"Homosexuality is a threat to the American Family."
"We brought him home, so his brothers and sisters could see him and know who he was."
Both of the above statements are Rick Santorum quotes.
Based solely in logic, the first sentence makes no sense whatsoever. How, specifically, is the person with whom I have sex in any way an issue when it comes to the person with whom you have sex? Even if it happens to be the same person, homosexuality has precisely nothing to do with it. The point at issue in that scenario is, specifically, why one particular person is not attracted to you. Does the reason matter when the answer is no, anyway? In my world, that's called being a sore loser. You don't get to have sex with that person - I don't care who said object of lust selects: I recognize that it isn't me and move on. My way of life is not threatened. Please, if you can explain this to me, I'd like to hear it. I will state, however, that morals are an internal guide. Asking me to uphold your morals defies the definition of morals. If two citizens are both of consenting age, and enter into a contract of their own volition whether that contract be a relationship or a business deal, morality is the method of acting within the contract. That is the specific and precise difference.
Examination of the second sentence requires context. Mrs. Santorum unfortunately experienced pre-term labor, resultant in a stillborn infant. Rather than bringing his children to the hospital, where rooms are provided for grieving parents (and yes, I know this for a fact because I used to work with this kind of thing) as well as their other children, Rick Santorum decided to take the corpse home. His defense, as illustrated from above, was that his other children should know and understand what happened to their brother. My concern with this, specifically, is that Mr. Santorum did not avail himself of the safer, more healthful accomodations made available for his family. Medical professionals would have been there to answer the childrens' questions. Grief counselors trained to deal with this situations were also available for the children as well as both parents. Mr. Santorum's post traumatic stress was still evident when he and his wife sobbed over discussing the situation with news reporters. There seems to be little in the way of logic behind this choice, and I am at a loss to explain why taking the remains of a deceased infant was a better choice than letting your kids come to the hospital.
The single aspect that alarms me beyond all others is: What went through the minds of the other children? Did they wonder what this baby had done to be punished with death? Did they have questions they couldn't ask their parents? Did they feel disgusted and terrified, but were afraid to tell their parents? Did they understand what their parents were attempting to do? Did Mr. Santorum care what was going on in the minds of the young witnesses to this?
This is the man attempting to gain the opportunity to run the United States Executive Branch of government. His emotional stability, as well as the logic of his decisions, are two keep components with which I concern myself because if he is elected President, I will be placing the ability to end my way of life (as well as my life itself) into his hands. I believe his decision-making skills are paramount in the question of "Good Potential Executive."
It is my sincere hope that my beloved Republican friends look at Mr. Santorum, examine the ways in which he makes decisions, and pursue more healthy candidates for President. I sincerely believe, given the stress and demands of the Executive, Mr. Santorum would experience at best a psychological break down of catastrophic consequence to both his personal life and the American government.
No comments:
Post a Comment