Santorum’s moral compass is way off course
In his essay “Why I Am Not a Christian” Bertrand Russell wrote how the organized churches define morality as a “narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness.” He adds that when one argues that morals should be based on making people happy, the churches reply, “What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy.”
That notion of morality still pervades much of American society, particularly when it comes to homosexuality.
We find this in presidential candidate Rick Santorum, the man who takes pride in his unreason. He’s Hell-bent (no pun intended) to make sure that all levels of government “protect” American families and children from the gays and their godlessness.
Many know him as the senator from Pennsylvania who said gay marriage is hardly different from “man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.” Well, unless one comes from the Appalachians.
Santorum made it quite clear recently in Fulton, Mo., on Feb. 3 when he said to a gay man he didn’t deserve to have “special treatment under the law… it’s not a right, it’s something that has existed since the beginning of human history… as God made it to be.” Sorry, but marriage has not been here since man’s beginning, and it is certainly not made by any god. Even in a Biblical context surely Santorum notices that Adam and Eve weren’t married.
Besides, the one man-one woman argument doesn’t work, as monogamy is only a recent event in humanity, and almost all marriages were arranged as a business deal.
Santorum continued rather condescendingly that a same-sex relationship was indeed special, “but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman.” Strange then that the divorce rate in America is about 50 percent, the highest rates being found in the Bible Belt states. I’d hardly call that beneficial to society.
Apparently dysfunctional heterosexual families are preferred, too. As the Los Angeles Times noted on Feb. 6, “[Rick Santorum suggested] it was so important for children to have both a father and mother that an imprisoned father was preferable to a same-sex parent.” Yes, two loving gay parents are so much worse for a family than parents in prison, not to mention what crime they’d committed.
Now of course, Santorum derives almost all of his views from faith, to the point where he says we should, “orient our laws to make sure they’re in conformity with the natural law. In conformity with God’s law.” People say that such a view should be respected because it is religious; I do not think so. On the contrary, deriving “morals” from an ancient injunctions should not be respected by default.
When Santorum was accused of bigotry against gays, he said on CNN on Sept. 1, “Just because you follow a moral code that teaches that something’s wrong doesn’t mean that — are you suggesting that the Bible and that the Catholic Church is bigoted? … I think [that] is in itself an act of bigotry.” To answer his question, I think that there’s a good deal to be said about that.
Now, no reasonable person is saying he or anyone else should have their belief criminalized, but his application of his belief in order to deprive others of their freedom and to deny a change of thought is what makes it bigoted. Such degrading values should be, I think, treated with scorn and criticism.
After all, even devout individuals like Laura Bush, Dick and Lynne Cheney, Megan McCain, and Jimmy Carter support the right of gays to marry if they want to.
The jury is in, and the science is here too. Homosexuality is not unnatural or a mental disorder and all of the arguments claiming that it poses a “threat” to the family and society have no evidence, are purely hot air, or incomplete.
I know I’m being ironic here, but thank God that Santorum will never be president.