[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]).

[The Wizard]

Santorum was talking about laws not gays.....

[glory]

The outrageous thing … is he put being gay on the same legal and moral plane as a person who commits incest. That is repugnant in our view and not right."


Although this is a lighthearted comparison since there is no comparison, perhaps this Smith guy will understand how traditional families now feel when the gay lifestyle is compared to our traditional ones.

As a side note, the comparisons Santorim made were right on. Gays want us to believe that whatever goes on with consenting adults is private. So what is wrong then in their eyes if two first cousins are intimate(who are adults) or a man having relations with several women and being able to legally marry them as his wives? The answer is there is no difference, in fact if anything the other things are still less morally repugnant than homosexuality since they can be done in the confines of a traditional relationship--man and woman--and even have at least some support in OLD biblical traditions(polygamy) if one is thinking of those things in these discussions. The absolute hypocracy that gay men would call something like incest, bigamy, or polygamy disgusting is beyond strange. This is an exciting time really--we are watching so many of the liberal feel good positions self destruct under their own weight.

[breakem]

If you can't distinguish gay sex from incest, I suggest you stay away from the kids.

[Laurie S]

I"m confused. Is Sanitorium saying that adults who commit incest are breaking the law? And is he then saying that if gay adults can have sex with eachother that means that adults who commit incest will now not go to jail either??

[longtermmemmory]

The easy answer—that incest causes birth defects—won't cut it. Birth defects could be prevented by extending to sibling marriage the rule that five states already apply to cousin marriage: You can do it if you furnish proof of infertility or are presumptively too old to procreate. If you're in one of those categories, why should the state prohibit you from marrying your sibling?

* * * * * * * ** * * * * * *

No, this is a red herring, this is about sex for fun. Sodomy is clearly only sex for enjoyment since reproduction is not possible. If any sex for fun is allowed then ADULT incest for fun is therethore legally allowed.

What about children who have reached the age of consent in states with consent laws as low as 14, 16, 17? Guardians are empowered to consent to children entering marriage, why not consentual sex?

Once open, our population of 300 million is bound to have those squeeky wheel weirdo minority that will want their sexual pleasure passion permitted.

All this homosexual mobilization to disregard slippery slopes, or claim the addition of MORE LAWS (?!!!) will somehow stop the fringe groups comparing themselves to homosexuals is delusional.