Lizard_King wrote:

Why is everyone so pissed at Santorum? It seemed to me that what he was stating was abundantly obvious: that if government has no right to regulate homosexual sex on purely moral standards, then it surely must also find different grounds for which to outlaw incest, bestiality etc, or give up on all matters sexual altogether. If it is purely consent and privacy that determines the legality of a sexual act, then government has been wrong all this time about all the other acts as well (obviously, Santorum's opinion of this is expressed rhetorically, but it still makes sense). Is this just the typical hypersensitivity of homosexual advocates in the media, or am I missing something?

Senator Santorum wrote:

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...