Compassion or gay bashing or ...

[jay_too]

New York Times, April 23, 2003:
Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee also issued a statement supporting Santorum.

``Rick is a consistent voice for inclusion and compassion in the Republican Party and in the Senate, and to suggest otherwise is just politics,'' Frist said.


in a way because i am not gay, this is not my fight. BUT i find sen. santorum's remarks equating private homosexual acts with incest offensive. there are genetic reasons for state prohibition of incest.

i support santorum's right to express a viewpoint that is politically stupid and divisive. however, i believe he suffers from a lack of tolerance....er, make that heart. lucky for him there is a cardiac surgeon in the senate to ride to the rescue. yep, that is the guy that reassures us that rick is "a consistent voice of compassion and inclusion in the republican party." huh?

just what dictionary has been issued to republican leadership? perhaps, orwell's compendium of doublespeak.

shame on santorum and frist.

jay

 

[jonb]

Gay bashing, definitely. At one point, he even said that we'd have to allow for incest and pedophilia (I can't remember all the rest) if we allowed for homosexuality. It's quite funny, because the way I was raised, homosexuality's okay while incest and pedophilia aren't, while in the West, incest's okay while homosexuality isn't.

 

[Synergistic]

Of course Santorum never equated homosexual sex with incest and the like, that was an assumption made by the reporter.

Santorum's qualm with the court is the choice of words of "consentual sex", which while encompassing typical homosexual and heterosexual sex, sex between siblings, and underage children with adults can also be included in that spectrum.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Long post to follow:
Okay, here are the original arguments concerning Texas' sodomy statute:
1.) It bans sodomy for homosexuals, but not for heterosexuals, in violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law.
2.) It violates an intrinsic privacy and liberty interest implicit in the Constitution and that guarantees consenting adults the right to do what they want in the bedroom.
Rick Santorum said that the danger is in the second proposition — if government can't ban consentual homosexual acts, then it can't ban polygamy, bigamy [of course, his mention of bigamy here was rather redundant since he had already said polygamy!], incest or adultery. Well, there are few moral absolutes in our society, but most of us agree that incest is genetically unsound, while bigamy and adultery are fraught with emotional issues that can lead to domestic unrest. Equivocating them with consentual homosexuality is ludicrous.
To be fair, Sen. Santorum has said that he has no prejudice against homosexuals themselves, but cannot condone homosexual acts on moral principle. It has been suggested that Sen. Santorum is simply reaffirming his beliefs based on Catholic theology. It is true that the Church teaches that the homosexual must be respected as a human being created in God's own image, but that homosexual acts are morally objectionable. (BTW, that is Catholic doctrine, not dogma.) Santorum is certainly entitled to his religious and moral views, but he should not attempt to impose them on others through law. If Catholic teaching is really what inspires his views, he should be opposing heterosexual sodomy, oral sex, and masturbation; the Catholic Church frowns upon any sexual activity that cannot result in pregnancy. (Please no Catholic-bashing here; I am also Catholic and have great respect for the Church.)
Maybe the reason for Sen. Santorum's fear of sodomy is that his ass his too tight for his own good.

 

[13788]

Finedessert: OH! Double:

" Maybe the reason for Sen. Santorum's fear of sodomy is that his ass his too tight for his own good."

That's way to funny but maybe right. :

Grandpa

 

[jonb]

Well, Whopper, it's interesting: The Bible never mentions lesbianism. Proof that God's a man. LOL

 

[Synergistic]

In response to Santorum's remarks about there not being a right to privacy in the Constitution, I fully disagree, and I cite the 10th amendment as the proof.

 

[jay_too]

i guess that i am the only one that thinks the senate majority leader"s endorsement of santorum as a "voice for inclusion and compassion in the Republican Party and the Senate..." is weird. maybe me and my dictionary don't understand neo-conservative inclusion. does this mean that gays should take heart from being included in a group with those practicing pedophilia and incest?

compassion? well, acceptance and love for a homosexual who is not sexually active or engaged in a relationship does not meet my understanding of compassionate. relegated to a life without sex or love sounds like hell to this 22-year-old male. i associate compassion with concern, understanding and a willingness to support or aid. thus, compassion is one path to a greater understanding and self-realization.

what business is it of the state or society what two consenting adults do sexually in private? is this compassionate? nope, it is none of my business.

jay

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

[quote author=jonb link=board=99;num=1051137127;start=0#5 date=04/26/03 at 14:42:48]Well, Whopper, it's interesting: The Bible never mentions lesbianism.[/quote]

Actually, it does. In one of Saint Paul's epistles ... maybe Romans or 1 Corinthians? ... there is mention of "women who burn with lust for each other". Not very complimentary, but St. Paul was not known for having a high opinion of women.

Proof that God's a man. LOL

I have a more 'scholarly' approach to that question. The word for God is masculine in every Indo-European, Finno-Ugric, Hamito-Semitic, Sinitic and Bantu language. If God were female, "She" would be called Goddess, not God!

 

[jonb]

Oh, I was thinking of the OT.

As for the sodomy law, I think the government has more important things to do than investigate what people do in the bedroom.

[quote author=DoubleMeatWhopper link=board=99;num=1051137127;start=0#8 date=04/28/03 at 22:42:36]

Actually, it does. In one of Saint Paul's epistles ... maybe Romans or 1 Corinthians? ...  there is mention of "women who burn with lust for each other". Not very complimentary, but St. Paul was not known for having a high opinion of women.[/quote]