From homosexuality to incest?

TownHall.com ^ | Thursday, April 24, 2003 | by Marvin Olasky

[JohnHuang2]

Last week's Washington tempest blew in when Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said that if the Supreme Court in a pending case rules that homosexual practice is constitutionally protected, "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."

Gay advocacy groups quickly made political hay. The Human Rights Campaign expressed outrage that Santorum "compared homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery" in his "deeply hurtful" remarks. The Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights similarly complained that "his remarks show nothing but contempt for lesbian and gay people."

Whoa! Who's showing contempt here? Logical gay groups should applaud Santorum's recognition that a Supreme Court gay breakthrough will also bring liberation for others with non-monogamous sexual interests. Since when do homosexuals look down on others who follow their own bliss? But maybe this is good news: Our headline could read, "Gays join conservative Christians in criticizing bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery."

The Pennsylvania Gay and Lesbian Alliance unctuously proclaimed, "Discrimination against any group of citizens based on who they are is simply wrong" -- yet the gay lobbies were implicitly discriminating against those involved in consensual incest. "Extremism in the defense of vice is no vice," they should say, and then proceed to the postmodern claim that it's all a matter of opinion whether a particular act is vicious or virtuous.

But let's move to the politics, since this is all about trying to drive a wedge within the GOP. "We're urging the Republican leadership to condemn the remarks," said David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. "They're the same types of remarks that sparked outrage toward Sen. Lott."

No, they're not. Trent Lott resigned his Senate leadership post in December after making remarks widely seen as supporting racial discrimination. Lott's words ran counter to the Bible, which is color-blind. Santorum's words reflect the Bible, which says that homosexual practice, like adultery or incest, is wrong. President Bush, who looks to biblical teaching for guidance on important issues, rightly criticized Lott, but he should support Santorum continuing as conference chairman, the third-highest seat in the GOP Senate leadership.

Good politics, good theology, and good constitutional law go together here. The Republican Party should be open to Bible believers, people of other religions and atheists, but if it wants to retain the support of Christians and Orthodox Jews, it should not chastise those who defend biblical truth. Besides, even though the state of Texas may have been unwise under current social conditions to prosecute a case concerning homosexuality, the Supreme Court should not establish a new, loose constructionist constitutional right.

Some Republicans who covet gay lobby campaign contributions will pressure the president to signal a Santorum sack. Because he spoke out in the Trent Lott controversy, he should not sit this one out; Santorum foes will see silence as consent. This is a crucial political fork in the road, and the George W. Bush -- who was tough enough to stand up to supporters of Saddam -- should refuse to be pushed around by supporters of sodomy.

Instead of being defensive, Republicans who are both wise and shrewd will go on offense. They should ask gay interest groups and Democrats to respond to Santorum's challenge: Make a constitutional argument that will differentiate the right to consensual gay sex from a right to bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery. Legislatures, of course, have long differentiated among certain acts, but what happens if the Supreme Court tells them to cease and desist?

Republicans (and others) who want to become wiser on such issues should read "What We Can't Not Know," a new book by my University of Texas colleague J. Budziszewski. The book is not a Bud Light, but non-professors can readily follow its discussion of "natural law," the "developmental spec sheet" that God has given us. As Santorum knows, once we move off that spec sheet, anarchy reigns.

[longtermmemmory]

Actually it does not. In order to get into the home you have fourth ammendment rights. Some laws are just unenforceable and have been struck down as unenforceable. In this situation, you would have to show the conduct is traveling outside the "bedroom". In the texas case there was a complaint. The officer just had unfortunate timing.

So by you argument its ok to specifically prohibit homosexual conduct in public restrooms or public places? Its not a private area...

[=Intervention=]

The practice of homosexuality is not the same thing as being a woman or black. I'm really curious. How much do you really know about the homosexual lifestyle? To defend a choice in the abstract and then say the choice is the same thing as being born a color or a race is quite untrue. Even if you argue that homosexuals are born that way, there is plenty of evidence that they can and DO change.

