  Bonjour Everyone, I've been doing that thing that power-hungry people hate. I've been reading some, in particular one urlLink Senator Rick Santorum (R) PA and urlLink his comments on Homosexuality to the Associated Press . &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; At first, I was willing to give him his day and ignore the obvious idiocy of his statements but after reading this, I just have to speak out. Below is the text I read as taken from the urlLink Newsday website. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; urlLink Sen. Santorum's Comments on Homosexuality By urlLink The Associated Press April 22, 2003, 6:53 PM EDT An unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. Words that couldn't be heard clearly on the tape are marked (unintelligible).
AP: If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families? SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And that's a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible) percent in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25 percent.
The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, Oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them.
But it's this whole idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge. AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that? urlLink SANTORUM : You have the problem within the church. 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. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it. AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?
SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle. AP: What's the alternative? urlLink SANTORUM : In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people.
If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it. AP: Well, what would you do? SANTORUM: What would I do with what? AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative? SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe _ AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
urlLink SANTORUM : 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. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that.
And 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. AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex? urlLink SANTORUM : 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. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion.
And now we're just extending it out. 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. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman.
Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality.
That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _ AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out. SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. 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. And we're seeing it in our society. AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it? urlLink SANTORUM : I've been very clear about that.
The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.
Copyright &copy; 2003, The Associated Press&nbsp; &nbsp; Now first, I think he is a loony. I think he has a lot of mental problems. This is my opinion because I can't believe someone is so deluded that they'd compare such diverse groups to commonly condemn them. Oh wait, urlLink Jerry Falwell ...no comment.... 1. What in the living hell is wrong with you?! Those things that hurt people abused their power as priests to take advantage of people!
Are you smoking crack?! urlLink Donte Stokes has/had the right idea in my opinion. I personally believe in a rule of law and would prefer not to go to his extremes but when some jackass like you says something like that, it really makes me rethink my position! &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. What goes on between consenting adults IS none of your business! If you try to pass legislation to restrict urlLink GBLT , Poly, or anything going on between consenting adults which is not harmful or illegal by a reasonable, non-bigoted standard, I will personally recommend setting a video camera with a live feed at every place you go during the day just to keep an eye on what you do and have it broadcast on all the crappy network channels in place of that reality TV.
Then if you should break any of these laws you seem to want to impose on GBLT and Polys, we could come and arrest you by your own damn bullshit standards. How's that for 'Right to Privacy'? Would you be in agreement to this? &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. If we get banned then so do you. I say ban heterosexual acts just to be fair.
People like you want to hold up these impossible standards because you feel you're morally superior but I've met far more moral people among open communities like GBLT and Poly than I've ever met around your ilk. You won't let urlLink GBLT and Polys get married by law like a lot of us want to yet you want to hold everyone to your standards. Has it ever occurred to you that we're not you? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, we have dreams and ambitions for urlLink families of our own yet people like you step between us and this goal every time you try to ban Gay marriage or further ban Polys from associating with each other? How the hell are we supposed to fit your lofty standards when you won't let us? &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4.
Actually, if you had bothered to do your research, you'd find that the urlLink monogamous structured family is not the normal mode of 'Every society in history', but just the ones you choose to align your values with. Most societies were of an urlLink Adulterous or urlLink Polygamous nature, either urlLink Polygynous or urlLink Polyandrous . Now if you really want to keep with tradition, you'd give up urlLink monogamy . Even in so-called urlLink monogamous societies, how many people cheat on their spouses? How many divorce their spouses in the urlLink serial monogamy pattern? Has it ever occurred to you that possibly people were getting urlLink married for the wrong reasons in the first place?
What is right for you is not necessarily right for me or the next person. I personally believe that consenting adults have the right to judge for themselves what is good for them and would not persecute you for being monogamous though you persecute me and mine for being urlLink Polyamorous , and urlLink GBLT . &nbsp; By the way, there are several societies that had no problem with urlLink Homosexuality . Maybe you need another trip to the library? Maybe even a good long talk with an urlLink anthropologist or two? &nbsp; 5.
Why would Congress feel the need to create the 'Defense of Marriage' act if there is so much protection for people. If everything truly is fair, why is the definition there except to keep you and yours happy at the expense of others. Sounds suspiciously like another case I recall reading from 1967. The local government wanted to break their urlLink marriage up and didn't consider their union valid, even though they loved each other, just because the people in their local government didn't feel they should be together. Those same limiting people felt that this couple were a 'moral affront' to the sensibilities of the Union and against the natural laws of man and their god. I am so glad the couple urlLink won their case .
&nbsp; &nbsp; In closing, we live in a free society where people are entitled to their opinions. They're also entitled to challenge opinions where they feel that they're mistaken, deluded, or just plain wrong. This I believe strongly. &nbsp; Earth Blessings, urlLink KaliTime Camaralzman 
