© the eyeranian

He's a pinhead, agreed. Now back off the Republican party for a moment. Perhaps the party needs some jumping on, for several good reasons, but not because of Santorum. To carry that logic, all men must be pinheads, all Americans must be pinheads, he's possibly a Mason, so... well you see how it leads. So let's let the lambsting land where it should, uppon the head of the senator. It's sad that so few people spoke out about this, but their silence isn't imputed acceptance. Sometimes people are too embarassed to even acknowledge something, like when you are riding in a car with a friend and one of you passes gas. The other doesn't acknowledge such unpleasantness. Santorum...passing gas oraly. That's a picture, no? Ok so back to the Republicans, but rail against them for what they do as a group, not what one misguided invidual does. You know how it makes your skin crawl when you hear some biggot say "well you know how all those(insert nationality here)are" Thanks for the space,
Dave

"'If the Supreme Court says you have the right to (homosexual) consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to do anything.'"

"Santorum has the right to his views, twisted as they are. Believing that homosexuality is no different from incest, for example, is absurd."

That's not what he's saying.

The statement mentioning incest, bigamy, etc., is not one of Santorum's personal beliefs—it's simply how law works. If the courts rule that states cannot legislate the behavior of consenting adults in private homes with regard to homosexual intercourse, then de facto states also lose the ability to legislate regarding all sexual acts between consenting adults in private homes, regardless of what those acts are.

Now, you can think that's a good thing or a bad thing, but legally there's no way to make laws about some types of sex and not others once the courts establish that states can't touch the subject at all.

It's not a matter of believing that incestual sex and homosexual sex are morally equivilent. It's a matter of whether or not we as a society do or do not want to have laws that address sex at all.

Well, Mac, I think I will go with no laws regarding sex at all, with the exception that minors are still off limits to everyone. This link should explain why I want the government to stay out of the sex and morality business.
Please Read This
I hope the html tags work here. Thanks.

Ok, no html, please cut and paste, it's important.
http://zogby.blogspot.com/2003_04_27_zogby_archive.html#200224311

Like I said, you can be for or against the overall idea, just so long as you don't get confused into thinking its easy to seperate one sex law from the another. The zogbyblog post you cite, Dave, certainly gives one an understandable and straightforward reason to want law and the courts to not touch sex at all, for instance. I've seen arguments in both directions and seen merit in both sides. Today I'm inclined in your direction, but I'd hardly say I've made up my mind completely so far.

My original point, that Santorum is merely stating the central issue of the court case and not expressing any particular opinion regarding homosexual vs. incestuous sex, still stands, of course.

I would be more inclined to give senator Santorum the bennefit of the doubt if he would come out and make that case for himself, to state that he wasn't comparing homosexuality to incest for example, but he hasn't chosen to do so. I wish he would either say "that wasn't what I meant" ("sorry" isn't necessary) or specify "that was exactly what I meant"

Dave wrote: "back to the Republicans, but rail against them for what they do as a group, not what one misguided invidual does."

Okay, here it goes: shame on Republicans as a group as well as their leadership for not condemning obvious hate and bigotry expressed by one of their Senate leaders.