ARTelevision

Sen. Santorum's Comments on Homosexuality
The Associated Press

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 while 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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.

......................................................

Personally, this is the territory straddled by contemporary conservatism that makes me the most sqeamish. It is all so vastly contentious and relative - it is better not politicized.

All this moralizing by politicians on the right drags down the whole enterprise. Politics is politics - it is the pursuit of the practical and pragmatic. Ethics and morality are light-years apart from all that. Why politicians feel the need to pontificate on what are essentially religious/ethical matters is beyond me. We don't need any of these laws - yet they keep churning them out - confusing conservatism with some sort of "religious" fervor.

I'm conservative - but it has nothing to do with this sort of nonsense. In brief - it gives conservatism a bad name.

__________________
create evolution

rock_bottom

Classic straw man argument. "Sodomy is like incest or bigomy, and those are bad, so sodomy is bad too". Wait a second there, just because sodomy was once a taboo doesn't mean it's the same as everything that was once a taboo. Consensual sex between two adults is totally different than nonconsensual sex between an adult and a child. Since his entire argument is based on faulty logic, as far as I can tell, he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

The_Dude

what the heck????

he's saying you DONT have the right to adultery.

we have the right do whatever we want!

gimme a break.. if this guy becomes president, then half the country would be in jail for adultery.
this country would be ruled by blue laws and we'd have renquest's on all 9 seats.

this dude is just wrong, i dont know what the people of his state were thinking when they voted him in.


what the hell is he trying to do telling people what they can and cant do w/ their body? it's not the govt's business to tell 2 consenting people what they can and cant do w/ their bodies!

if this is not what the first amendment was for, then what is (rhetorical question!)

and the sad part is, the whole gop + prez has backed this guy and support him!

what is this country coming to?

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

maximusveritas

4thTimeLucky

ARTelevision
Surely you don't really mean that?

Either (almost) everything is a moral issue or else nothing is. Whichever one you choose, politicians should be talking about what he is talking about.

Choose to outlaw rape? Moral decision.
Choose to free the Iraqi people? Moral decision.
Choose to redistribute wealth through taxes? Moral decision.

Choose to buy Nike trainers, support NAFTA, vote Democrat, ignore the speed limit, work in the city, give to charity, buy a sportscar, spend time on TFP? All moral decisions.

The_Dude
"We have the right to do whatever we want!"
Do we?
Then why are you annoyed that senator Santorum wants to dictate what you can and cannot do? Surely he has the right to.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

ARTelevision

4thTimeLucky,
For questions regarding categorical definitions, I employ Aristotelian logic.

Politics is one branch of philosophy.
Ethics is another.

I don't mix them as you do.

Yes, with words, anything can be related to anything else.
That doesn't prove or demonstrate anything in particular.

Thanks for your opinion.

__________________
create evolution

4thTimeLucky

ART

How am I merely linking them with words?

Response 1
My point is that every political and practical action must be based upon an underlying set of moral principles. The two cannot therefore be cleanly seperated and where there is disagreement on those underlying principals, politicians have a right - a duty even - to debate them publicly.
OR... you must cliam that there is no ethics or morality. It is just a lot of a smoke. In which case everything is about pragmatism, including what he is discussing, so you would no longer have grounds to object.

Response 2
Another way of expressing my argument:
You, I presume, want politicians to outlaw rape. You do not, I presume, want politicians to outlaw sodomy.
Why do you want to outlaw rape?
Well, you say you use two distinct categories, Politics (the practical sphere) and Ethics (the moral sphere).

Practical Politics
So first I'll assume you want to outlaw on practical grounds.
What could these be?
- That rape could lead to the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy thus placing a burden on the welfare state.
- That rape places stress upon the victim reducing her economic output.
- That rape, if unpunished, will lead to a more violent, dysfunctional and 'impractical' society.
[Note how difficult I am finding it to find 'practical' reasons here. If you ask "and why does that matter" of any of the above, you will eventually reach an ethical statement.]

Ethical
Now you want to seperate politics and ethics, so you have procluded yourself from wanting politicians to outlaw rape on ethical grounds. Nonetheless, my contention is that you really do want it outlawed on ethical grounds, so I will pursue some possible reasons why you might:
- People have the right to pursue their own life projects so long as these do not interfere with other people doing the same. Rape prevents people from pursusing their life projects, so is wrong.
- God has told us what is right and wrong and he says rape is wrong. (Not my own view, but its an option)
- We have a duty to help and protect others and committing rape is a serious dereliction of that duty.
- Rape can endanger the life of the victim and life is sacred.
- The right course of action is to maximise happiness/utility in the world and rape causes more disutility than utility.

