Friday, April 25, 2003

on the Sen. Rick Santorum thing

actually he was quoted out of context, but only slightly, santorum appears to be making a slippery slope argument (that goes way overboard) as to the decline of "family values". which is incorrect in this case. incest, adultery, yes they can destroy/destablize a family unit, but if its between consenting adults well, i'm not so sure, i fail to see how two male adults (or two female adults for that matter) having sex in a monogomous relationship can destroy/destabilize someone else's family unit or even their own family unit. i have no problem with someone believing or saying that what i do is immoral, perverted, a sin, or whatever because the bible said so. but when you beleive or say that i should be thrown in jail because the bible said so, i have a problem with that. seperation of church and state
also, in the literal sense, a woman giving a man a BJ or a man munching some carpet is also sodomy. definition of words change, 50 years ago the word "party" was only a noun and not a verb the definition a marriage can also change.
his only valid argument is that this issue should be a states rights case, not a federal one, but that too is also debatable. The argument being that the texas law violates the constitution because two men engaging in consentual sodomy is illegal yet man/woman sodomy is not.

i guess the issue here is how far can the courts go to regulate the behaviours of consenting adults.

i also got involved in some off topic comments at

The reason libs have their panties in a bunch over this is not because of the argument he was making at the time but that his words revealed something about his character that libs hate. Namely the conservative-christan-homophobe-hypocrite. its similar to Sen. Lott, the context in which he spoke (a few kind words to Sen Thurman in his b-day) yet his words revealed him to be, as seen by libs, conservative-racist-bigot

No comments: