Santorum, do I agree with this man or his politics. No I do not. While yes I consider myself Catholic I do not agree with this man’s politics. Just like when John McCain had a female running mate I didn’t thing, “Vagina Good” to quote Margaret Cho. Santorum is a homophobe, and the way you know this is because he’s said, “I have friends who are gay.” People don’t say that unless they feel as though they have something to prove. Santorum may seem like this good person, who is down to earth, put he is homophobic and has sated quite clearly that he would legislate this homophobic view into American politics. That scares me. I don’t want my president legislating morality, considering that most presidents haven’t done a good job with that anyway. If I want an opinion on a moral issue I will ask my Bishop, not my president, because I want to keep my religion and my politics separate, just like fruit and chocolate cake.
It’s ironic he’s so homophobic, given that his name literally means the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter produced from having anal sex.
Hi Politico, I like your blog and follow it. I sometimes agree with everything you say in some of your blog posts. I disagree with some of the views you’ve expressed in this post.
First of all, you say that Santorum is homophobic and that you can tell that by hearing him say the opposite. I’m sure you have a basis for that argument, but I don’t see the logic in it. Would you mind elaborating or backing up your thread of logic with some sort of documentation by a psychologist or maybe even a philosopher; someone credible attempting to give evidence that people really mean the opposite of what they are saying in some certain circumstance which applies here?
Second, you say that he has said, (where exactly did he say this?), that he will “legislate [this] homophobic view into American politics”. I know your tag is “The Sexy Politico”, so I’m sure you realize that he is attempting to run for President, which is the head of the Executive branch of the Federal Government, and if elected he will not have legislative powers beyond the ability to propose legislation and/or veto legislation.
One last thing. The US Constitution says nothing for or against homosexuality and therefore our laws shouldn’t either. They are, as you have stated, a moral issue and therefore a question of personal liberty. The only exception I take to the previous is if and when a person chooses to practice that personal liberty in a way that violates someone else’s liberty to not be exposed to or harmed by it. Vulgarity in public, be it hetero- or homosexual in nature is wrong, as are sexual harassment, rape, pedophilia and child molestation. There should be laws against these things because they are crimes by their very nature. But what a pair of people do in the privacy of their home between consenting adults should not be sanctioned or forbidden by laws. If you mean that Santorum wishes to do away with silly laws “allowing” homosexuality, I’m all for that, because there are way too many laws in existence already and we could stand to get rid of frivolous ones such as that. There’s no need for another law to state what the constitution already states.
I don’t really know much about Santorum. He was fairly enigmatic a week ago when he swept three state primaries in a row. I can’t say that I like him, but I felt your post wasn’t well thought out and therefore needed to be addressed. I understand if you don’t want to allow this to post, but I felt you should at least hear it.
I hope I haven’t offended you because, although I disagreed with you, you certainly didn’t offend me. I still love your blog. Have a great day.
@joesix I took the time to look this up and I saw what you are referring to, but it is not actually the “literal” meaning of the word or his name…
This is explained by Wikipedia “In 2003, in response to comments by then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum that were criticized as anti-gay. Sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage began a campaign to (in Savage’s words) “memorialize the Santorum scandal [...] by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head”.
If you read further on in the article it states that according to experts this definition appearing on a Google search is the result of a “classic Google bomb”, meaning falsified web search results due to a biased linking campaign. It also states that the term does not appear in The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, published in 2007, which is the most modern and internationally accepted authority on slang terms of the English language.
Aside from displaying your penchant for vulgarity, all you’ve accomplished is to give evidence that you lack the sense to do research before immortalizing your position online. I’m actually shocked that Sexy Politico allowed your comment to be posted. Then again, if she allowed yours then I certainly hope she be fair and objective in allowing mine as well.
@Sexy Politico: Congratulations on 10,000+ hits!
Thank you for the thanks. I am sorry I didn’t see your comments sooner, stupid spam filter. I will write a response blog with more sited sources rather than responding in the comments section.
@rogerdengle: It’s called a “joke.” Look it up on Wikipedia.
That was a joke, by the way.
@joesix Did you even read my comment? Most of it was quoted from Wikipedia. I think the whole campaign by Savage is vulgar, which is a very common thing to see coming from gay rights activists. Their vulgarity is what most people who are not in favor of gay rights find to be so objectionable. They go beyond accepted social norms and venture into vulgarity, such as the Santorum campaign by Savage, in order to make their points, but in doing so they make their points moot. To be honest I think Google should manually remove the spreadingsantorum and other websites from their search parameters because of their vulgar nature.
@Politico: I look forward to reading a follow-up post on this subject.
The word vulgar comes from a Latin root word used during Roman times to denote the common people, as opposed to the elites.
Today, it’s meaning is not so dissimilar-it refers to the behavior one expects to find among those who have not received the privileges associated with being born into an elite family, such as a high quality education or social graces that come with exposure to the elite classes.
To call gay people “vulgar” is a malapropism. There are gay people of every social class-those born into wealth and those born into poverty. Homosexuality occurs across in every demographic group- regardless of race, class, ethnicity, religion, political opinion, country of origin, birth order, level of intellect or creative capacity. There may even be gay people in your life that you are unaware of. Any gay person noting Mr. Dengle’s attitudes toward homosexuality would be disinclined to disclose their sexuality to him, out of self-preservation, but this does not change the fact that they are, in fact, gay.
What i do find to be vulgar is the attitude that one must punish those one disapproves of, or that meanness and cruelty benefit from divine sanction. Those who misuse religion as an excuse to commit cruelty are mere sadists too cowardly to eschew the mask of divine mandate.
Who is arrogant enough to claim they know the mind of God? What kind of hubris grants a man the right to condemn other humans in the Lord’s name? That was the sin of Lucifer, Mr. Dengle. Do not pretend to the heavenly throne, or claim the right to pass divine judgement on your fellow man.
“Vengeance is mine” saith the Lord. And when He said that, he didn’t mean you, Roger.
The law shall not be your blunt instrument with which to commit violence against your fellow man. You shall not misuse the state as a rod to smite others. It is up to God to pass judgement, not man. And those who pretend otherwise are guilty of the worst sin of them all.
Keep your religion out of politics, and politics out of your religion. Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and unto God what belongs to God. if Mr. Santorum wishes to mock God by claiming to be the instrument of divine vengeance, then let me say to him that the Lord is mighty enough that He can dole out his justie as he sees fit without any help from Mr. Santorum or his party.