Cornholing for fun and profit.

So I got a comment to my other post on Sen. Santorum’s comments basically saying the same thing all the lefties and other bleeding hearts are saying:

Breaking sodomy laws (and I break PA sodomy laws quite often in my own bedroom) and committing polygamy, bestiality or incest are not even remotely comparable.

I would tend to agree with that statement but that’s not the bloody point! The point is that making it unconstitutional to pass any sort of law regulating sexual behavior is a damn bad idea. Whether or not states choose to pass such laws should remain up to them. I suppose if pressed I’d probably go along with repealing any anti-sodomy laws on the books – I already said I thought it was in poor taste for the gendarme to cite those two lads in Texas.

Sodomy ain’t the damn point, comparing it to bestiality, incest, rape, polygamy, etc isn’t the damn point. The point is, should government have the right to set some boundaries on sexual behavior? If the Supreme Court declares anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional that opens the door for the argument that laws prohibiting any behavior behind closed doors are unconstitutional. You may not see it now, but then again, I’ve been told that fifty years ago nobody talked about blowjobs in public and some folks didn’t even know what they were. Now we’ve been through a President who splashed that particular little practice all over the papers.

Slippery slope folks, what is unthinkable today won’t be so unthinkable in the future. And if we grant the possibility of permission for such things now, you can be sure people will take advantage of that possibility in the future.

Hey, if you like the rear-entry stuff, fine. I’m not going to break down your door or report you to the gestapo. But, do I think your right to give or take it in the butt is enshrined on the level of our freedom of speech or freedom of the press? Hell no!

And that, my friends, is the point.