Just where does the promotion of aberrant behavior as a civil right end? The entire premise is ludicrous, as anarchy is the inevitable result. Good states are classically defined by their promotion of societal common good as referenced in Aristotle's Politics. How can the legitimization of behavior that is so filthy it cannot be described in mixed company without conveying the most revolting feelings be considered "tending toward the common good"? The pro-sodomy lobby takes advantage of this very revulsion for homosexual acts, knowing full well that many individuals do not have the stomach for rightly describing them publicly.
[This is the consequence of conceding the field to militant homosexual advocates who politically bastardize the language. They tell us that sodomy is "gay," and that "sexual perversion" somehow evolved to "sexual deviance," then to "sexual preference," and finally to "sexual orientation"—an evolution necessary to anesthetize the public as to what is really going on. The final "evolved" state, "sexual orientation," has been proven to be a lie many times over. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever indicating that an orientation to homosexual acts is innate and final. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary, with the absence of a "gay" gene admitted by homosexual researchers, and the success of reparative (ex-"gay") therapy admitted by representatives from the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association.
Militant homosexual advocates need to look in the mirror before accusing anyone of being on the fringe. Homosexual journals and publications have promoted de facto child sexual abuse under the guise of "intergenerational intimacy"—where the authors tell parents that they should welcome the "loving" pedophile into their homes.
[And how is standing up for the promotion of societal common good being extremist, in view of the considerable evidence that sodomy brings with it many serious physical and psychological consequences? It is common knowledge that the main reservoir for HIV/AIDS in America remains with the homosexual community, per the consistent statistics kept by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for years.
[To be compassionate does not mean lying to individuals about the consequences of their aberrant behavior. Integral to the definition of compassion is a desire to alleviate the cause of the distress. To confirm an individual in his/her vice is the opposite of compassion. Why is that truth so hard to see? Because "compassion"—like the word "gay"—has been redefined by militant homosexual advocates to mean confirming, not alleviating, the distress.]
The continued hypocrisy of Sens. [Tom] Daschle and [John] Kerry, who call themselves Catholic, is glaring in their demand that fellow Catholic Santorum step down. The church in this country should speak out in defense of politicians like Santorum who recognize that it is not enough to follow one's conscience. The conscience must be informed in accordance with the teachings of the Faith, especially the eternal truths of the Natural Law. ]
Again, what's next, a constitutional right to bestiality? After all, the pervert [bestialist] in question, I am sure, will ensure that his despicable acts are performed in private—which makes them OK, as privacy trumps all, right? No matter that the allowance of the private act wounds society severely. And can you imagine the gall of homosexual activists denouncing the analogy to incest because that behavior is "wrong" and "unhealthy"? Fifty years ago, until the perverted homosexual researcher Alfred Kinsey came along, homosexual acts were unspeakable. Advocates for the unnatural and unhealthy act of sodomy have no basis upon which to declare other perversions as immoral.
[Also, did you ever notice that when it comes to sexual hedonism, the only "choice" allowed is for sexual gratification? Certainly, the "pro-choice" disciples could care less about the baby's choice to survive—he is the one party who is never allowed a choice before being brutally killed by abortion.
[What is about to happen in the Supreme Court regarding the Texas decision for/against acts of sodomy is comparable to Roe v. Wade. That horrendous mistake must not be repeated. Sadly, we must remember that we're dealing with a court which, in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, incredibly said that every individual can define his own universe with applicable laws made to his choosing. His choice can take place without any consideration for the inevitable collision with his neighbors’ equally relevant universe. The author of that decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy) somehow calls himself a Catholic.