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

myself

[briant]

If someone wanted to marry their 70 year old sister could they? No genetic defects to worry about, unless...

[2nd Amendment]

I'll take you up on that one. First of all I don't equate dietary habbits with sexual perversion. Jews follow the old Testament which forbid the eating of Pork. Christians believe that the New Testament fulfills the O.T. and supercedes it in some areas. Under the age of grace we are free to eat anything. It is still wrong for us to eat pork in front of a Jew or Muslim if our purpose is to instigate trouble or drive them away. We are to be sensitive to the consciences of others and seek to show a Christlike example.

[Brilliant]

You're right, it's the 15th that mentions race isn't it? But the whole purpose of the 14th and the reason it was passed was to protect former slaves. Now that I see that it's not specific to race, it seems more likely to me it will get overturned. However, in doing so, the Court will have to overturn 210 years of Constitutional jurisprudence. It still seems like a stretch.

[Buckeye Bomber]

No, they couldn't marry them. It seems in some states they couldn't have sex with them either. But as I've said many times on the board, sex is a private matter, marriage is a civil matter.

[Buckeye Bomber]

THE 14TH AMENDMENT SEEMS LIKE A STRETCH!

Equal protection is equal protection. No citizen is different is the principle on which the amendment was passed (although at that point, I suppose it was no male citizen).

[sinkspur]

First of all I don't equate dietary habbits with sexual perversion.

A Jew or a Muslim might.

This is the kind of arbitrariness we get into when we begin to enshrine religious morality into law.

Especially religious morality that does not affect innocent third parties.

[AveMaria]

[.....Although, the biggest problem I see now is that the Texas law says HOMOSEXUALS CAN'T DO THINGS THAT HETEROSEXUALS CAN! Do you understand the words I am saying?....]

Oh yes. I understand. But, you see, I have never recognized the gay rights movement as a legitimate civil rights movement, like that of blacks.

The gay rights movement seeks to confer "rights" on actual behavior that people can control. But the racial segregation laws punished people, not based on their behavior, but on the color of their skin. There is a HUGE difference.

What was truly outrageous about racial segregation, is that all blacks, no matter how they behaved, were treated as second class citizens - without any exceptions.

White gays never had to endure that. A white gay man could conform to standards of behavior expected from heterosexual white men, and he was accepted. We never had any difficulty accepting Rock Hudson as a Movie star in the 1950s.

But blacks faced a color bar that was so severe, that no amount of wealth, behavior, prominence, or talent, could overcome it. Sammy Davis Jr. performed in big 5-star hotels in Las Vegas in the 1950s, but he was not allowed to sleep in those exclusive hotels, unlike his performing partners, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. Davis' wealth and fame meant absolutely nothing to the racial segregationists of the time. Have the white middle-class gay activists ever faced anything of the sort?

Homosexual acts constitute behavior that people can control, and people can change from heterosexual to gay. There are many ex-gays, who have publicly testified to abandoning their deviant lifestyle.

I oppose the whole concept of "gay pride", because deviant behavior is nothing to be proud of. If anything, homosexuality should be viewed as a shameful act like masturbation, and people should not be proud of their maturbatory skills. How would a "masturbation rights" civil rights group be received?

[Buckeye Bomber]

I apologize, I misunderstood your comments. I now see you were saying that the overturning is a stretch, although I disagree with you. But once again, I'm sorry. Throwing out jurisprudence is fine by me if it's unconstitutional.

[AveMaria]

[....Almost all parents would like their children to marry someone in the same racial and religious groups as themselves- should interracial and interfaith marriages be banned?....]

No. I believe in equality of all people. Not equality of all behavior.

[Buckeye Bomber]

We have this little thing called the 14th amendment. I posted it earlier. Maybe you should read it. Equal protection isn't just about race. It's all citizens. The state of Texas may have better legal standing if all sodomy was banned, not just that between homosexual males.

[sinkspur]

I believe in equality of all people. Not equality of all behavior.

So, heterosexual sodomy is OK, but homosexual sodomy is not?

[Buckeye Bomber]

Should sex outside marriage be banned?

Should sex with birth control be banned?

[nmh]

If our founders thought highly of homosexuality, then we would NEVER have had SODOMY LAWS. The Constitution does NOT guarantee perversion privacy. If the perversion is known then there is a consequence.

BTW, being a homosexual is NOT genetic. People turn to homosexuality because of sexual abuse or sexual idenity problems. As for the rest of your post, you are VERY confused. I don'thave the time or interest in straighteneing you out. Maybe someone else likes to try their hand at irrational people.

[AveMaria]

[....Privacy may not be a set-in-stone amendment, but equal protection is....]

Equal protection applies to people, not behavior. All people are equal under the law. But not all behavior is equal under the law. Get it?

Some socially useful behavior (e.g. religious traditions) can benefit from equal protection. But some useless behavior (gay sodomy) should not benefit.

[Buckeye Bomber]

It doesn't matter.

1) The Texas law bans anal sex between 2 males, but not that between a man and a woman.

2) The 14th amendment requires laws apply equally to all citizens.

3) The law will be struck down.

[sinkspur]

But some useless behavior (gay sodomy) should not benefit.

Is heterosexual sodomy also "useless behavior"?

[Buckeye Bomber]

NO, you are wrong. A law can not ban a behavior for one group and not another. Do I have to repost the 14th amendment clause that specifically deals with this?

[Buckeye Bomber]

I'm glad you are here to decide what behaviors are useful. There's nothing worse than a populist who wants a bigger government with more powers to tell us what to do.

[briant]

But not for the reason you stated. If they were infertile they still couldn't marry.

[briant]

2) The 14th amendment requires laws apply equally to all citizens.

Like the draft lol.