Santorum is Right

AgapePress ^ | April 25, 2003 | R. Cort Kirkwood

[Remedy]

Sen. Rick Santorum, Republican from Pennsylvania, is now likened to Sen. Trent Lott.

Santorum has upset the homosexuals, and they expect the GOP to dump their No. 3 senator. What happens remains to be seen, but the one thing Santorum must not do is apologize.

Several reasons come to mind, not least of which is that he's right.

What He Said
Referring to a U.S. Supreme Court case that will decide the "constitutionality" of Texas' sodomy law, Santorum, an orthodox Catholic, remarked thusly:

"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. You have the right to anything."

Within minutes, a mouthpiece from the disingenuously named Human Rights Campaign, a lobby group for sodomy, was on the blower with the newspapers: "It is stunning, stunning in its insensitivity," David Smith told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "Putting homosexuality on the same moral plane as incest is repulsive."

A Santorum spokeswoman rushed to answer: "[She] said yesterday that Santorum had no problem with gay relationships. 'Sen. Santorum was specifically speaking about the right to privacy within the context of the Supreme Court case,' she said, explaining that he did not want to elevate gay sex to the level of a constitutional right."

Commented Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post, "At least Trent Lott had the good sense to apologize."

The Real Problems
If you want to know what's wrong here, look beyond Santorum. First look to the Supreme Court, which has no role here. The Texas law is "constitutional" because it's none of the federal government's business, regardless of what high court "precedent" says.

If Santorum were smart, he'd be working to undo the 75 years of unconstitutional "civil rights" jurisprudence and legislation that permits the Supreme Court to decide these things.

Second, of course Santorum has "a problem with gay relationships." If one form of extra-marital sex is permissible, Santorum essentially said, all of it is. This is what faithful Catholics like Santorum believe. And that, not politically organized sodomites, Kurtz and others gallingly suggest, is what's wrong.

Citing the AP follow, Kurtz quotes Santorum, then adds a snippy, fallacious analogy: Santorum has "'no problem with homosexuality -- I have a problem with homosexual acts.' Boy, that oughta make everyone feel better. Kind of like saying you have no problem with disabled folks, it's just those blasted wheelchairs."

No, it's not like saying that, but regardless, Santorum is right again. Love the sinner; hate the sin. It's standard Christian teaching. And that, again, is the real evil in this topsy-turvy morality play.

Why He's Right
Now, let's grab the nettle:

"Putting homosexuality on the same moral plane as incest is repulsive," says the professional homosexual. Really?

I'd describe what homosexuals do in detail, but it's so repulsive I'll let readers look into it. They can decide whether anal intercourse is repulsive, or whether a three-man orgy in a bathhouse is morally equivalent to a married man and woman making new life.

Homosexual sodomy, an objectively disordered act, is on the same moral plane as incest. It is a mortal sin, all of which are repulsive to Christians and not only send the unrepentant to Hell but also poison society.

Explanations and apologies didn't help Lott. They won't help Santorum.

[MHGinTN]

Sorry, won't wash, Earl. I find the thread quite interesting, some of the vacuous brained defenses of degeneracy are boring, however.

[Tribune7]

Something else. My own view is pretty flexible concerning sodomy laws. I believe, however, it is destructive and disgraceful for the Supreme Court to consider overturning long-standing state laws and practices on the basis of political fashion and a whimsical reading of the Constitution.

And I do see a reason for these laws apart from imposing subjective morality on someone who may not agree with it.

If you have a couple of aging homosexuals living together and leaving everybody else alone, I really don't think anybody -- including the law -- should bother them. On the other hand, if they are having a orgy every other weekend featuring anonymous sex they may just be creating a wee bit of a health hazard -- especially if some of the participants go home to their unsuspecting wives and girlfriends. So much for the "gay gene."

And I think a law might be a tool for dissauding an authority figure -- priest, college professor, employer -- from taking home an 18-year-old with a poor self-image and with help from drink and drugs convincing him he really doesn't like girls.

Regardless, the pros and cons should be considered by an elected, changeable legislature, not by unelected, appointed-for-life judges.

[LizardQueen]

You were the one originally objecting to gays on the basis of them being a health hazard, not me.

If you want to outlaw behavior on the grounds of its health consequences then at least be consistent.

LQ

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Tell me how consensual polygyny or consensual polyandry violates anyone's rights...

Criminalize sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus, toe licking, etc., ad nauseum???

Sounds dumb. It also sounds dumb to complain about it being criminalized as well. I don't really care...

