Let me count the ways Santorum is wrong.

1) An old friend of mine used to date a guy I'll name Stone. I never much cared for Stone, in part because the way he treated her. He didn't mistreat her necessarily, but he was always rather distant, even after a year together. I took that as a facet of his personality and a facet that I didn't like. During their breakup, some odd stories started floating around about Stone. Sort of. It was an uncomfortable flux between rumors and dead silent loyalty to him. It wasn't until the breakup was complete that the details started coming out. Stone had cheated on her with another guy. The more this theory was floated, the more it made sense.

Stone's father is a pastor in the Church of Christ. For those of you unfamiliar with the CoC, it is a self-described fundamentalist sect that takes the Bible very literally and very seriously. They are also so confident in their interpretation of the Bible that they believe marrying outside the sect out to be discouraged, if not outright forbidden (this was in fact what we thought the problem might be as my friend is Catholic). To say the least, the CoC holds homosexuality in very low regard. So much so that Stone, to this day, remains closetted skipping between serial monagomy and his very close (and not-so-closetted) male friend.

Though I never cared much for Stone because he hurt my friend, I can't help but feel very sorry for him. He will always be at conflict with himself and his father, whom he admires greatly and has always sought approval from. I can't imagine him ever being happy. When I think of Stone, I simply cannot imagine that he woke up one morning and decided "I'm going to fuck up my entire life by liking other men!"

Recently, conservatives opposed to homosexuality have change their tact. Instead of arguing that it is a choice, they argue that maybe it it genetic, but they should fight it. I believe God is a loving God, having sent Jesus Christ, his only son, down to redeem us. Though there is much unfortunate suffering in the world, I believe it is man-made. By saying that God took a small but significant section of the population and told them that they'd never be allowed to be romantically satisfied, conservatives of this ilk are suggesting that there is misery that is not man-made, but rather purely the province of God. That quite simply is not the God that I believe in and it strikes me as logically circumspect that would be the God that would go to such great pains to redeem and save us. As such, I believe the position of many conservative Christians is very misguided in this regard.

2) Even if I did believe that homosexuality is wrong, I would still not support laws forbidding it. I believe that adultery is wrong, but it is not the province of the government to meddle in the private affairs of the citizens. In the case of adultery, the only victims are the perpetrators and their spouses, who are victims emotionally and not physically. It is not the domain of the criminal court system to defend people against emotional torment. If it were, the courts would be bogged down hearing the case of every emotionally scarred adult who'd been handed down one too many megaweggies. So, while I may agree that such laws are constitutional, I do not agree that what is constitutional is right and what is morally wrong ought to be outlawed. Santorum speaks of a slippery slope, but that is more of one than legalizing the private acts of consenting adults could ever be. While such laws may be constitutionally permissable (or perhaps not, as Inc. commenter Ulysses brings up the equal protection clause, and there is a case to be made there) they are not necessarily a good idea.

3) Even if homosexuality were wrong and things wrong should be legalized, Santorum's logic was seriously flawed on a rational level. He suggests that the slippery slope of legalizing gay intercourse could lead to, among other things, polygamy. As someone who opposes polygamy on both a moral and legal plain, I have to take issue with that view. Polygamy is a matter of law. Whether or not the government accepts multiple concurrent marriages between individuals is necessarily the government's business. As mentioned prior, making sure that a man only sleeps with one woman is not. So we're dealing with two distinct issues. One is what the law will allow and the other is what the law will condone, sanction, and codify. One could argue that gay marriage (which I do support) might lead to polygamy (which I don't), but favoring the former and opposing the latter suggests that I don't buy it. I don't think many others will either accept as a mechanism to rationalize the double standard allowed to straights and gays when it comes to legal, financial, and social benefits of marriage.

As such, despite my earlier defense of him, I feel that I should reiterate that I believe Santorum's views are religiously, philosophically, and logically wrong.

They are. Consider it reiterated.