I’ve gotten a lot of thoughtful email about this whole Santorum thing. I’ve been surprised by how many people think I’ve walked into some sort of quagmire in my support for repealing sodomy laws. The email below isn’t the most thoughtful by any stretch, but it does summarize succinctly my problem with the pro-sodomy law argument.
I wrote, “I’m against sodomy laws simply because homosexuals are citizens, human beings, taxpayers etc. I don’t have to dig everything they do to recognize this fact.” In response, this guy sarcastically writes:
I’m against murder laws simply because murderers are citizens, human beings, taxpayers etc. I don’t have to dig everything they do to recognize this fact.
I’m against theft laws simply because thieves are citizens, human beings, taxpayers etc. I don’t have to dig everything they do to recognize this fact.
I’m against child molestation laws simply because child molesters are citizens, human beings, taxpayers etc. I don’t have to dig everything they do to recognize this fact.
Now, I hope everyone can see the glaring logical flaw here. Thieves, child molesters and murderers do things to other people they don’t want done. That’s why we call them “victims” of theft, murder and child abuse. If you are a non-consensual victim of sodomy, you’ve been raped. If you gave consent, you may or may not be making a mistake, but that’s your business. We don’t need sodomy laws to protect us from rape, we’ve got rape laws for that. Meanwhile if you are a consensual victim of theft, you haven’t been robbed, you’ve merely shared your property. We don’t need the State to teach us how to share, we need our parents to do that. In other words, consent changes everything in the equation. Except, of course, with children because they have a special status which does not allow them to give consent.