[longtermmemmory]

They do and they are not recognized under the law. Please save your governemtn out of the marriage business for some other thread.

[Qwerty]

Yes, sex in public is inappropriate and should be illegal.

[=Intervention=]

Stop spreading lies about the Bible. I believe this is the second time I've called you on this, Non Seq.

[=Intervention=]

Exactly. You "believe" you were born that way -- you have no evidence. Case closed.

[longtermmemmory]

So a law which specifically says HOMOSEXUAL SEX in public is illegal is constitutionally sound.

[=Intervention=]

I favor it. Part of keeping society together is punishment meted out to deviance. There should be laws against adultery. More of them, in fact.

[Qwerty]

"The practice of homosexuality is not the same thing as being a woman or black."

Disagree. I'm not black but I'm a white lesbian.

"I'm really curious. How much do you really know about the homosexual lifestyle?"

A lot. It's pretty average.

"To defend a choice in the abstract and then say the choice is the same thing as being born a color or a race is quite untrue."

Says you.

"Even if you argue that homosexuals are born that way, there is plenty of evidence that they can and DO change."

Yes. Evidence put forth by reparative therapists (they make their money doing it) and religious organizations (they truly want to believe gays can change through Jesus). Even so, their "success" rate is minimal, and there have been plenty of scandals where the reformed poster boy goes off and gets caught at a gay bar, or with another man...

Same old story, every day...

[longtermmemmory]

no behavior has ever been shown to be immutable.

[Qwerty]

"Exactly. You "believe" you were born that way -- you have no evidence. Case closed."

Exactly. You "believe" I was not born this way. You have no evidence. Case closed.

You'll have to do better than that.

[=Intervention=]

What else is sodomy, if not sex between two people of the same sex? Duhhhh.

[Qwerty]

"So a law which specifically says HOMOSEXUAL SEX in public is illegal is constitutionally sound."

Of course.. that's within the public domain and applies to everyone.

[Qwerty]

"I favor it. Part of keeping society together is punishment meted out to deviance. There should be laws against adultery. More of them, in fact."

Well at least you're consistent... but you're not convincing.

[Qwerty]

"What else is sodomy, if not sex between two people of the same sex? Duhhhh."

You're wrong. Consult a dictionary. I'll even help you... this is from Merriam Webster:

1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex

[=Intervention=]

Of COURSE it's legal. Animals do not think (after all, who's saving whom, here?). When was the last time you saw a chimpanzee run for office, or complain about his or her rights under the law? Never? Well there you go. Humans care for animals and go so far as to draft laws considering them, but the reverse has never occured. That says much about the status of animals and why they do not deserve rights under any conception of natural law.

[matthew_the_brain]

Homosexuality and Homosexual acts are deviant behavior, by definition. That is a simple fact that some people seem to forget. to compare homosexuality and the act to beastiality, incest, necrophilia, ephebophila, etc, etc is a valid comparison based entirely on their common deviant characteristics.

Part of the problem with the homosexual mindset is this constant identification of their self image, and to a greater extent their self esteem to their deviant sexual appetite.

Just because society in 2003 has a special catagory for homosexuals, and not ephebophiliacs or necrophiliacs, does not make it less deviant.

[biblewonk]

This all boils down to whether or not the State has a right to regulate sexual conduct. Basically it does, in my opinion.

Surely there is no other individual thing that occupies more of mans time than sex. The spectrum of "sexual conduct" is vast and includes everything from a mildly erotic thought to Nazism, from Missionary position in a Christian marriage to the most horrendous of child beastial rape canibilism. "Sexual conduct" and laws and the powers of government can never be summed up and placed on a bumper sticker.

[=Intervention=]

You have no sense of history. Go back and read what sort of mores were expressed in law up 'til 1950 and you'll see that this is nothing new, nor nothing deviant.

[Qwerty]

"Of COURSE it's legal. Animals do not think (after all, who's saving whom, here?). When was the last time you saw a chimpanzee run for office, or complain about his or her rights under the law?"

Are you responding about my post on whether it's legal to light my dog on fire? It's fully illegal.