Amen, Dan Savage. Amen.
How a loving creator could make such scum as these christianists is way beyond me. Guess that's why I'm an atheist.

That craphound Piers Morgan is spreading Santorum on his program tonight. That should be fun.

Rick Santorum and his ilk cause the death of children. Keep fighting them, Dan. For the sake of the children.

False equivalence abounds--it is the go to defense mechanism of righties these days on all manner of social and political issues.

Hard to bully someone who's picked a fight with you & yours. Standing up to that bully has revealed him to be a cowardly moron. Good work.

In the linked comic calling Dan a bully, I was shocked to see Dan depicted as a Canadian. His head is clearly separated from his jaw, just like South Park's Ike.

Gawd, the GOP is stupid.

If I step into a boxing ring and get my ass kicked, that's not "bullying." I trained for the fight, I got paid for the fight, and I willingly stepped into the ring. The other boxer isn't a "bully"; he's just a better fighter than I am.

If I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, and a boxer comes out of nowhere and beats the shit out of me, that's bullying (also, assault). I didn't train, get paid for, and sign up for a fight; I wanted nothing to do with the fight and still got my clock cleaned.

Politicians train, raise money, and trade blows in the court of public opinion. If they don't like the heat, they can get the hell out of the kitchen. Painfully awkward socially isolated adolescents who only want to be left alone are about as far away from being a politician as you can get.

I'm with Dan 100%, on this.

You should get that T-shirt though.

DAN
SAV
AGE

7: You're forgetting what absolute pussies the conservatives are. They love to brag about being a bunch of John Waynes and General Pattons, but in reality they are just like Santorum himself: hateful, slimy, spineless little morons with the thinnest skin imaginable.

As a result of this, they will train, don boxing gloves, accept some fight money, step into the ring, and then cry their eyes out when their opponent hasn't been securely tied up and blindfolded for their convenience. In their pussified little minds, that is what's "fair."

@9 I agree! Totally stylish!

The idea of Dan giving Santorum a wedgie and Bachmann a swirly makes me giggle with evil glee.

For the record: I don't own any pink v-necks.

I would like a...

DAN
SAV
AGE

...t-shirt of my very own though.

@7 and @10 I totally heart you both.

Actually, the writer is dead on. Dan should stick to arguing ideas (which he does very well) and stop with the gratuitous bullying. It detracts from his message.

@6: South Park isn't in Canada.

12: I will get you that T-shirt if you promise to simultaneously shove Marcus Bachmann's head in a shitter and give Santorum a wedgie while wearing it.

Well, right off the bat, JJ misrepresents the It Gets Better Project as something "where celebrities, both gay and straight alike, record inspirational videos to gay and lesbian teens who may be facing bullying or discrimination," so his credibility is already a little weak.

"Now, if you have not read the Santorum interview in full, it may be worthwhile to do so. The man is not particularly eloquent in his words, but it’s nevertheless clear that he is defending his particular worldview with logic and reason, and is not merely a raving bigot."

But "his particular worldview" is partly and inexorably predicated on raving bigotry; those two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and in this case, they are exactly the same. I don't think anyone ever claimed Santorum doesn't really believe gay people are as bad as dog-fuckers and minor-rapists, and contrary to the woefully-misguided popular conception of "free speech" (I can say what I want and you have no right to criticize me for it), not all opinions/worldviews are equally valid and necessarily deserving of even the slightest bit of respect or tactful treatment.

"One can certainly disagree with his thesis that privacy rights are unconstitutional, and that all forms of non-missionary consensual sex are a slippery slope to Vatican-style child rape, but it’s still an intellectually valid thesis (and despite his strong faith, not even a particularly religious one)."

No, it's not a valid thesis: consent is what distinguishes homosexuality from things like raping children or fucking animals, and he completely ignores that in order to conflate them and vilify homosexuality. It's entirely a religious one - find me one atheist who, if we accept that straight couples are allowed to marry, thinks that gay couples shouldn't be able to marry. What a fucking asshat.

"The evidence backing Savage’s claim is that Bachman kinda talks like a homo."

No, the evidence is that he runs a pray-the-gay-away clinic: raging homophobia is an excellent predictor of latent or repressed homosexual desire. I'm still expecting a Santorum 'scandal', possibly one that involves santorum. The stereotypical gay mannerisms are just frosting.

"If you’re a conservative homosexual like me, or Jack Donovan, whose fascinating book on conservative homosexuality I plan to review soon, then you know it’s entirely possible to be accepting of yourself and your sexual orientation, while simultaneously being aware that the overly sexualized, overly-permissive, non-judgemental [sic] society championed by some gay activists isn’t necessarily ideal, either."

But Santorum and the other anti-gay politicians aren't opposing slutty gay bathroom sex, they're opposing ALL gay sex and desexualizing, permissiveness-limiting, heteronormatively- judgmental gay marriage. I have never once heard Santorum advance an argument in favor of legislating his personal views on homosexuality (something that, if criminal, is a victimless crime: gay couples fucking or marrying has no impact on Santorum whatsoever) and forcing everyone else to follow them. In what way is that an intellectually-valid position, JJ?

Conservative faggots (and in this case, I mean it in the most offensive way possible) drive me crazy. Though I have to say, I do like his cartoon-version Dan.

Also, my understanding is that Dan hasn't been making fun of Marcus Bachmann because he's (probably) gay, but because he's (definitely) a hypocrite and an asshole.

@15 - I assume you're trying to point out that South Park takes place in Colorado. Canadians in the South Park universe (Ike is adopted, by the way) have separated heads that flap around when they talk. I'm assuming here also that you've never watched the show as religiously since childhood as I'm now going to pretend that I didn't.

From one episode:
"Oh God! What's wrong with their heads?"
"It's alright, honey. They're just Canadian."
"Oh."

@20

I have to admit that your first thought about the Canadian-head Dan Savage was likely my first thought as well. I thought it was kind of a funny caricature, honestly.

Key lie in the article: "If it’s wrong to bully young gays and lesbians simply for who they are and what they believe, as Dan Savage rightly holds, then it should be equally wrong to use those same tactics against innocuous critics of homosexuality."

Their criticism is not innocuous.

"But it’s also true that an honest, unemotional spectrum of opinion exists on the issue of homosexuality in modern America, rather than some strict either/or, love/hate duality."

But it's also true that an honest, unemotional spectrum of opinion exists on the issue of segregation in modern America....

But it's also true that an honest, unemotional spectrum of opinion exists on the issue of sex slavery in modern America...

But it's also true that an honest, unemotional spectrum of opinion exists on the issue of forced child labor in modern America...

But it's also true that an honest, unemotional spectrum of opinion exists on the issue of a woman's right to vote in modern America...

But it's also true that an honest, unemotional spectrum of opinion exists on the issue of slavery in modern America...

"Dignity begets dignity. "

We must respect and value each of these morally equivalent opinions. We must treat them with dignity. We must ensure to treat with dignity and respect those people who tell our children to hate n****rs, and f*gs, and b**ches.

We must treat with equal time and respect, and indeed dignity, The Klan and Focus on the Family.

They are simply respectful, innocuous purveyors of opinion.

Ah, thanks, @20. No, I don't think I've ever seen a complete episode.

@14 I disagree. The success of the Santorum google bomb has undoubtedly lifted Dan's profile and let his cause/message be known to many people who would never have heard of him/it otherwise. Any amount the message loses to these tactics is regained tenfold by the additional audience they open up.

On a slight tangent, loudly calling out bigotry (not to mention intentional misleading of the public, ignoring of scientific fact, making of political decisions based on religious views etc) is exactly what rational people in every level of the political conversation need to be doing right now.

These people will continue to get away with what they are doing as long as the opposing party remains relatively silent.

Fuck it, I would love to give Santorum a wedgie and slam Bachman's face into a toilet. You should be so lucky, Dan!

What a sickly apologetic article. No wonder Ann Coulter loves guys like this.

Its author is wrong on several premises, as ably noted by other commenters.

And yeah, I also take offense at the idea that there is a range of honest opinions on homosexuality. Willful ignorance is not honest. Unreasonable adherence to arbitrary religious doctrine to frustrate American ideals of liberty and equality and deny the same to a minority is not honesty.

A half-dozen decades ago most Americans believed the same wrongful things about homosexuality that Santorum and Bachmann do. But today, reasonable people know better. Santorum and Bachman should too. And as adults publicly pursuing the oppression of a minority through governmental action, fostering an atmosphere of intolerance and loathing that contributes to bullying of vulnerable youths and their resultant suicides, need to stand up like the adults and reap the social consequences their public statements and acts have led to, even the crude, demeaning, and aggressively discourteous ones.

@20, Thanks for rushing to my defense on the Ike/South Park comparison. I realize, though, that I shouldn't assume a TV show is common cultural currency just because I watch it.

@10: True dat.

I'm reminded of a kid from my junior high-- let's call him "Buster." Buster ran with a pack of popular kids who made life miserable for everyone else. One day, the popular kids decided (for whatever reason) that Buster wasn't cool anymore, so they kicked him out and started making fun of him. By the end of the day, he was reduced to tears. Actual tears: he was literally crying on a bench when I found him.

Now in a Lifetime movie, this would set up a touching sympathetic moment between Buster and myself. But in real life, I called him a huge fucking pussy for being unable to handle-- for a few hours-- something I and the other "uncool" kids had dealt with every day for years. (And I gotta admit, it felt really good.) The next day Buster was cool again and back to his old bullying ways, apparently not learning anything.

Conservatives are like Buster: they think they're all tough so long as they're surrounded by a huge fucking support system that tells them how tough they are. But have them meet someone who fights back without back up from the Fox News/evangelical/talk radio/conservative blogosphere echo chamber, and they start bawling like babies.

I want one of those fucking rad shirts!

@29 Perhaps, Mr. Savage assumed that his readers, would also read the article and pick up on Mr. McCullough's sexuality from Mr. McCullough's own statements in the article.

@31: I'm not talking about the apologists. I'm talking about the ones they're apologizing for.

I'm sure McCullough can take his lumps, especially given that he's a gay man who hangs out with homophobes. But apparently Santorum cannot.

@ 27, when a show has been on for 14 years, it's a pretty safe assumption.

Just yesterday I made a post saying that Rick Santorum's 15 minutes of fame are about up, and that Dan should leave him alone and go after bigger people like Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Sarah Palin.

Now this cartoon and article made me realize that Santorum is just the most prominent front man for a whole bunch of self-righteous homophobes who eagerly compare homosexuality to beastiality and pedophilia, and then run crying and whining when somebody fights back.

Keep it up, Dan.

I love the idea that a single sex columnist from an alternative weekly has the GOP powerhouses breaking down in tears.

@26

Shorter-

I personally don't agree with these people so they're lying .

And since I don't like them a vicious vulgar campaign of hateful and bullying attacks on one of them who holds no office and makes no policy by a deviant pervert is fully justified!

Nice.

Whatever weak justification the Savage had for this campaign against Rick Santorum ended the day he left office. He hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination or the office of president, and the Savage konws this. He has opinions taken far out of context by a thing like the Savage but he has the right to those opinions whatever you may think of them.

Had Rick Santorum been a private citizen, he'd have a fairly strong case for libel against the Savage, but then, the Savage knows that. And he knows that public figures aren't protected by libel laws, which is why his cowardice didn't stop him from attacking Mr. Santorum.

Of course the Savage has the right to his public vulgarity, attacks on the family and sexual morality, outright and frequent lies in his postings, attacks on this nation and what made it great as well. Why the homosexual community would want a spokesman so off-putting to normal decent people is a bit more obscure. That more voices from that community haven't openly stated that the Savage doesn't speak for them in his bigotry and hate, that they praise this disgusting thing and laud his vulgarity and depravity in lieu of public debate, speaks volumes about them.

37: "Dan Savage has the right to his [...] attacks on this nation and what made it great as well [...]"

Homophobia is what made this nation great? Who knew that all our prosperity is due to the fact that, at the beginning of our nation's history, we made a commitment to keeping gay couples apart. Apparently, gays were just treated swimmingly everywhere else during the 1700s, and this is what kept those other nations behind. All that gay marriage just used up all the "marriage" supply in France, for instance, which prevented straights from marrying and having children, which is why today France is a desolate sperm-crusted wasteland with a total population of 0. If only there had been a Monsieur Santourier ruling France during the 1700s, the country might still be around today.

Or, if not homophobia, what exactly is it that Dan is attacking here, and how (specifically!) did it make our country great? Does Dan's opposition to a forced Christian theocracy count as an attack against the "freedom of religion" clause that made our country great? Or let me guess: you believe that his using HIS free speech against SANTORUM's free speech is somehow an attack on free speech?

Remember: be specific, now; none of this empty rhetoric about how "American Values (tm) are what make this country great, because These Colors Do Not Run, and Dan is attacking those!"

Why should some twenty-something conservative homosexual from (probably) Abbotsford/Maple Ridge get any attention here? If anything, Dan should upbraid the cartoonist for not depicting him at an angle that shows off his wedding ring.

@ 37, as someone who routinely claims sexual orientation is a choice, even though you've admitted never choosing yours, you'd know a little something about lying.

I'm interested in something. What, exactly, is it that makes sex between members of the same gender immoral? I mean, murder, robbery, and rape are obvious - no need to look in the Good Book there. So there must be some reason, other than religious ones, that make same-sex intercourse immoral?

@28: It's irrelevant to the context. Gay people can be just as stupid and bigoted and anti-gay as straight people.

Normally I don't feed the trolls, but @37, you wanna go calling Dan Savage a coward? How about you tell us your real name? Oh, you don't want to? That's because you're a coward and a hypocrite.

Wait, should Santorum be in the toilet?

shouldn't

@37: "Why the homosexual community would want a spokesman so off-putting to normal decent people is a bit more obscure."

well... because it seems Dan is willing to stand up to the bullies, and let's not forget who the real bullies are on these issues... Santorum, the Bachmanns and the bigots like you who give them cover.

@37: Frankly, I'm curious as to what Dan has said about Mr. Santorum that could be considered libel if Mr. Santorum were not a public figure. Libel is a "published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." (Oxford English Dictionary)
Has Dan written any declarative statements that are demonstrably false about Mr. Santorum?

You're confused.

I'm not a bigot, nor do I give cover to anyone, Rick Santorum or otherwise. I merely protest the sewer that the Savage would like to replace our politics with to mirror his own disgusting mind. Neither Bachmann or Santorum are or will ever be my elected representatives. One isn't even in government any more. So I actually don't care what Michelle Bachmann thinks, or whether her husband is gay or not. I don't care what Mr. Santorum thinks about homosexuality, any more than I care what some guy in Coeur d'Alene or Niagara Falls does. It isn't my business. Nor is it the Savages.

What I know is that an enduring and vicious campaign was launched against Mr. Santorum for voicing an opinion on marriage. Not for comparing homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia, which he didn't do despite the lies told by the Savage. Not for any policy position for which he's responsible. After all he stopped being a Senator shortly after the Savage began this campaign of hatred and bigotry. Nope. Just for having an opinion that the Savage doesn't care for, and lacks the civil means for disagreeing.

So yeah, why the homosexual community would want a depraved, lying, vicious and bigoted thing like Savage speaking for them speaks volumes about that community.

I haven't forgotten who the real bully is. Nor the real bigot, or the real purveyor of poisonous hatred. You read his insane ramblings every day and take the fecal matter he calls pearls of wisdom at his appraisal. Little Danny Boy the Savage is the real bully, and all sane people know this.

SB, every minute you spend on Slog is a minute taken away from your family.

Sb may claim not to be a bigot but his posting history proves otherwise.

Seattleblues = droning sophomoric homophobe

He is beyond redemption. Arguing with a known inveterate and happy idiot is a) a waste of time, b) aggravating, and c) just makes you look stupid. Stop it, everyone. Please!

Next time he posts something, the first person who absolutely needs to respond should just say, "Fucking idiot," and everyone else should just leave it at that.

Thank you for your attention.

@48 You've been caught misinterpreting information our simply making things up enough times that you shouldn't go around calling others confused. I know I'll never convince you otherwise, but I'll repeat this anyway: just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

As for who's sane and who isn't, again I point to the fact that you frequently confuse your opinions with facts. I don't think you have a very clear idea of who's sane and who isn't.

And when the facts pile up against your arguments you run away. I don't know if you're a bully in real life, but you certainly act like one here. Like all bullies you're a coward at heart.

@48: Let's see that again.
"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."
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."
So...Mr. Santorum didn't compare homosexuality to pedophilia or zoophilia? Who taught you how to read?
And I'm still waiting for your explanation of exactly what libel Mr. Savage committed. Libel is when you print something false about someone, not when you print something mean.

@48:

You are a bigot.

You folks do realize that bigot doesn't mean 'I disagree with you on this issue', right?

No? Well, that explains a lot, I guess. To be clear-

I have no interest in telling a homosexual or heterosexual or really any adult how to conduct their personal lives. If only because I want what happens in my bedroom to remain my business, I'll cheerfullly defend your right to keep private what goes on in yours.

I don't hate gay men or lesbians ipso facto. Missionaries of perversity and deviance and moral decay like the Savage I loathe, but only on that account- not on that of his homosexuality.

I don't wish anyone persecuted or discriminated against for their chosen lifestyle. I pity them their weakness to a specific sexual perversion, but I could say the same about someone with a porn addiction, or someone promiscuous.

Try to understand the words you use before you use them.

@56 Please don't tell others to "[t]ry to understand the words you use before you use them" when you so frequently use words you obviously don't understand.

As for your claim that you "don't wish anyone persecuted or discriminated against for their chosen lifestyle", first, maybe you should look up the words "chosen" and "lifestyle". There's a lot of science out there to suggest that homosexuality isn't chosen--although I know you don't like facts that don't fit your worldview. And homosexuals are people. They're individuals who want to live their lives free of fear of being fired for what they do in the bedroom or who they love. They want to marry the people they love. In spite of all your claims to the contrary you do wish to see them persecuted and discriminated against. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, but that's not surprising considering how often you apply one standard to others and an entirely different one to yourself.

@56 By the way, it's not simply a matter of people disagreeing with you. Calling you a bigot is justified by your use of grouping everyone you don't like under blanket terms for and making sweeping, untrue accusations against them.

@56: It depends on the issue. Disagreeing on which sports team was the greatest of all time is not bigotry. Disagreeing that people are entitled to fundamentally equal rights-- i.e., claiming that some people are "more equal" than others-- is bigotry by definition.

Example 1: I say "The 2007 Patriots were the greatest football team of all time." You say "I disagree with you on this issue: the 1972 Dolphins were a better team." That does not make you a bigot.

Example 2: I say "Women are just as intellectually capable as men." You say "I disagree with you on this issue: women are much dumber." That makes you a bigot.

Example 3: I say "Same-sex relationships are just as important as opposite-sex relationships, and should be eligible for the same benefits." You say "I disagree with you on this issue: same-sex relationships are inherently inferior and society should discourage them." That also makes you a bigot.

See how it works?

@59: I'm on your side but I'm not sure I agree with those examples. Whether states should allow, say, cousin marriage or group marriage is something that gets debated without bigotry. I am not sure that society should authorize any marriage structure, but there is room for debate for what structures and how they're authorized. For instance, one possibility is that society could only offer and give benefits to couples or groups who are raising or adopting kids, as a means of supporting and encouraging child raising.

And if there were evidence that one group of people were not as smart as another, that would just be a factual proposition worthy of debate and gathering evidence, and it would not mean that people don't deserve equal rights. Half the people out there have IQs below average -- that's a fact -- and it doesn't imply bigotry or mean that people shouldn't have human rights.

@ Seattleblues, still waiting for an explanation of how gay sex is immoral, as requested @ 40.

Just so you don't bring up irrelevant tangents that could just as easily apply to heterosexual sex, we're speaking of sexual encounters between two adults, of sound mind and body, who are having sex consensually, and are not cheating on committed partners of either gender. But who happen to both be female or both be male.

Is there a non-religious case to be made for the immorality of such a sexual encounter?

@59: What about the 1985 Bears team?

Hey SB, I thought you only use nick names for your friends, or did you forget? That was what you told us when you got called out for referring to Goldy as Goldstein wasn’t it? That you were totally not being anti-Semitic, right?

Sooooo care to explain the whole “Danny Boy” thing you got goin’ here? You two tight now or what?

You can’t even keep your own bigoted justifications straight, you dolt!

@62: I actually gotta give it to da Bears. The '74 Dolphins didn't have a hit single (and less facetiously, played an easier schedule).

@60: When someone uses rhetoric to justify their position, I respond with rhetoric. I'm certain we could have a long discussion about the historical subjugation of women and/or the intersection of sexual orientation as an identity and the recognition of same-sex relationships, but that frankly doesn't interest me. I think you understood my underlying point, so I don't see the need to write several theses properly qualifying my statements.

@61 Isn't it obvious? It's immoral because they can't make babies. Which is why everyone is tested for fertility before a marriage license is issued, right SB?

@56: For the sake of understanding words:

"I don't hate black people, I just hate when they trying to drink from my water fountain, or swim in the pool where my kids swim or stop me from raping them.

I don't hate women, I just hate when they try to vote or read.

I don't hate Japanese, I just hate when they try to live in houses and farm.

I don't hate Jews, I just hate when they try to eat food and breathe.

I don't hate homosexuals, I just hate when they try to live in families."

Allow me to use words I understand quite well:
You, sir, are a bigot.

JJ's right Mr. Savage. You may have moved to Canada, but your actions outside the It Gets Better Campaign show you will always be a yokel Yankee at heart. Being physically in the civilized world has not made you more civilized.

@3: In redefining Santorum's last name, Dan Savage is using and popularizing the same cruel and unreasonable tactics that hurt so many gay kids. Rick Santorum deserves scathing criticism for some of the crap he pulls, but so does Dan Savage.

@18 Somewhere in the spectrum of consensual sex, between loving and lasting sexual relationships and incestuous S&M orgies in the streets, a line should be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. That is a valid thesis; not the only reasonable position to take, but one of them. Santorum draws that line so restrictively that even most Republicans think he's crazy (have you seen his poll numbers?), but his support for that underlying thesis is reasonable and he opposes such a wide variety of sex acts (including between heteros) that he's arguably a universal prude rather than a targeted gay-hater.

@40 Some sex is fun with the possibility of perpetuating humanity's survival, while other sex is just fun. It's wrong to universally ban the "just fun" kind, but it's disingenuous to pretend not to see the difference.

@36 and @54 Santorum says homosexuality is "not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever." He says they are not alike. He compared homosexuality to adultery, incest, and polygamy based on the principle that all of those things would be legal if informed consent was the only restriction on sex. Is that false? He's crazy prudish, but you should still have your facts straight.

@66 Well put, but remember that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, Seattleblues continues to hold the fringe belief that being homosexual, like being poor, is a matter of choice.