[Bullish]

Now, let's grab the nettle:

Uh, isn't that what gets homos in trouble in the first place?

[11th Earl of Mar]

Sorry, won't wash

Maybe you should.

By the way, please name ONE credible naitonal conservative who thinks the rest of the conservative movement should be spending time defending what Santorum said and how he said it.

[Remedy]

By the way, please name ONE credible naitonal conservative who thinks the rest of the conservative movement should be spending time defending what Santorum said and how he said it.

White House backs Santorum; he's 'inclusive'

But other Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, have affirmed their support for Santorum.

[Remedy]

That and their affinity for human excretement, urine,...and associated diseases from playing in the sewer pipe.

[11th Earl of Mar]

However, by concentrating on the adultery comments made by Santorum, you've made your argument unique, but have not elevated it above the combination of nit-picking and hair-splitting that it represents.

First of all I would like to see the name and story of just ONE person in the United States criminally charged with adultery.

But, regarding the nit-picking... I simply stated that I supported Santorum and his views but thought he did not represent those views very well by what he said here.

And if Santorum had it to do all over again, HE would probably choose different words to better express himself.

[11th Earl of Mar]

You are telling me that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and President George Bush think that the rest of the conservative movement should be spending time defending what Santorum said and how he said it?

I can hear them now...

"Hooray!!! Quick!!! Call Tim Russert and see if he will do a whole hour show on the Santorum comments on Sunday! We want Frist, Rove and Hastert on every show they can get on this weekend. And don't let them talk about anything else but Santorum!"

[11th Earl of Mar]

If court rules the sodomy law is unconstituional because it involves consensual sex on private property, how can a bigamy or adultery or incest law be constitutional?

I don't think the sodomy law should be overturned. I simply think Santorum used a poor choice of words to defend our case.

[11th Earl of Mar]

If court rules the sodomy law is unconstituional because it involves consensual sex on private property, how can a bigamy or adultery or incest law be constitutional?

And do you really want the government to start prosecuting adulterers?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

- 'Consensual & private adult sex' should be ~ignored~ by government.

Public health and safety issues concerning diseases is none of the government's business? People intentionally spreading diseases fully knowing they are infected is a felony.

Sodomy is not sex. In terms of human biological science, it is a perversion of anatomical function and getting off the subject of the original topic...

Reaction to Santorum's commentary is a tempest in a teapot. Myself, I could care less. I support his right to speak what he sees as truth.

I am outraged by the sodomy lobby and their religious fervor in the advocacy of perverts. They are perverts, plain and simple. The "gay" religion....

[Tribune7]

I don't think the sodomy law should be overturned. I simply think Santorum used a poor choice of words to defend our case.

Okay.

[Tribune7]

And do you really want the government to start prosecuting adulterers?

A better question might be do I want law enforcement angencies dedicating time to investigating adultery and the answer is certainly not. But I don't object to the law being on the books and I wouldn't object to a prosecution if the matters warranted it.

If someone's affairs are causing a huge amount of public turmoil or real harm to bystanders, a prosecution would be a good thing, I think . It would certainly make others inclined to screw around a little more circumspect.

But the purpose of the prosecution would be public order and not saving souls or making someone good.

[MHGinTN]

I'm curious, do you catch all those red herring yourself, or do you have someone providing them for you?

[tpaine]

sinkspur:
And should be criminalized?


Should it be idolized?
93 -Sir Francis Dashwood-


Neither, - both obviously & constitutionally.
- 'Consensual & private adult sex' should be ~ignored~ by government.
As sinky says, very weak cases on 'contract' enforcement can be made for state laws on bigamy, adultry, incest, etc, so such 'crime' could safely be resolved by juries informed of their constitutional nullification option.
99 -tpaine-


Public health and safety issues concerning diseases is none of the government's business? People intentionally spreading diseases fully knowing they are infected is a felony.

Sodomy is not sex. In terms of human biological science, it is a perversion of anatomical function and getting off the subject of the original topic...
Reaction to Santorum's commentary is a tempest in a teapot. Myself, I could care less. I support his right to speak what he sees as truth.
I am outraged by the sodomy lobby and their religious fervor in the advocacy of perverts. They are perverts, plain and simple. The "gay" religion.
-SFD-



As you say, spreading disease is already a felony.

Your 'outrage' belies "caring less".. Which is it?

[11th Earl of Mar]

I could live with that. But I still don't think Santorum's comments were well thought out.

[Tribune7]

But I still don't think Santorum's comments were well thought out.

Fair enough.

[Maelstrom]

People have listed several accounts of adultery cases which have been prosecuted.