In Defence of Sen. Rick Santorum - Criticism of Gay Sex Acts is Not Equal to Racism

myself

[AveMaria]

If the Moderator will permit me, I want to post this message to express my concerns over the hysterical attacks on Sen. Rick Santorum, by the organized gay lobby.

I am new here, and I just registered, after having been a lurker for 3 weeks. I am from Philadelphia, and my representatives in the Senate are Arlen Spector and Rick Santorum. I am a political independent, who is fiscally liberal but conservative on social issues (I admire FDR, Truman, and LBJ). I have strong disagreements with Sen. Santorum's political philosophy mostly over issues concerning the poor and underprivileged in Philadelphia, and because I am from the Social Justice tradition of the Catholic Church, while he is more of a Calvinized Catholic on economic and social justice issues. But I take the teachings of the Church on traditional morality and family, very seriously. And part of those teachings obligate me to defend Santorum, a man I disagree with vigorously on economic issues, if I feel that he is being attacked unfairly. Here are some of the myths I want to challenge, as a way to help those who want to defend Santorum among progressive circles:

MYTH #1: The Constitution guarantees a right to Privacy.

The reality is that there is no right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution. There are many things you could do within the privacy of your own home that are illegal. It is illegal to use drugs in your own home, even if you may be using marijuana you cultivated as a potted plant at home, and did not buy from a dealer. And as Sen. Santorum pointed out so eloquently, polygamy, bigamy and Incest are illegal, even when practiced by consenting adults within the confines of their own home. What Sen. Santorum was trying to say is that - if a state has absolutely no right to regulate homosexual sodomy on privacy grounds, then on what legal basis would the state challenge a man living with three women, or a father having an affair with his 21 year old daughter?

MYTH #2: Sen. Santorum's statement challenged those strongly committed to diversity and multi-culturalism.

On the contrary. Most of the world's cultures and major religions do not agree on much. But one thing they all agree on, is that homosexual acts (not people) are sinful, repugnant, disgusting, sick, nauseating, and perverse. That is true if you are a traditionalist Catholic, a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, a conservative Protestant, an Orthodox Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a traditionalist Buddhist, a Sikh, etc. Even the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of the Tibetan Muslims, who has ties to Hollywood elites, is on record as having described homosexuality as a sin. I was amazed to discover that even the peace-loving and Pacifist Bahais, oppose gay sex acts. What more multi-culturalism can you ask for?

MYTH #3: Criticism of homosexual Acts is the same as racism.

So many people have suffered from the pain of racism in the past, and there are many racial minorities who suffer today in terms of housing discrimination, discrimination in department stores, restaurant tables, and other humiliations. Too often in the past, the Christian Church failed to forcefully condemn racial bigotry as a sin. As a way to compensate for such glaring injustice, many well meaning white liberal Christians who care about social justice issues as much as I do, are too willing to endorse deviant acts as "okay", as a way to prove to themselves that they are not bigots.

But they fail to realize the fact that sodomy is BEHAVIORAL ACT, and not an unchangeable physiological feature like skin color. The pain of racism is very real, because people cannot change their skin color. But men can will themselves not to commit acts of sodomy, by keeping their pants zipped up. Racial minorities understand this very clearly, and that is why a majority of blacks and hispanics in California supported the recent ballot proposition defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

MYTH #4: Texas sodomy laws punish people for who they are, not what they do, because gays are born that way.

Let us assume that homosexuality is partly genetic. If you go to any state with sodomy laws, and declare publicly that your orientation is homosexual, you will not be arrested. But if the state learns that you dropped your pants and "did it" with someone of the same gender, that constitutes a sex act in violation of the sodomy laws. You are not being punished for your self-declared orientation. You are being punished for specific sex acts. Get it?

Another example. My family has a long history of alcoholism, and I believe that alcoholism is genetic and runs in families. But, although I am genetically inclined toward alcoholism, I do not fear being arrested on a DUI, simply because of my Irish alcoholic genes. In order to be arrested, I actually have to go to a pub, fill my gut with alcohol, and then drive recklessly on the freeway. But if I can keep my "alcohol genes" under control, then so can a person with a "gay" orientation.

