Okay, I was going to leave this alone, since it's obviously just another transparent orchestrated Democratic attempt to bust up the Republican Senate. But one comment:

Santorum is under attack for a comment he made.

The comment:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.

The standard liberal thesis is that nobody should be allowed to legally force their morals on anyone else. Many libertarians think similarly. So...

Anybody want to point out what's wrong with his logic? From either direction?

IMO, this is much like the marijuana/alcohol thing. There is absolutely no logical reason you should be able to make only one of them legal or illegal.

If the Supreme Court feels that one should be able to outlaw bigamy--a common tradition in many other cultures--why should any other consensual practice be out of legal reach?

Frankly, if it were up to me, the government would have nothing to say about either, as long as consenting adults were involved. And also, like a huge number of other laws, this should never have gotten past the state level and doesn't belong in the realm of Federal law. But there it is.

I went through this once with someone who wrote an article complaining about people using religious or moral arguments against gay marriage. She declared that the moral arguments were totally based on personal feelings and tired traditions, that they had no logical basis, and that if pressed, those who opposed gay marriage had nothing objective to stand on. "It's just wrong" is not a valid argument, she said.

I personally don't approve of gay marriage, but also do not believe there should be laws against it.

But I wrote her and asked, if reproduction weren't an issue, should someone be allowed to marry their sister, or a daughter? And if not, what was HER reason to oppose such relationships? Assuming we leave religion and tradition out of it, did she have anything to fall back on other than "It's just wrong?"