Now, we come to the Senator. He wants to outlaw sodomy, but what sorts of arguments did he use?
I would contend that he used pragmatic arguments and not ethical ones. Furthermore I believe that it is precisely because he does this that his words are so dangerous and that the speration of politics and ethics (as you are trying to do) is harmful.
Examples of the senators argument and how I'd catagorise them:
@ "The right to privacy doesn't exist in my opinion" (Practical. Rejects a moral rights standpoint.)
@ "society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of society" (Practical: Infact the epitomy of the pragmatists dilemma: A circular logic that says that what is best for society is what is best for society.)
@ "I have a problem with.. acts outside.. the traditional heterosexual relationship" (Practical: Note he appeals to what is 'traditional' and what worked in the past. Not what is right.)
@ "The right to privacy is a right that that was created in a law" (Practical: Rights are created by man for practical purposes.)

I guess in conclusion then, that if you are all in favour of pragmatic politics then you should be okay with the Senator's approach. He wants a practical, stable society and argues that sodomy is not condusive to that.
I on the other hand think that this is a generous path to go down. Sure minorities can be impractical. So can the disabled and the old. That doesn't mean that there aren't fundamental moral rights and duties that mean we can prevent them from having consensual sex or can conveniently dispose of them.

Response 3
So many great works, from Plato's Republic to Rawls' Theory of Justice have mixed ethics and politics that it seems odd to try and keep them apart.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

JumpinJesus

In response to political decisions being moral decisions: I disagree. For most people, yes. For politicians? My cynicism says no. For politicians, most decisions are not morally based put made with one eye on the next election and the other on lobbyists and contributors.

A politician will be forced to resign for making claims that Israel wants the U.S. to attack Iraq or for waxing nostalgic for the days of Strom Thurmond's presidential bid on the grounds that s/he's not being inclusionary. A poltician may, however, attack a large group of people based upon sexual orientation and still be considered a person of inclusion.

My question to all politicians and all those in society regarding homosexuality is this: so what? Who cares if a man is sexually attracted to other men or if a woman is sexually attracted to another woman? What bearing does one's sexual orientation have on <b>anything</b> except their love life?

To those who claim it's a sinful lifestyle, I don't see them going after other "sinful" lifestyles with as much gusto they use to go after homosexuality.

It's not the sin they're after, it's something else. I'd like to know what it is they're truly after.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

The_Dude

i meant by that is we have the right do whatever we want w/ our bodies as long as it doesnt infringe upon the civil liberties of another person.

santorum doing this is infringing upon the liberties of many people.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

hiredgun

4thTimeLucky:

Your comparison to rape is flawed because rape implies the use of force.

Rape is non-consensual, and therefore infringes on someone else's rights. This is why rape is illegal, not because of so-called moral reasons.

4thTimeLucky

hiredgun:

That was my Ethical possibility no.1

The victim has the right to go about their business without being violently attacked. And the rapist infringes that right.

Where we seem to disagree is that you claim rights are not "moral reasons".
I believe that rights and duties are what morality is all about:

The ethical debate over abortion is about issues such as the right to life and the right to control your own body and the duty to protect possible living beings.

The ethical debate over euthanasia is over whether we have a right to die, or whether life is too sacred to be given up.

But I am open to other points of view if you actually think that rights are not part of ethics/morality.

Please note that I am not trying to say sodomy is like rape because it is bad or should be outlawed or is a similar sort of act. Merely that in deciding whether to outlaw it we must make ethical judgements of a similar nature to the ones we make about rape or any action for that matter.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

The_Dude

i dont see any ethics in rape.

you are assaulting another person, there is no ethics there.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

4thTimeLucky

Am I missind something Dude or do you really think there is nothing wrong with rape?

And if you think there is something wrong with rape then haven't you just made an ethical judgement?

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

The_Dude

there's is no ethics here.

if you infringe up the rights of another person, that's wrong.

i dont see where the ethics part come on

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

4thTimeLucky

"its wrong"

Ethics is the study of what is right and was is wrong, and why it is that way.

What do you think ethics is?

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!