Posted on 04/23/2003 11:42:58 PM PDT by 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.
Ok. Is sodomy deviant? Is it deviant for everyone?
Which post is this in reply to? Not sure what you're referring to.
I don't have a problem with legalized prostitution or selling of your own tissue. But since I'm not a prostitute or trying to sell off my kidney, I'm more concerned with the topic at hand.
You are one seriously messed-up dude.
I'm going to have to defer to your biblical knowledge. I went to Catholic school and was taught it was a sin.
I notice you didn't say anything about the definition of sodomy though.
Well as it applies to the case being reviewed by the SC, heterosexual sodomy is fine. I figure they have an equal protection argument at least for the fact that women can legally perform fellatio while men can not.
Deuteronomy 22:22
"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel."
Do I need to quote to you about what the Bible says about lying?
Read NUMBER 2. Definitions don't stop at the primary. That's such basic information. Texas law makes a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy.
Just admit when you're wrong.
Thank you for clarifying. We indeed have a major difference in viewpoint.
I find it rather incredible that people think homosexuality is a deliberate choice, I really do. God knows I've been turned down by women often enough.....but I never had a thought to sleep with another guy to make up for it. I find it remarkable that people actually choose to be gay....I just wonder how they go about it.
I think you either have a pre-disposition to be gay, or you don't. I don't think making a deliberate choice to be a homosexual happens at all. Either it's there or it's not.
I think the biggest lie being foisted onto the public here is the lie that "whatever I do in the bedroom has nothing to do with the rest of the society". If anything should be clear to everyone in America, the untruth of that statement should be.
What have we had for the past 30 years but a tireless, militant advocacy for "acceptance" of the Gay lifestyle?? Not content to simply press for equal treatment, many Gay advocacy groups insist that we subject our children to teaching that indoctrinates them in the belief that homosexuality should be "celebrated" (and I do quote). This, contrary to the express wishes and beliefs of the parents who send their children to school to "educated".
The fact of the matter is, what is done in the bedroom or privacy of our lives will always find expression outside those confines if for no other reason than an inate need for approval. Garnering approval, the next instinctive desire is for majority status. This is just "plain old" Bible teaching about basic human nature and it's surprising to see so many, especially here, denying it.
The Rick Santorums of the world know this to be true and look down the road and see the pernicious effects of a society that opening the door to these kinds of practices will bring down on our heads. To me, it's something like marijuana being a "gateway" drug, to use a cheap analogy. Any kind of civil sanction of an immoral practice works the same corrosion, although not always to the same extent.
I can't recall the exact year, but I remember watching a documentary on one of the Gay March on Washington events. What the researcher was at pains to show was who was in the train following the Gay marchers. It is absolutely on point to note that following the so-called "mainstream" Gays, were pedophiles (NAMBLA in particular), masochists, sadomasochists, bestiality practitioners and so on. When asked why THEY were there, they used the EXACT logic Sen Santorum is using, namely, "If THEIR (the Gays) lifestyle is ok, what is wrong with our 'consensual sex' lifestyle? We want OURS TOO." It was ironic to see how they were ignored by the mainstream Gays.
As to laws regarding this behavior being unenforceable, I'd argue that one aspect of the law is not just penal (no pun intended), but also prescriptive in that it states the norms that the society enacting them holds. In this case, the US is saying (in its majority, through law enacted by popularly elected officials), "We draw the line here." No society can hold itself together and not draw boundaries and distinctions somewhere, and those "somewheres" will no doubt leave some folks unhappy. This, it seems to me, is what the hubbub is all about.
There is nothing new, the Preacher says, under this old sun. The battle between Goodness and sin continues. There will always be prophetic voices pointing out our sins and those voices will always draw the wrath of us sinners.
Preach on, Senator Santorum!
Yes, states can create any laws they want provided they do not run contrary to the Constitution. You can NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF GENDER. Mississipi can create all the laws it wants about women not being able to vote, but the USSC will toss it. Similarly, this case is claiming that the law violates the Constitution. I'm not sure which tack they are taking with that, I suggested one.. that men can be arrested for performing an act that women can legally perform.
As for the "belief" question.. are you talking about my belief that people are born homosexual? Yes I believe I was. It isn't something I'd have voluntarily chosen, since it creates situations I'd rather not deal with. It's always easier to go with the flow, of course. I CHOSE to act on my impulses, but the impulses were not my choice.
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.