Senator Rick Santorum, April's Trent Lott
Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get.
I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships.[...]
...I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to 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 anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.[...]
And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.
The GOP as a whole needs to rethink what it's primary political prinicples are and apply them consistently. If Republicans are going to rant and wail (rightly) about government overreach, then they need to understand that their almost hysterical determination to keep the traditional family on a sacred pedestal by means of the power of the state, then they also need to recognize that they are hypocrites. Such power is such overreach, and in some cases worse than economic power.
UPDATE(4/25 6:15pm)
Well, Bush/Fleischer has seriously lost some of my respect now. Santorum is an "inclusive man"??? He's "doing a good job"? Bush "has confidence" in him? Lame, very lame.
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.
I read about this guy in the paper earlier- he's such an idiot. What I find particularly amusing is his comment that he doesn't hate homosexuality, but hates homosexual acts. I fail to see how there's any difference between being homosexual and engaging in actions that are homosexual.
Besides, hatred is antithetical to strong, healthy families.
Posted by: Erik on April 23, 2003 12:44 PMI was a Republican in Texas between the years 1962 and 1972. I haven't voted for a Republican since then, and I'm not a Democrat, although I regularly vote for their Yellow Dogs. Why? Their Yellow Dogs aren't as likely to pass laws against my adult behavior with other adults. Given a choice between voting for personal freedom and economic freedom, I tend to vote for personal freedom.
Erik, you make a good point. There is no discernable difference between homosexuals and homosexual acts. The meanest discrimination I ever experienced was in high school were was perceived to be queer, long before I was sexually active. I think that remains the post-high school experience of most Gays and Lesbians. I do not know anyone who walks around with a sign that says, "I committed homosexual acts last night, discriminate against me." If the Republicans were able to pass their morality legislation, I don't think they'd take the time to discern whether homosexuals were practicing or not. They'd just make us all wear a pink triangle. No wait, that's been done.
Posted by: Ray Bridges on April 24, 2003 12:17 PMI am no spammer but I just noticed you have 174,000 hits and I have 200... You may appreciate my stuff.. or you may think it sucks. Let free speech rule!
Posted by: Jon on October 18, 2004 09:21 PMJon, I looked over what you have and it resembles what I felt and wrote like a few years ago. While I'd be lying if I said I agree with everything you've written, it has a certain zing to it. The visual appeal grew on me; you do all the graphics yourself?
Posted by: Drizz on October 19, 2004 02:18 PM