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.
Why is it ok to be 'insensitive' to Christians but no other "group"? Of course, by asking the question I may seem to be agreeing that his comments WERE insensitive, which I do not.
I imagine the Jews posed the same question in Europe 65 years ago, and some (in Israel) may pose the same question today.
No such thing. Defined in terms of biological FACT, sex only occurs with a penis and a vagina. Fellatio, cunnilingus, sodomy, etc., are human perversions of anatomical function and reproductive biology...
Let's examine the scientific facts, not the rhetoric of psychotic perverts.
Laumann's research also reveals that heterosexuals engage in anal sex even less than oral sex: "anal sex has not entered into the repertoire of regular sexual practices of most women and men in the United States." Laumann, supra, at 107. This study found that only one-quarter of men and one-fifth of women have experienced anal sex over a lifetime, and is far less frequent than that in any given year of life. Id. Heterosexuals were also 79% less likely to find anal intercourse as "very appealing" compared to vaginal intercourse. Laumann et al., supra, at 152-155, Table 4.2.
Because oral and anal sex are primary means of sexual activity between individuals of the same sex (APA Br. at 22-23), and such is not the case with heterosexual couples, it should be considered that the Texas law has reasonably and narrowly drawn their prohibition of "deviate sexual intercourse" to those couples where it is most likely to take place. The Texas law may also contemplate the higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases which are related to certain sexual behaviors, and seeks to prohibit behavior associated with a higher prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (not only HIV/ AIDS) and sexually associated infections and other illnesses. Laumann et al., supra, at 396.
It is well-documented that as the number of sexual partners rise, the likelihood of having a partner with a sexually transmitted infection also rises. Laumann et al., supra, at 403; see generally Hickson et al., supra. As has been noted, homosexuals have a much greater number of sexual partners, 23 as compared to heterosexuals, and engage in sexually riskier activity, 24 therefore, there are serious health considerations implicated in same-sex sexual activity which should be taken into account when a legislature proscribes certain sexual activities.
And should be criminalized?
This is what Santorum said:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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."
The case before the Supreme Court involves homosexuals violating a sodomy law. 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'm surprised that law is constitutional, even in Texas.
Consensual sex between two unmarried adults violates no one else's rights, unlike bigamy and adultery, both of which violate the very public institution of marriage.
Plato's Euthyphro and Apology are a great illustration...
Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible.
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin. If a person believes in a God, it is the conviction of the Holy Ghost by which they are guided and not by the idolatrous vanities of morals constructed by others.
Plato's Apology is a drama that portrays the current Left wing frustration with Rick Santorum. The people of Athens (the Left) are demanding that Socrates (Santorum) be silent. Socrates refuses and the elite of Athens demand the execution of Socrates. The modern Left wants a figurative execution of Rick Santorum and others like him (although 'figurative' would be quickly made actual if the Left ever had the unchecked power they desire).
Considering that 90% of people tend to be more influenced by the visual, television has become a new religion. It is analagous to Plato's cave allegory. Television as a propaganda tool helps create visual phantasms (or as Thomas Hobbes called them, 'phantastical images') of the brain.
There are three ways people are influenced according to the school of behavioral psychology - - visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinesthetic (emotion). The kinesthetic or 'feeling' is also based on olfactory and tactile sense, much like Pavlov's salivating dogs. Visual images and sound portrayed can be used to anchor emotional and/or conditioned responses desired by those that present them, which in the case of television, is the Leftist television media, actors who create phantastical images in film, and Leftist politicians who pander to symbolism over substance (like Rush always says about them).
The visual aspect of that phenomenon is also used by the print media to a degree. Interactve talk radio requires thought, television does not and relies on this as a means to influence viewers...
They worship for gods 'those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream...'
Like the necromancy of the Wellstone funerally, the use of Martin Luther King Day, or constantly invoking the "spirit of the '60's," the Left attempts to raise spirits of the dead as a totem for worship.
Such is the same concerning the "gay" religion. The public is expected to bow down to their idolatry of perversions. Sorry, I don't buy it...
-
Should that be equated with "man-on-dog" as well?
I don't care...
Should it be idolized?
Well,how do you feel about polygamy or incest then? You think a divorced fellow should be allowed to marry his daughter? The age of consent is 14 in Hawaii.
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.