Santorum

That's Santorum.

Okay, now you're putting words in my mouth. The comments in which I condemned homosexuality as being the equivalent of adultery, bigamy, polygamy, and incest have been taken completely out of context. I was speaking only in terms of the case before the Supreme Court. In which a Texas sodomy law is being challenged as being unconstitutional.

But if we are not allowed to illegalize immoral acts between consenting adults, such as oral sex or sodomy in the privacy of one's own home, then it automatically becomes legal to commit any other consensual act: bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery, child abuse, dog sex, cat sex, gerbil sex, pornography, prostitution, white slavery, black slavery, genocide, gang rape.

That's not what I said at all. Rape between a man and a woman is clearly a non-consensual act between two people.

But if there are two or more men involved, and they all agree and give mutual consent to assault an unrelated third party. Then that is a consensual act between the two or more of them and a legal right to privacy prevents the government from interfering in that act if it occurs in the homes of one or more of the perpetrators or their victim.

Not at all. I have no problem with homosexuality or the homosexuals who choose to make that their sexual preference. And you can check my record on that. I have always voted to defend the rights of these homosexual people. If a person is going to be a homosexual, then I accept that, and that's fine with me.

I do not object to homosexuals. It is homosexual acts that I have a problem with.

Okay, now, that is offensive. I shouldn't even dignify that remark with a response. But I will say this. You can be a homosexual without committing homosexual acts.

Many of my closest constituents are homosexuals and all of them have committed themselves to a lifetime of non-homosexual acts, such as marriage, and raising children, and voting Republican.

That is correct. And thank you for finally coming to the defense of the American family.

Yes, if a father and a daughter wish to love each other in an incestuous or "forbidden" manner, that is fine with me as long as they don't commit any incestuous acts. But if they choose to simply sit across from each other at the dinner table, and gaze longingly into each other's eyes. And if the daughter wishes to take a banana out of the fruitbowl.... and peel it with her teeth... and devour it... oh.... so... slowly. There is nothing wrong with that. And who are we to sit in judgement?

It is only when two adult males cross that fine line and engage in the actual act of homosexuality in the privacy of their own home that their behavior rises to the level of a punishable offense and the government must be allowed to step in to preserve the rights of the (decent) individuals who wish to live in a world free from the abomination of homosexuality!!

Whoops, I'm sorry I meant to say from the abomination of homosexual acts. :::whew::: I almost made a terrible mistake.

Let me repeat: Their sexual preference is not in question here. Two men, regardless of their sexuality, should not be allowed to commit homosexual acts.

Are they sisters?