[Jorge]

Nope, it's you that looks like an idiot with a cynical, deliberate misinterpretation of Santorum's remarks, which seems to be based in a perverse urge to expunge moral belief systems from the public shphere, a la ACLU phonies. When you make wild accusations with no facts to back them up, you only damage your own name.

Give me a major break.

Show me where I misinterpreted Santorum's remarks.
The fact is you can't.

He clearly addressed the issue of privacy when it came to sex between consenting adults in the context of the sodomy case...and warned about the "dangers" of saying adultery and homosexuality were OK.

Now unless he was advocating the sex police busting down the bedroom doors of consenting adults and arresting them for acts of adultery and homosexuality, then his point is moot. And he should have thought before he spoke.

[thoughtomator]

The point is not moot. It's a powerful, compelling statement on the direction of our culture, just the kind of truth that we say we want to know from our politicians. And if you care for freedom, you should be far more alarmed at yet another "right" being interpreted into the Constitution at the whim of the courts - at least as alarmed as Sen. Santorum, enough to say something about it.

He turned out to be totally correct. Since Lawrence v. Texas we have been buried in a virtual avalanche of homosexual initiatives and propoganda. The attack on the institution of marriage alone has the potential to do grievous damage to this country, to say nothing of the damage that is done to people who are encouraged to pursue their own degradation.

Whether you agree with it or not, the question you ask is within the rights of the States to answer. If they choose to prohibit homosexuality and adultery, it is their right to do so. To attack the entire notion of legislating on those matters runs in contravention with millenia of history. Doing so therefore puts the burden of proof on you to make your case. When you simply spit epithets instead of presenting a reasonable case, your remarks cannot be considered to be rational argument.

[xzins]

Santorum believes that sexuality is not just a private matter between consenting adults.

He believes it does have an impact on the health and welfare of the society at large.

Therefore, he thinks it is not unusual for the legislature to place restrictions when the evidence says it is necessary.

[gogeo]

He clearly addressed the issue of privacy when it came to sex between consenting adults in the context of the sodomy case...and warned about the "dangers" of saying adultery and homosexuality were OK. Now unless he was advocating the sex police busting down the bedroom doors of consenting adults and arresting them for acts of adultery and homosexuality, then his point is moot. And he should have thought before he spoke.

Not true, Jorge...his comments were aimed at the anticipated Supreme Court ruling. It was speculated that, much as Roe V Wade was decided upon a "constitutional right to privacy," anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the same basis. He correctly said that if anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the basis of a "privacy right," then no law limiting sexual activity could pass constitutional muster. That includes pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and animal sex.

This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.