My freshman year in college I took an introductory survey course in philosophy in which the instructor assigned a reading which included a defense of homosexuality (among other things). After the class discussed the reading for awhile, the instructor said he was surprised that nobody had mentioned the author’s comments on homosexuality.
The reason, it turned out, was that the general consensus of the students was that this was the default moral position of the people taking the class — they might not want to take part in homosexual acts personally, but what other people did in their bedrooms was their own business as long as no force or fraud was involved.
In Rick Santorum’s view, my classmates and I were the horrific result of the influence of moral relativism on the nation — not only unwilling to condemn homosexuality as immoral, but unwilling to even go so far as to claim that homosexuality is the sort of thing that is properly the subject of moral discourse.
Here’s part of the transcript of Santorum talking to an Associated Press reporter that landed him in a minor controversy,
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.
So far, Santorum’s on the right path. Yes, as long as it is consensual and private, I really don’t care how deviant my neighbors’ sexual behavior is. And yes, he is absolutely correct that a Supreme Court ruling nullifying anti-sodomy laws will open the door for approval of other private, consensual, deviant acts (though, giving the content of most popular culture, how much further approval is needed is an open question).
Santorum, of course, things this is some sort of nightmare, but why should I care what my neighbors do provided their activities remain private and consensual? In fact I don’t think this is any longer the purvey of morality (in the sense that morality’s purpose is declaring things right or wrong). Whether or not someone is homosexual or heterosexual is a lot like whether I prefer chunky or creamy peanut butter (die creamy-preferring heathens!)
Santorum has to appeal to a straw man to carry forward his argument against homosexual sex,
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 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.
This is a bit like saying that the actions of Mary Kay Latorneou and Joey Buttafuco render heterosexuality suspect. It is the exploitative nature of such sexual relationships that renders them immoral, not the sexual orientation of the perpetrator.
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.
Yes, fine. As long as its private and consensual, you have the right to anything.
Does that undermine the traditional sense of the family? Absolutely. But does it undermine it anymore than liberal divorce laws and the attendant high divorce rate among married heterosexuals? Is Santorum prepared to publicly attack the ease with which one can obtain a divorce in the United States? Maybe he is, but at this point even if you agree with him, the costs of doing something about the family through these sorts of legal means are way too high and will accomplish very little.
I’m much more worried about my daughter watching videos clearly directed at heterosexuals on MTV than I am at her watching Willow and Tara kiss on Buffy (which my daughter said was disgusting, largely because she thinks all kissing is disgusting).
And then Santorum switches arguments again,
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.
But as with my MTV example above, you could pretty much say the exact same thing about anything in American life today (and cultural conservatives usually do). Joe Lieberman says violent video games and TV shows are undermining my family. Santorum says its gays. Falwell says its abortion.
And what exactly is this harm that is being done? I can’t really tell here if Santorum thinks that a) if adultery is not illegal then married individuals will be tempted to commit adultery thereby undermining their families, and/or b) that someone who is gay in a culture that legally condones homosexuality will pursue other routes for sexual release other than a healthy, stable, traditional family. Neither of these claims seem particularly persuasive (in fact they seem downright silly).
But what about marriage,
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 —
But whether or not we should arrest two men for having sex in the privacy of their own home is completely different from the issue of whether or not we should allow those same men to enter into a legally recognized marriage. Besides which, marriage is not quite what it used to be with no fault divorce.
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.
Hmmm. . . don’t we have one of the most successful societies in human history? We are wealthier than any society ever. We have a military that took over an entire country in three weeks with an almost negligible loss of life. Quite simply, the United States is the most dominant global power in world history. But a couple guys having anal sex in private is putting all of that in jeopardy? Puhleeze.
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.
Here, again, I agree to a large extent with Santorum on state’s rights. But Santorum is a hypocrite because he regularly votes for legislation which completely undercuts state’s rights. For example, what part of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to induce states to increase penalties against child molesters? Isn’t the Senate meddling in criminal matters that it should stay out of? Or why does Santorum want a Constitutional amendment to tell states how they can and cannot define a marriage?