Sorry if I have not been clear. First, I don't see why there is even a law against gay sex in Texas in the first place. The laws should apply to all people equally and not single out any one group for harsher punishment than all others.Ok, there are a number of issues here. I hope you will take my arguments for what they are, which is the argument of one who believes in the proper role for each branch of the government.
If there should be such a law or not is, in my eyes, one of merit. Does the benefits from such a law outweigh the costs of such a law (with benefits and costs involving a lot more than money). Such deliberations are the role of the legislature, not of the courts.
However, this is in the courts, because the plaintiffs are charging that there is a constitutional right to consensual sex of any stripe within the home. It is the proper role of the Supreme Court to decide if this is the case or not. The Supreme Court will not be deciding if there should be sodomy laws, but if there is the privacy right that they are arguing.
When you get into if there should be a law or not, my answer is that those are matters a legislature should decide, not courts.
Secondly, I see that Santorum is in effect, defending the anti-gay sex Texas law which tells me that he thinks it should stay on the books.I agree he probably thinks the law should stay on the books. But just be aware that not always does it follow that if someone argues against a particular line of legal reasoning that they want to support something; occasionally you will see the ACLU defending with legal arguments groups like the National Alliance. This does not mean the ACLU wants what the National Alliance wants.
I still don't get why he decided to compare adult consentual gay sex to incest and polygamy because that's apples and oranges.He didn't compare the two. He did point out that they share the same legal foundation- namely that the Constitution does not prevent a state legislature from passing laws regarding sexual conduct.
If he thinks gay sex is wrong he should just say it and stop beating around the bush with these other comparisons.Comparisons he has not made, but others have said he has made.
Thirdly, the whole 'privacy' argument should apply to all regardless of whether they are gay or heterosexual.That is his point. Either that right is there, and then all those other types of laws will face being struck down in the same manner, or that right isn't there, in which case they won't be.
If there is no right to privacy for gay sex then the same (stupid) rule should apply to heterosexual (including non-baby making type sex).What is the rule you are referring to? Because you are coming close to making the same argument Santorum is making. He is arguing, not that any rule should be equally applied, but any rule must be equally applied. And if the rule is "the state may not make any laws regarding sexual conduct in the privacy of one's home" then the rule must be equally applied and sodomy laws come down, as do incest laws, bigamy laws, adultery laws, bestiality laws.
Incest, polygamy, etc are not part of the argument except that santorium is trying to throw them in for some strange reason.He throws them in because the question before the court is "Does the state have the power to enact laws regarding sexual activity, even in the privacy of the home". The answer to the question before the court impacts all of those other things. That is why he made the argument.
If the court answers "the state has no such authority", then the ramifications are huge, and the ramifications touch each of the things Santorum listed. He wasn't saying gay sex and bigamy are the same. He was saying that the legal basis for laws regarding them are the same.