Opposition to Homosexual Conduct Is Not Bigotry

The explosive reaction recently to Sen. Rick Santorum's commentary on Lawrence v. Texas, the anti-sodomy law case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, suggests that some believe those who oppose expansion of homosexual rights are in favor of discrimination, or harbor anger toward minorities in general and ill will toward homosexuals, in particular.

In the Associated Press interview that sparked the controversy, Sen. Santorum said, "I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual . . . You have to separate the person from their actions."

Some critics suggest that such sentiments are evidence of an anti-gay bigotry. Let's examine this notion.

The criticism of Sen. Santorum and those who agree with his point of view seems to be this: If you don't buy into the political agenda advocated by Queer Nation, Act Up, the Human Rights Campaign and other homosexual political groups, then you are an intolerant, unenlightened homophobe. While such demagoguery adds a lot of heat to the debate, it doesn't cast much light. The gay and lesbian lobby seeks to force the rest of society to put its seal of approval on a particular form of sexual activity. Gay militants want the state to license same-sex marriages, and because homosexuals cannot reproduce, they demand gay couples to be permitted to legally adopt children. Political activists advocate that "domestic partners" be accorded the same legal standing as marital partners, and they want the inheritance law to treat them in the same manner it treats married couples. The list of demands goes on and on.

The premise of the attack on Sen. Santorum is that one who opposes the advancement of this political agenda is necessarily a "bigot." That premise is false. Laying aside arguments rooted in morality, theology or natural law (it is "politically incorrect" today to appeal to such authorities in public discourse), people such as Rick Santorum who harbor no ill will toward gays may still reasonably oppose preferential treatment for homosexual conduct on public health and policy grounds alone.

As a matter of policy, government has no obligation to accord special protections for high-risk conduct that endangers the lives of its citizens and costs the taxpayers billions of dollars. Well over half of the AIDS cases in America are attributed to transmission through homosexual sodomy. According to a 1997 Journal of Epidemiology study of homosexuals in Canada, gay men have a life span eight to 20 years shorter than heterosexuals. Nearly half of gay men currently age 20 will not reach their 65^th birthday. AIDS has ravaged the homosexual community. In addition to its cost in human terms, the average cost of treating an AIDS patient from diagnosis to death is staggering. The cost of AIDS research, which to date has not produced a cure, now totals billions of dollars.

The fact that most homosexual activity occurs in private does not mean it entails no public consequence and is nobody else's business. When private acts have widespread, adverse public consequences, society has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from those consequences.

This doesn't mean that those who oppose homosexual conduct are necessarily bigots. In the wake of the AIDS epidemic, it may simply mean they are interested in their own continued preservation and that of their loved ones. The homosexual is no less entitled to enjoy civil rights than any other citizen. But it does not follow that society is required to legitimize every form of sexual or social behavior.

Furthermore, in a day and age in which government regulates everything from bungee jumping to cigarette smoking "for the benefit of the public," it is facetious to suggest that government has no right to craft policies aimed at modifying other behaviors that adversely impact the public health.

If there is a problem with intolerance, then perhaps it is to be found among newspaper editorialists, gay activists, and leftist politicians who apparently have difficulty in crediting people whose views differ from their own with good faith and reasoned judgment. The quality of the debate about gay rights will be enhanced if the participants will stick to the facts and be done with the name-calling and demonizing of those with whom they disagree.

Gay militants want the state to license same-sex marriages

Is Same-Sex Marriage Good for the Nation? The only source for unalienable rights in all human history is the Creator, the God of the Bible.

Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected HomosexualityWhen Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity. The acceptance of homosexuality as the equal of heterosexual marital love signifies the decline of Western civilization as surely as the rejection of homosexuality and other nonmarital sex made the creation of this civilization possible.

because homosexuals cannot reproduce, they demand gay couples to be permitted to legally adopt children.

SODOMY : He has no mama now

As a matter of policy, government has no obligation to accord special protections for high-risk conduct that endangers the lives of its citizens and costs the taxpayers billions of dollars.

Texas Phys.Resource Council, Christian Med. & Dental Association, Catholic Med.Association Sodomy is an efficient method of transmitting STDs. And regardless of the reason, same-sex sodomy is far more effective in spreading STDs than opposite-sex sodomy. Multiple studies have estimated that 40 percent or more of men who practice anal sex acquire STDs. In fact, same-sex sodomy has resulted in the transformation of diseases previously transmitted only through fecally contaminated food and water into sexually caused diseases primarily among those who practice same-sex sodomy.

Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDS - Dr. Brian J. Kopp, ... An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year.

Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result? --the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.

The fact that most homosexual activity occurs in private does not mean it entails no public consequence and is nobody else's business. When private acts have widespread, adverse public consequences, society has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from those consequences.

SODOMY : Legislators,State of Texas, Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102

Sodomy : Center For The Original Intent Of The Constitution (Lawrence V. Texas Sodomy Brief)

SODOMY : Legislators,State of Texas, Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102

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.