Still knee-deep in homophobia

The Arizona Republic ^ | Apr. 29, 2003 | O. Ricardo Pimentel

[presidio9]

Let me translate into "bigotspeak" what Sen. Rick Santorum meant when he compared gays to bigamists, polygamists and practitioners of incest and adultery.

Translated: Hey, I place you in the same category as all those scummy people I just mentioned. Oh, and if you act on who you are, you're also a criminal.

[ThinkDifferent]

Your point would be valid if only a miniscule percentage of known speeders were prosecuted.

That pretty much is the case. Most people speed every day, and very few get caught. But as you point out, this leads to selective prosecution. Cops can stop you anytime they want; you're either speeding, or you're "suspiciously" driving too slowly.

[ArGee]

Then why doesn't the state of Texas punish the unmarried heterosexuals committing sodomy?

At the moment, this isn't about what's legal but what's moral, for it was that which Santorum addressed.

You are trying to change the subject because you can't answer my question. Name one religion that holds homosexual behavior as normal while still holding bigamy, polygamy, adultery, and incest as immoral. Just one, please.

Shalom.

[Kuksool]

Would you have preferred if Sen. Santorum used KY Gov. Paul Patton as his example?

[maeng]

Me too!!! I tell ya, we gotta have buttons....

[Khepera]

you didn't hear Jesus demeaning and denigrating people of other/no faiths the way He denigrated homosexuals. And that is the reason.

[ArGee]

Santorum did not make the comparison you and many others falsely claim. He did not say that homosexuals were the same as polygamists, etc, etc. He said that if a court rules that homosexual acts were legal because of PRIVACY, then all sexual acts are legal for the same reason. I think he is right.

You are right and you are wrong. Santorum did not directly make that comparison, but he did do so indirectly on two counts. 1) The discussion was on a court decision regarding anti-sodomy laws so it was reasonable to construe Santorum's comments as relating to those laws. 2) Santorum named four immoral sex acts. Everyone and his brother recognizes homosexual sex as an immoral sex act so they naturally inferred that Santorum was talking about homosexual sex when he said "consensual sex." If the homosexuals did not recognize that homosexual sex is immoral they would not have made that inference.

Out of the depths of the heart the mouth speaks.

Shalom.

[tuckrdout]

No. They don't want to keep this in their own homes. This has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

This is just their propaganda to attack our religious beliefs. They use this sexual issue to launch a religious attack. They are trying to negate our beliefs using the legal system.

[sharktrager]

I'm amazed that the author, early in the piece, says that Santorum is calling them "sinners" just for being. That is not what he, or the sodomy laws, say. They do not address being gay, they address acting on it.

That said, I like keeping marriage the way it's defined, but don't agree with sodomy laws. Frankly, I don't care what someone else does in the privacy of their own home if it's between consenting adults. Just keep it out of public restrooms, parks and the Boy Scouts.

[ctlpdad]

I don't necessarily want them arrested, I just don't want there sick agenda forced upon our society, especially in the schools.

they should not be allowed in the schools.

these same groups say it is wrong for the military to pre-recruit in high school, so why is it ok to teach fisting and anus-licking in high school (or younger, even?)

[presidio9]

Most people have friends, family and/or co-workers who are gay. Does anyone here really want to see them arrested? Does anyone really want to see them be the object of ridicule? Feel free to oppose homosexuality, but never forget the inherent humanness in all of us.

I had a lesbian cousin. She was not religious before she realized that homosexuality was wrong. She became a Catholic and is now a celibate nun. Homosexuality can be cured. God can help. Do I love my cousin? Do I disapporve of her behavior when she was less mature? Absolutely.

[ArGee]

There may be lots of reasons to toss out anti-sodomy laws. The reason that "hey it's consensual and private" is a particularly bad one.

Shalom.

[Texas Eagle]

hee hee heeeeeeee.....I love it!

[tuckrdout]

If that were true, in this case in Texas, then the guys should not have called the cops to the place! They wanted to be arrested. Check the facts of the case.

[Texas Eagle]

Hey,man,I tell you whut,man,thatdangol'fudgepackin,bugchasinstuffdon'tgoover hereinTexas,man.Privacyofyourownhome,hellno,man,dangol' RumpRangeriniswhatitis.Dangol'HersheyHighwaydon'tevenhave anArlenexit,Itellyouwhat.

[presidio9]

Speeding laws are not symbolic (oh how I wish they were). Thousands of people are cited everyday for violating them.

You are grasping at straws. Tens of millions go unpunished. Everyday. It is time to put this point to bed. There are tons of symbolic laws on the states books.

Now, lets get back to the more important point of how favoring letting states legislate morality as they see fit is somehow pro-Big Govenment.

[tuckrdout]

Sorry, your argument rings hollow in this case. Since as you know, the cops were called to the home with the expressed purpose of catching these fellows having sex. They called the cops and said there was a horrible disturbance in the home, and then they left their front door ajar, so that the cops would walk in and see them.

Don't the cops have the right not to have to be a witness to what should be private behavior? The trouble is, the homosexuals do not want it to be private. If they would keep it that way, there would be no problem.