I'm not sure consequentialism is the best way to approach religion.

We live in a secular society, so right and wrong is determined by the political system. The political system often gets it wrong; slavery being the most obvious example. I find homosexual sodomy unsettling but I realize that is a visceral reaction rather than a logical one. My argument is that 1) Santorum is essentially right, even if his argument is poorly stated, since any rationale that would outlaw sodomy laws would also call all the others into question but that 2) maybe these laws aren't the best use of the coercive power of the state. I'd never use drugs, but think we should probably legalize their use. Ditto prostitution, gambling, and most other "consensual" conduct that is now often criminalized.

I fail to see how legalization will solve anything. Look at cigarette smoking, which IS legal (sort of, unless you're in NYC) and what a bangup job we're doing there.

My issue is, consensual activity can indeed an in fact cause tremendous destruction in the public arena. Smoking is but one example. Though it's hypocritical for leftists to crack down on smoking and at the same time promote the legalization of drugs, the reality is smoking is not a "what you do is your own business and that's that" issue. It has an abhorrent effect on society, especially if the secondhand smoke effects are as destructive as some researches show (though I'm still skeptical). Promiscuous sexual activity is also an issue that affects the public arena, in many different ways (the acceleration of a break down of nuclear families, the propagation of sexually transmitted diseases of epidemic proportions) Just because an activity is consensual does not make it ok. There are larger issues to be considered here.

With that said, I believe the federal government really needs to stop this continual usurpation of state powers. Issues like sodomy and its legal status should really be left up to the states to decide. This is the funny thing about Roe v Wade. Many people think overturning that decision will criminalize abortion. In fact, that is not the case, as such an overturn would grant the powrs back to the states to decide on whether they want to criminalize abortion or keep it legal.

I agree that those actions have consequences that may be bad for society and even agree thatit is permissible to regulate them. I still think it's a bad idea, on balance. For example, I have little doubt that we'd be better off as a society if women who could afford it went back to staying home and raising their children. I wouldn't want to mandate that, though.

I mean, shouldn't we be outlawing straight sex, if we're worried about things like bigamy?

Surely it follows logically that if heterosexuality is legal, then we can't outlaw the rape of children? I mean, using some of the logic Santorum and others advance.

Oh, and one note to Rich: Don't paint things in black and white. It's perfectly possible to be a believing and loving Christian and be fully supportive of homosexuality. I know, because that describes my beliefs.

--Kynn

While Santorum's argument looks like a slippery slope, I don't really see it that way. It's not clear to me that bigamy and adultery, aside from the caveats I mentioned in the post, are further down the slope. They're all one and the same: consensual private conduct.

I'm not sure how Christianity and homosexuality are compatible, granting that I'm neither Christian nor homosexual. The whole history of Judeo-Christian teaching goes against all sex outside of hetereosexual marriage and, arguably, outside of the motivation of procreation. Christians can certainly hate the sin and love the sinner, but it strikes me that you can't simulataneously be a Christian and love the sin.

Kynn,

Let me get this straight, (uh, pardon the pun)...you call yourself a Christian, yet you enthusiastically support what God has explicitly condemned in Scripture? Is it only me who finds something just a tad remotely hypocritical about that statement?

I can get atheists who support homosexuality. I can get pagans who support homosexuality. I can get just about any non-Christian who supports homosexuality. I can understand their rationale, and get along just fine with them.

However, you have to hold me back from the assinine sentiments of those who have the mitigating gall to tag themselves "CHRISTIANS" while ignoring and disregarding the very thing that defines Christianity, the word of God.

I suppose it's just as well in this day and age. Even satanists call themselves Christians nowadays. Hell I might as well tag myself a liberal Democrat. It will keep the leftists off my back and off guards while I continue to vote straight up Republican. :-D

---