Posted on 04/26/2003 6:24:52 AM PDT by 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
"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 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
"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.
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.
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...
Uh, isn't that what gets homos in trouble in the first place?
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.
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.
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.
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!"
I don't think the sodomy law should be overturned. I simply think Santorum used a poor choice of words to defend our case.
And do you really want the government to start prosecuting adulterers?
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....
Okay.
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.
Fair enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.