[Buckeye Bomber]

"'You don't attack my ideas, you just attack my ideas.' You're right...I guess, if I can infer that you mean personal rather than ideas twice. I was trying to cut to the chase, but it is poor form. I am sorry."

~Poor form indeed, that is true. I apologize for that.

"I've noticed you hit on the Prof aspect a few times, that does make people more arguementative, being shovel fed that tripe. Take heart, this is the last time in your life, as long as you live, that those fools have any power over you and you can spank them in any debate once you graduate. Liberalism is dead in the real world."

~I wonder if anyone else catches the irony of a person who enjoys arguing (only about issues I really do care about, in my defense) becoming an Alternative Dispute Resolution specialist. And I personally have no doubt I can spank anyone in a debate now or after I graduate. But I've been told I am over-confident at times.

And lastly, I caught the joke. I stand by my previous comments. :-)

[Buckeye Bomber]

Oh, sorry, one more point: Santorum has the right to say anything he wants. I don't even think he should lose his leadership positions. I just disagree with him. And I think he might have tried to make a little more sense. His words aren't exactly lucid. In or out of context they are rather, umm, questionable.

[MissAmericanPie]

Rick is right about the entire thing. Here is an personal example.

My new neighbor, directly across the street is a homosexual Catholic priest and his boyfriend. This would be no big deal to me except for the fact that perverts behave in perverted ways.

My very handsome 14 year old son made the comment that he can't go outside for five minutes that they don't make some excuse to come outside, pretending to look for something in their car, looking for crab grass, etc. I watched from the kitchen window while he proved his point in less than five minutes. Sure enough, there the boyfriend came, right out the front door, went to his car, poked around.

Now they have taken to being very affectionate with each other after the lights come on in the evening, in front of their picture window. The exibitionists like to put on a show, I get the sick feeling the show is for my son. These guys never keep it personal or in their bedroom, or behave normally. Their whine about being persecuted is just a sick attempt to make everyone tolerate the intolerable.

I want to know that if they attempt to take things farther than their lame attempts to have a conversation with my son that I can call and have the law deal with them. I want to know that my State will protect my family, deal with them, and make it seem to them a very wise decision to close their curtains. The Supreme Court needs to butt out of State business.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

You want irony? I'm starting to pursue my Masters to one day become a college Prof.

and it all comes full circle.

Yes, I could have pointed out that irony you mentioned, but I didn't hate you any more. I saw alot of myself in you, call it tough love.

Don't worry about over confidence, thats a debating style of people intimidated by your passion. Just always be honest with yourself and take your lumps when you have to and you'll always beat them.

One more thing, the Right To Privacy is employed by some of the most degerate lawyers to ever pass the bar. People I know you would never agree with. I am confident there's a reason why the Founders didn't use that language, dangerously vague.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Sec. 21.06. Homosexual Conduct.
(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

This is the specific Texas law before the Supreme Court. Anyone want to argue with me whether this is Constitutional?

[Buckeye Bomber]

How else can perverts act but in perverted ways? That's like saying females behave in feminine ways. You're not leaving much room for discussion.

There are already laws against sex with minors and non-consensual sex with anyone. Those laws should give you some piece of mind.

[StarFan]

Bump for later read.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

I stand corrected. I didn't think it would say the same sex thing. The Amendment talking about equal protection under the law will probably be used, unfortunately. I don't think anyone has the b@lls, no pun intended, to make the claim the homo orientation isn't covered by that Constitutional definition, which I'm not clear on if they are or not.

Not to cut and run, but I don't really mind if that's the ruling. I am still more concerned that the case is judged on the Right To Privacy again, rationalizing deviancy, which is why Santorum's A=B B=C A=C points resonated with me.

[Torie]

Luis Gonzales has been charged with 20 counts of child molestation, battery, rape, bigamy, stalking, and fraud.

