant]

Here's the NRA's take on it (the National Relative-lovers Association, that is):

1. If incest is outlawed, only outlaws will live in Arkansaw.

2. You can have my sister when you pry her from my cold dead hands.

[Incorrigible]

1) I can't believe this article came from Slate.  The only reporter I've heard putting the Human Rights Campaign on the defensive.

2) What a great thread this has been in the debate of logic and constitutionality.

3) I love FreeRepublic.com

[x]

One thing that confuses is the difference between legality and morality. Are incest, adultery and homosexuality illegal or simply regarded as immoral?

Another problem is that people generally think of incest as child abuse. It's also possible between consenting adults. England's Bloomsbury circle argued for the theoretical right to adult incest on the same grounds that they argued for open relationships and the legalization of homosexual relations. But in retrospect, it's the exploitative incestual relationships imposed by the stronger on the weaker, equivalent to pedophilic or pederastic activities, that are remembered.

Legalizing incest opens the door to condoning exploitative parent-child or teacher-student relationships. Once you legalize something and set an age of consent, those who want to indulge in the activity will always argue that 16 is as good an age as 18, 14 as good an age as 16 and so on. It truly becomes a "slippery slope."

One thing that's curious is that while homosexual relationships have become permissable in many parts of society, teacher-student relationships have become ever more restricted and condemned. Rightly so, because of the power imbalance involved and the questions of trust and betrayal, but many old academics got to know their spouses in precisely these sorts of relationships, and wonder at the "puritanism" of our day.