Santorum is Right

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.

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.

"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.

Adultury is a breach of contract. It bears civil penalties in almost all states. It also is a crime in most continental states. It can lead to a number of negative health issues on innocent persons. It can also lead to fraudulent child-care costs. If you don't view adultery through candy-coated lenses, there are a number of specific unintended consequences that can be readily identified, and a number of unintended consequences that probably cannot be predicted.

However, Santorum listed a number of other crimes that should be of greater concern. His list was not a complete list. It was Santorum's listing of unintended consquences which you seem to think was a casting of morally equivalent actions and it was to that which I responded.

Santorum did not list them as morally equivalent, but only as additional deviant behavior that would be protected by a different Supreme Court ruling.

Actually, I don't think you get it. Here's waht you wrote in an above post: Setting the prostate pals's copulation desires aside for the moment, just when is the State, under penalty of law, allowed to investigate and prosecute consenting adults for actions affecting no one else while in the privacy of one's own home? These proscribed behaviors are having drastic consequences for the state of Texas and likely every other state where AIDS and STD's are burdening the healthcare systems. As a taxpayer, I'm reminded of how much the taxpayer's bills would drop if these disease realities were far smaller. I live in Tennessee. We have TennCare, and it is devastating our state budget because any disease treatment must be born by the taxpayers, if the diseased person(s) fit the criteria for care on demand. This same tax burden can be illustrated in other behavior choices, such as drunkeness (a drunk driver using his own private property is a menace on public roads and the mayhem caused by these behaviors translates into real tax burdens for the citizens of the state and community; I'll leave you to make the clear connections, without addressing bedroom policing as so many defenders of degeneracy try to do). Adultery statutes give teeth to court actions against deadbeat fathers who choose to ignore their child support payments. The list is rather long of proscribed behaviors lending weight to protecting the society as a whole. That you choose to ignore these signals is a mystery. [And citing the exception to behavioral choices isn't a good way to make a broad and general case.]

My point is that Santorum's comments played right into the hands of the liberals. We have a Texas law that bans homosexual contact.

Santorum said: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to ... adultery."

The natural conclusion is that Santorum wants to make illegal, or prosecute, adultery. As an earlier poster said, this would make criminals out of Hyde, Gincrich, Livingston, etc.

My quesions remain:

If adultery is illegal? Are they prosecuting it?

Last I read, nearly one in four children born are born out of wedlock.

Any government big and powerful enough to prosecute the parents on such a large segment of the nation's children over the "crime of adultery" is big enough to jail me for homeschooling and owning owning three SUVs.

This means that probably ten to thirty percent of our adult population would go to jail. Which criminals do we let go to make room for the millions of adulterers?

He made a poor comparision. He will suffer some temporary lumps brought on by words he probably would like to change.

But soon the country will be focused on real problems and all this will be forgotten.

Homeschooling and owning owning three SUVs = born out of wedlock criminal wrong doing via adultery is the statement of a moral moron.

If the public is has no more moral common sense than this, then this country is doomed.

The Decline of a Nation Nations most often fall from within, and this fall is usually due to a decline in the moral and spiritual values in the family. As families go, so goes a nation.

This has been the main premise of thinkers from British historian J. D. Unwin to Russian sociologist Pitirim Sorokin who have studied civilizations that have collapsed. In his book Our Dance Has Turned to Death, Carl Wilson identifies the common pattern of family decline in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. Notice how these seven stages parallel what is happening in our nation today. In the first stage, men ceased to lead their families in worship. Spiritual and moral development became secondary. Their view of God became naturalistic, mathematical, and mechanical.

In the second stage, men selfishly neglected care of their wives and children to pursue material wealth, political and military power, and cultural development. Material values began to dominate thought, and the man began to exalt his own role as an individual. The third stage involved a change in men's sexual values. Men who were preoccupied with business or war either neglected their wives sexually or became involved with lower-class women or with homosexuality. Ultimately, a double standard of morality developed. The fourth stage affected women. The role of women at home and with children lost value and status. Women were neglected and their roles devalued. Soon they revolted to gain access to material wealth and also freedom for sex outside marriage. Women also began to minimize having sex relations to conceive children, and the emphasis became sex for pleasure. Marriage laws were changed to make divorce easy.

In the fifth stage, husbands and wives competed against each other for money, home leadership, and the affection of their children. This resulted in hostility and frustration and possible homosexuality in the children. Many marriages ended in separation and divorce.

Many children were unwanted, aborted, abandoned, molested, and undisciplined. The more undisciplined children became, the more social pressure there was not to have children. The breakdown of the home produced anarchy.

In the sixth stage, selfish individualism grew and carried over into society, fragmenting it into smaller and smaller group loyalties. The nation was thus weakened by internal conflict. The decrease in the birthrate produced an older population that had less ability to defend itself and less will to do so, making the nation more vulnerable to its enemies.

Finally, unbelief in God became more complete, parental authority diminished, and ethical and moral principles disappeared, affecting the economy and government. Thus, by internal weakness and fragmentation the societies came apart. There was no way to save them except by a dictator who arose from within or by barbarians who invaded from without.

Although this is an ancient pattern of decline found in Greece and Rome, it is relevant today. Families are the foundation of a nation. When the family crumbles, the nation falls because nations are built upon family units. They are the true driving social force. A nation will not be strong unless the family is strong. That was true in the ancient world and it is true today.

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.