The above is an extract from your link on the Utah case. Sorry, but a man living and having sex with several woman is not a crime anywhere. If it is, I would be amazed, and that should be struck down as unconstitutional.

[MissAmericanPie]

The more laws the merrier as far as I am concerned regarding anti-social behaviour. I would feel the same about an of age woman doing the luring, in fact I wouldn't mind seeing a few more heavier laws regarding that.

[FirstTomato]

Since when has this government, or any other government, been successful in regulating morality onto people's hearts?

Laws are legislated morality.

[mabelkitty]

File a multi-million dollar lawsuit cited the discrimination of his religious beliefs and cite his First Amendment rights.

Then sue for harassment. Then sue for equal protection, as any Islamofacist is treated much different.

This would be the Media condoning/sponsoring only certain religions. Maybe that would be slander, as well.

This would wipe the smirk off their faces in 24 hours. Let the pro-gay agenda folks know how it really feels to have something break off in their a$$e$.

[NCLaw441]

The issue, to my mind, is one of states rights and restraint on the part of the US Supreme Court. I highly commend to you Robert Bork's The Tempting of America. In point of fact, unless there is a state or US Constitutional provision to the contrary, we empower our state legislatures to make all KINDS of laws, some of which turn out to be pretty stupid. Fortunately, state laws can be amended or overturned, local authorities maintain a degree of subjectivity in the enforcement of such laws, and the people can demonstrate for change in such laws. Such is not the case with Supreme Court fiat on what constitutes Constitutional rights. Once created (or interpreted, depending on your point of view), these rights are extremely difficult to amend or overturn, and once they have achieved notoriety among their supporters, enforcement is virtually assured. This is the problem. Constitutional rights should not be determined willy-nilly. A little of the people's rights to self-determination is lost upon each expansion of these so-called rights. I prefer to trust those I elect, or to replace them as necessary.

[Buckeye Bomber]

I've always said we need more laws to make things more illegal. How about we just enforce the laws we already have better? We've been using that argument for years on gun control laws.

Statutory rape is already illegal. Making it more illegal will not decrease the number of times it is committed.

[NCLaw441]

I wasn't the one to whom you addressed thesr questions:
1) Should the state be allowed to ban masturbation?

2) If anal sex is legal for heterosexuals, why is it illegal for homosexuals? This is an especially troubling matter I just came across.

But I think there is a crucial distinction between what laws a state should be ALLOWED to pass and what laws a state SHOULD pass. I don't think states, for example, should pass any more laws increasing taxes, but I think that a state should be ALLOWED to pass such laws. That distinction is the crux of the entire debate, and of Santorum's comments.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Alright fair enough. I don't agree with Bork's point-of-view, but I understand what he is saying, and it does make sense. However, in this specific case, the 14th amendment is being violated beyond any doubt.

The right to privacy is not a bad thing, even if it wasn't explicitly stated in the Constitution. I think anything that restrains the government and keeps it out of my life is a good thing. A government that can invade our privacy whenever it wants to is not going to be a smaller, more efficient government. It is going to be expensive and massive. You think laws enforce themselves?

[Buckeye Bomber]

Please see post 134 for my syllogism and post 145 for the specific law before the Supreme Court. How can you argue that this law does not violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution?

[NCLaw441]

I'll give it a quick shot. The Texas law applies equally to all persons. The prohibition is against deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex. This applies to all males and all females.

[Buckeye Bomber]

I'm going to post everything all at once here.

1) This is the the specific law before the US Supreme Court:

Sec. 21.06. Homosexual Conduct.
(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

2) This is the first section of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (the money quote is in the curlies):

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ~~~~nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.~~~~

3) Therefore, the Texas law is a violation of this clause of the United States Constitution, and therefore must be struck down. You may disagree with the 14th amendment, but I don't think the amendment can be seen any other way. And it is clearly the law of the land.

[Buckeye Bomber]

So homosexuals are not persons? How can anal and oral sex be banned for some people and not others and be constitutional?