Radiofree West Hartford -- SENATOR RICK SANTORUM AND HOMOSEXUALITY by Ben Cerruti

SENATOR RICK SANTORUM AND HOMOSEXUALITY

By Ben Cerruti

May 05, 2003

Senator Rick Santorum has suffered unwarranted but not unexpected criticism for comments made in a recent interview on the subject of homosexuality related to a Texas sodomy law. What did he say that was so objectionable? Was it this?

"..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."

It wouldn't seem objectionable since it appears he is alluding to the type of life style that the people of a healthy moral society want to have portrayed to their children as being normal because they are the generation of the future and will have the tendency to perpetuate that life style? That social elements and government controlled public schools tend to force acceptance of the homosexual life style as a normal one which then give children the message that homosexual activity is normal. Given the tacit approval of society, the strong sex drive in teenagers may already have led some of them, who would not previously have done so, into the homosexual arena.

Or is it this? ".. 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. ."

Again, isn't he speaking to the effect that in all aspects of society there is a need for individual self control? Self control used to support the tenets of a society that has evolved based on procreation involving sexual activity between male and female? It goes to the core of the beliefs of people regarding the type of life style they believe to be the most healthy for both mind and body. The type of life style that they want to have portrayed to their children as being normal because they are the generation of the future and will have the tendency to perpetuate that life style. Although persecution of any one because of their respective orientation should not be tolerated in a free society such as ours neither should that orientation necessarily be considered as normal.

Or is it this? "...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: the future of the society. And that's what? Children in monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. . ."

There should be no objection here since it should be obvious that a healthy moral society is based on an ever-evolving familial type relationship. Homosexual relationships cannot realistically evolve in this manner over generations. There may be attempts with relationships between two persons of the same sex to adopt children in some manner so as to simulate a family environment but it is highly unlikely that it will be perpetuated. Those homosexual involved in this activity are few and far between.

Or is it this? " 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 (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, and 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. . 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. . "

So why would a rational mind not agree to the simple point Santorum makes that any activity acting to destroy the family structure also acts to harm the very foundation on which our social structure is based. Mentioning the various deviant sexual activities is only to definitively impress this point. It is the strong family structure that is to be preserved in order to have an evolving society that will be able to be perpetuated and not morally decay over time.

Senator Santorum's remarks make common sense and our country needs more people like him that have the backbone to state the truth. Rather than find objection to his views people should support them. Those truly having homosexual tendencies with no objection generally are grouped, or group themselves; with those who claim to either have bisexual or transgender orientations. Once such people openly engage in sexual practices that deviate from that engaged in by male with female in monogamous relationships, that nature obviously meant to be used for procreation, society has a legitimate right to view it as dangerous to the healthy moral upbringing of evolving generations. In a free country such as ours people should not be physically endangered because of their sexual orientation but that does not mean that our society should sit idly by and allow the corrupting influence of sexual practices to imbed itself into our culture.