There are a number of sites running discussions about Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum's comments in an interview with the Associated Press. The ones I have seen are either mildly or strongly in favor of the gay agenda. In the interview Sen. Santorum said the following regarding an upcoming decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of antigay sodomy laws. "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." He then added, "All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately." It seems the gay rights activists are up in arms about the way he equates homosexuality with acts such as incest, adultry and polygamy (How dare you equate our sacred cow with all of these other cows). In principle I would have to say that I agree with Sen. Santorum's idea that legitimizing one form of immorality will lead to legitimizing others, although being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would not necessarily include bygamy and polygamy in that list (I am interested to know if Sen. Santorum would include all extra-marital sexual relations on his list). I also agree that immoral practices have deleterious effects on society. Mainly I wanted to comment on the fact that society is silly in how it wants to pick and choose which moral rights we should have. Currently, much of society says that it is OK to have pre-marital sex and to llive together without marriage. If children are born as a result of this, it is perfectly acceptable. The same two individuals may then acceptably split up and repeat the process with two other individuals. One of the individuals may even have sexual relations and possibly children with a third individual without splitting from the first, as long as there are no legally binding commitments involved, like marriage. However if a man enters a commited relationship like marriage with one woman and then decides to become commited to another woman, through marriage, without leaving his wife, even if the wife agrees to this, the man is looked down upon or even prosecuted. So it is perfectly acceptable to have a polygamous-like relationship as long as there is no real commitment to provide for any offspring resulting from that relationship. Sounds a bit silly to me.