sulli's Journal: Sen. Santorum on Privacy, Consensual Sex

So the third-ranking Republican in the Senate opposes consensual sex, (presumably gay? he didn't say) because it leads to all sorts of nasty things:

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. ... [T]he 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.

Here's what I have to say, Mr. Santorum: you can take your attitude towards what we do in private and shove it firmly up your ass. Just make sure to get US Supreme Court permission first, or you might find yourself convicted of acts "antithetical to strong healthy families."

scary

[asv108]

It amazing how nuts this neo-conservative movement has gotten since 9-11. Pretty soon a premarital blowjob will be illegal under the patriot act. As a PA voter, I will be sure not to vote for this joker when he is up for reelection. Not that I ever did vote for him. Right now we have two lame duck Senators between Spector and Santorum. There is no chance of getting rid of Spector, but removing Santorum is a possibility.

Pre-marital blowjobs

[Some Woman]

I think they are already illegal in my state (MN). Post-marital ones may be as well- I don't know.

Re:Pre-marital blowjobs

[Jonathunder]

They were illegal here in Minnesota, until the state courts struck that law down fairly recently. Unlike in some states, that law had not been enforced in a long time, however.

In the Texas case, which is now before the US Supreme court, two men were actually jailed overnight and fined $200 each for having sex in their own home. The police had gone into the home based on a false report of illegal gun use, found the men in bed, and arrested them.

Texas state courts and lower federal courts have upheld the

Re:Pre-marital blowjobs

[Jonathunder]

How did that come out as "consulting" adults? I even used the preview button.

Re:scary

[Elwood P Dowd]

Um. Get to know your state. Premarital blow jobs are illegal under the Pennsylvania blue laws. It's sodomy, boys.

Re:scary

[asv108]

That's why I said "pretty soon"..

Piffle!

[claudia]

That's like saying the right to First Amendment free speech leads only to hate crimes, slander, treason, and libel, and, therefore, should be banned.

These people scare the poop right out of me.

dupe

[heliocentric]

Check out memfree's [slashdot.org] journal for an already going discussion on this topic.

Christian Taliban

[moncyb]

"Family friendly" is just a Christian Taliban euphemism for ways of enforcing their religious beliefs upon others. If they admitted they were writing laws which imposed their religious views on everyone, then they would obviously be violating the Constitution--as if they are not now.

They want to make everything outside of their religion illegal. Not only sex out of their religion's marriage and sex acts not approved by their clergy, but all other religions period. If you talk to most of these people for a

He was quoting a supreme court decision.

[Elwood P Dowd]

He was paraphrasing an actual supreme court decision. Of course, it's the actual opinions expressed that are offensive to me, but for some reason people are picking up on the "he's equating homosexuality with incest" which is just a red herring.