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

myself

[AveMaria]

[....Should the state be allowed to ban masturbation?....]

No. I do not believe that the state should ban masturbation. Masturbation does not violate community standards of decency, unless it is done in public.

But I remember a case in Alabama, where some conservative Republican legislators banned sex toys: http://www.s-t.com/daily/02-99/02-18-99/e03wn149.htm

[Buckeye Bomber]

Specifically see post 57 for my biggest questions.

[Buckeye Bomber]

But it's immoral! Seed-spilling! That's horrible! Jocelyn Elders suggested it be taught to students as an alternative to sex and the press ate her alove and called for her head!

Community standards of decency. Screw the community and their standards. Leave me alone unless you have a good reason not to do so.

[AveMaria]

If anal sex is legal for heterosexuals, why is it illegal for homosexuals?

Because a great many Americans believe that homosexual relationships should be discouraged, because they go against traditional family values, and are not seen as having any social value. But on the other hand, society has a vested interest in promoting marriage.

Almost all parents would like their children to be heterosexually married, not in homosexual relationships.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Alright, should they have been able to ban sex toys? This case with the Texas sodomy law seems to be dealing with a similar idea.

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?

[LWalk18]

Almost all parents would like their children to be heterosexually married, not in homosexual relationships.

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?

[Gee Wally]

Should the states be allowed to ban masturbation? I asked this elsewhere, but I wanted to make sure you see the question.

The question isn't whether or not the states should be "allowed" to do that, it is whether or not such power is reserved to them under the Constitution. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where it says that the right of the people to masturbate is inviolate or that the right to masturbate is an inalienable right or that the power of the States to ban masturbation is curtailed. Perhaps that was one of the grievances against King George, oppressive restrictions on the right to be a wanker; but Jefferson and Adams didn't mention it in the Declaration of Independence. Maybe Madison was too embarrassed to include notes about the right to masturbate in his notes of the Constitutional Convention. Or maybe it was just a backroom deal when the post-Civil War debates on the 14th Amendment were going on. You know, well, we can knock out those laws against masturbation at the same time we try to prevent state laws from oppressing the newly-freed slaves. Great constitutional moments.

I suspect that if you went to your local mall, seated yourself in a stall and engaged in such conduct, you might find yourself being prosecuted. I would say, however, that under the 4th Amendment the States have no power to search your home without probable cause to see if you are a wanker. On the other hand, seeing this post of yours might give them probable cause to suspect that you are indeed a wanker.

Do you really believe you could find any state legislature that would want to even consider such a law? Even if you did, don't you think the voters might install some new legislators at the next election and encourage them to spend their time on more pressing matters? That's the way our system of government should work.

Nice try, though.

[Buckeye Bomber]

I think this clearly violates equal protection however. How can you disagree with that? Privacy may not be a set-in-stone amendment, but equal protection is.

[AveMaria]

[....Jocelyn Elders suggested it be taught to students as an alternative to sex and the press ate her alove and called for her head!....]

She should not have been promoting such things to underage school children. But if she had said that to adults attending a sex-ed seminar....well....she might have survived.

[sinkspur]

Because a great many Americans believe that homosexual relationships should be discouraged, because they go against traditional family values, and are not seen as having any social value. But on the other hand, society has a vested interest in promoting marriage.

Almost all parents would like their children to be heterosexually married, not in homosexual relationships.

Should fornication--that is, sexual relations between two unmarried people-- be banned as well, given your arguments above?

[Buckeye Bomber]

Alright, so here is the ordering of priorities in your mind as I see it:

Homosexual intercourse > other more pressing matters > masturbation.

Am I right?

And I suppose the government would now have probable cause to search my premises for proof that I am a masturbator. However, I would argue, of course, that they ought to have neither that power or the power to search the homes of suspected homosexuals for proof that they are having anal sex.

[2nd Amendment]

The only criticism I have of Sen. Santorum is that he is too milktoast on this issue. We've lost the battle for morals if we can't stand up and call sodomy a disgusting abominable sin. To accept and embrace it is to call for God's wrath upon our nation. It's Adam and Eve, Buckaroo, not Adam and Steve!

[ChadGore]

Re: Should the government be allowed to regulate masturbation? Because it involves pretty much the same rights here.

If my left hand doesn't consent, is it abuse ?
lol

[sinkspur]

Do you really believe you could find any state legislature that would want to even consider such a law?

I would bet you three cases of beer that you couldn't find any state legislature today which would want to even consider a law against sodomy, heterosexual or homosexual.

[Buckeye Bomber]

You can call it a sin all you you want. I agree with you. Any sex that is not between a man and woman who love each other and are open to the possibility of reproduction is sinful. I'm just saying the government shouldn't be in the busininess of trying to put morals onto people's hearts.

[sinkspur]

We've lost the battle for morals if we can't stand up and call sodomy a disgusting abominable sin.

Muslim Americans and Orthodox Jews would say that eating pork is a disgusting abominable sin.

Should we ban pork because some people find the eating of it sinful?

[Buckeye Bomber]

I asked the pork question earlier. No one responded. It's called cognitive dissonance. Just ignore things that seem to disprove your thoughts. It makes life a lot easier. :-)

[Brilliant]

Yes, but that is the 14th Amendment which specifically prohibits discrimination based on race. It doesn't mention sexual orientation. Personally, I think the laws are dumb, but the Supreme Court can't simply announce that it is adding a constitutional right that does not exist. If they can do that, then they can do anything, and the Constitution means nothing.

[Buckeye Bomber]

"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."

Are you crazy?

[Buckeye Bomber]

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

I repeat

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws