Open mouth, insert foot (but only of the opposite gender)

Apparently Rick Santorum claims that his comments equating homosexual sex with polygamy an incest were taken out of context. Well, I’ve just linked to the context and I don’t understand what an appropriate context would be. I think his beliefs come across clearly in that interview and they’re simply absurd. There’s no logic behind the assumption that the Supreme Court’s legalization of private sex between two consenting adults irrespective of gender would legalize polygamy or incest.

Then there’s Santorum’s other quote from that interview: “I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.” That’s nonsensical. Either gays and lesbians are allowed to act the way they are or they aren’t allowed to exist at all…and since the latter is ridiculous, the former has to be accepted. Senator Santorum may not like it, but splitting hairs like that just doesn’t make any sense. He can choose to be offended by homosexual relationships, but if he’s offended by people behaving in a way that doesn’t affect him and allows them to express their love for each other, that’s sad.

1 Comment

  1. Brian Said,

    April 25, 2003 @ 7:47 pm

    I don’t understand. “I have no problem with pedophilia” (where pedophilia is an attraction to young children) and “I have problems with pedophilic acts” seems a perfectly reasonable stance to me.

    It seems that you’re saying if they can’t practice, they don’t exist… but that’s conflating someone’s sexuality with themself. A person can be heterosexual without ever having heterosexual sex (a Catholic priest or nun, forex, or someone who has simply not yet done anything).

RSS feed for comments on this post