Conservative Home's debate blogs


  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
My Photo

Conservative blogs

Blog powered by Typepad

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker

« Jalal Talabani: We Need American Troops | Main | Charles Hawley: The Death of German Conservatism »


Selsdon Man

"It recognizes that the problems caused or aggravated by the growth in government cannot be corrected by a crude reduction in its size."

Typical neo-con nonsense! Government is the problem therefore we should cut it - as much as possible!

Selsdon Man

""social justice" is synonymous with ... radical individualism."

Since when? Give examples. Hayek was a robust critic of social justice. See the chapter on "The Mirage of Social Justice" in his book "Law, Legislation and Liberty". That was Mrs Thatcher's favourite book. She once said in cabinet "This is what believe!" and made Hayek a Companion of Honour.

Selsdon Man

"It endorses a policy of "zero tolerance" toward drug use ...yet insists that those struggling with all manner of addictions can start their lives afresh."

How do you start afresh after a prison sentence that has ruined your employment prospects?

James Hellyer

When you see the law is being enforced Selsdon, you modify your behaviour you'll no longer break it. Elementary broken theory.

Selsdon Man

Treatment, rather than imprisonment, helps addicts. That is true compassion.

Selsdon Man

Santorum is an authoritarian, homophobic bigot. Here is a quote from one of his interviews.

"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. 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".

Apart from the ludicrous non-sequiturs, it shows that Santorum wants the State to have the right to regulate what you do in your bedroom.


Newsflash! The state already regulates bigamy, polygamy and incest - both inside and outside the bedroom. It's hardly some radical new idea.

James Hellyer

Peter, bigamy and polygamy are illegal forms of marriage, sexual relations. A man can carry on with as many women as he can get. He can only be married to one at a time though.

What Selsdon is referring to appears to be a belief that the state has the right to interfere in otherwise lawful relationships.

James Hellyer

... and while incest is unlawful, that still doesn't make any sense of Santorum's diatribe. Allowing consenting adults to relate as they choose in private does not open the door for bigamy, polygamy and incest.

The former two are illegal abuses of a union allowed by the state and church. Letting two men or women be lovers does not encourage that. Moreover, it does no encourage incest which is a relationship prevented more by societal norms than legal intervention.


I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with. I'm simply noting that any accusation that others want "government in the bedroom", however phrased, is bogus. The bedroom isn't a private domain outside the reach of the law, and everyone who supports laws against rape, incest, polygamy, paedophilia etc. agrees with that. If Santorum is wrong, he's wrong for some other reason than wanting the state to regulate what goes on in the bedroom.

James Hellyer

"I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with."

You and your apparent support for Santorum's false chain of consequences.

James Hellyer

"The bedroom isn't a private domain outside the reach of the law, and everyone who supports laws against rape, incest, polygamy, paedophilia etc. agrees with that."

What nonsense. Polygamy isn't a matter of the bedroom. It's a breach of laws on state sanctioned mariage. Rape does not involve consenting adults. Paedophilia doesn't involve consenting adults. And incest between adults cannot be reasonably be prevented, although it is wrong and disapproved of by society.

These are not the sort of relationships Santorum is talking about. He is arguing the state has the right to intefere in the private relationships of consenting adults. That is not really supported by any of you "newsflash" examples.


I don't know how to point this out without sounding patronising, but saying "It's illegal!" is by definition proof that the state does regulate a behaviour - and as you've indicated, these examples of "government in the bedroom" are something all of us can support.

James Hellyer

"but saying "It's illegal!" is by definition proof that the state does regulate a behaviour"

Point one, I never said "it's illegal". Point two, the phrase "a behaviour" is misleading, because it shows you are continuing to conflate things that not the same.

These examples "of government in the bedroom" are not dealing with the sexual relations of consenting adults. They are dealing with either the abuse of a legally privileged form of realtionship (bigamy/polygamy) or do not involve consenting adults (rape or paedophilia).

In the case of the first pair, what's regulated is not the right of consenting adults to act in a certain way in private, but their ability to claim a legal form of recognition for their relationship.

In the case of the second pair, that's not the state regulating the bedroom, it's the state saying it will protect the individual against a violation of their personal sanctity even if, in the case of a child, they may not realise they need that attention.

The only one of Santorum's examples that stands up is incest, and that does not support his chain of consequences. His argument - and by implication yours - appears entirely based on misrepresentation.

Selsdon Man

I agree with James. Santorum is in favour of homosexuality being illegal as it is in some states. It appears that he would make adultery illegal too - government in the bedroom.

He likens homosexuality and adultery to bigamy and incest - an extreme view that is probably illegal here under Blair's new laws.

The key question is whether social conservatives, in the CSJ and Cornerstone, support Santorum's views that are held by many on the US Christian Right.

Selsdon Man

More "wisdom" from Santorum on Katrina.

"I mean, you have people who don't heed those warnings and then put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. There may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving."

That means fining or jailing those who did not have the means to escape or were afraid that their homes and businesses could be looted. So compassionate!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.

About Conservative Home