“I have no problem with homosexuality — I have a problem with homosexual acts.”
-- Rick Santorum, R-Pa., third-ranking Republican in the senate

The senator went on to explain that he believes homosexual acts are a threat to the American family and compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, just in case you weren’t already regretting your well-publicized membership in the human race yet.

Pennsylvania, huh?

I (obviously, I would hope) disagree with the Senator, but there is a certain draw to the generic ‘insert object of distrust here’ nature of his statement. Let me try it out:

“I don’t dislike morons, I dislike their actions (such as, say, speaking).”

“I don’t dislike bigoted GOP misanthropes, I dislike their actions (see moron).”

See? The form of the sentence is very compelling. (Sophistry, and thus BS, but v. compelling.)

I agree with your argument, I would change the quote you site in this article.

In the quote you used, the word "gay" was added by the author writing the article to add credibility to his observations. The Senator was actually talking about the importance of Sodomy laws in that quote and wasn't necessarily speaking about homosexuality at that point in the conversation.

I think the more telling quotes from the Senator are "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

"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."

Another article.

Hey, you can be gay, I love gay folk. Just don't be doin' it with members of your same gender. Sickie.

That other article I tried to hyperlink is at

http://www.tribnet.com/24hour/politics/story/863870p-6037801c.html

Taking a Devil's Advocate approach. (And likely this is a thread of conversation in many forums)...

Should bigomy, polygamy, incest and adultery be legal as long as it is consentual and private?

The argument is homosexual acts are illegal under sodomy laws, yet since it is a private act it is generally considered OK. What differentiates that from bigomy or incest as long as it is consentual or private?

Where is the line of privacy and moral legality drawn?

I see Santorum's point.

I don't agree with his views or most of his voting record, but I have to say that I think the people of a state and thier legislature has a right to keep some things in the domain of state's rights.

In this situation, Tricky Ricky was saying that he thought if the US Supreme Court thinks this law on personal conduct was held unconstitutional, alot of things might be found unconstitutional.

It's the old slippery slope arguement, but there are alot of wacknuts out there that'd love to have all sorts of protections thrown out as unconstitutional.