Since it looks like he's as usual in full retreat from arguments he can't answer I'm sure we'll see him pop up in another thread repeating his beliefs

@68: Why is it a reasonable position to say that some consensual acts are on the "unacceptable" side of the line? And if informed consent was the only restriction on sex, most incest would still not be legal as it involves children who can't give informed consent, though consensual adult incest would, and polygamy would still not be legal as it's a marriage structure, not a sex act.

@70: "Why is it a reasonable position to say that some consensual acts are on the "unacceptable" side of the line?"

Why is it a reasonable position to say that there are no unacceptable consensual sex acts? That's a debate all unto itself, and actually far off topic here. Psudo's statement merely claims that Santorum made a statement of thesis, and that on its face it could be reasonable. That's where debate comes in, to determine how reasonable and logical that thesis is.

The topic at hand is this: JJ's comic and editorial are claiming that instead of debate, Mr. Savage resorted to the same sort of bullying techniques he decries the use of against young homosexuals. Was this the correct response to Santorum's claims?

I would say no, it is not. I would certainly disagree with Mr. Santorum's claims and I do not think highly of his thought process because of them, but I do not believe that attacking his image through the creation of rumors and lies is a legitimate or mature response. It just makes you look bad too, not to mention the potential of getting you in trouble for libel.

What would be an acceptable response here? There is always the option to just ignore claims like Santorum's, but I'll admit that some things just warrant a response. I would have much preferred Mr. Savage use his popularity to address the idea presented, not the man himself. Perhaps include a list of easily defensible points his readers could use when the topic came up at parties? Or instead of using spreadingsantorum website to defame Mr. Santorum, use it to list the reasons why his views are wrong and unreasonable?

Attacking an idea is an acceptable tactic, but attacking someone personally is not.

"Mocking a wealthy and powerful politician is not the moral equivalent of mocking a vulnerable and isolated teenager. Figuratively taking the piss out of a middle-aged man who has profited politically and financially from attacking a vulnerable minority group, a man who is surrounded by people who agree with him and support him politically and financially, is not the moral equivalent of literally beating the shit out of 13-year-old boy who is a member of that vulnerable minority group, has never sought to harm anyone, and is surrounded by people who loathe and despise him. Please make a note of it, bigots." - Dan Savage, putting the bigots in their rightful place. APPLAUSE.

@70 You're right about polygamy being about marriage rather than sex. What we're discussing is better described by terms like polyamory, ménage à trois, or threesome. It's also completely true that consent is only a factor in a fraction of incest cases. Sex involving children is already illegal so, you might ask, why have laws against incest at all?

Social discomfort with incest developed from the primitive need to ensure genetic diversity in the local gene pool and the health of the tribe or nation as a whole. As long as science upholds a correlation between birth defects and cousin-parents, for example, it stands as an example of an argument, devoid of bigotry and separate from consent, that reasonable governments might want to consider when regulating sex. The fact that such reasons are theoretically possible makes it irrational to use name-calling and peer pressure to silence people who say so. Those tactics put those that use them on the side that supports emotion and force of will against fairness and reason.

@72 Bullying is kids attacking kids, and Santorum/Savage is a case of adults attacking adults. The targets are not the same as each other, but it is a fight between peers in both cases. It is not far-fetched to imagine an increase in bullying if kids follow Savage's example here.

@66

Clever.

Because anyone who thinks that those who make sexual choices ought to be responsible for the results of those choices is racist.

Or chauvinist.

Or anti-semitic.

And anyone who says that gays should have equal rights, not enhanced ones, or that 3% of the population might just not have the right to define society for the remaining 97%, or that the equivocating gay issues with the very real civil rights issues faced by black Americans, or women or other minorities is entirely stupid is a bigot in your view?

You really don't understand English, do you?

The point is, whatever one thinks of homosexuality or gay civil rights, the Savage is unhelpful, and a very poor spokesman. He is depraved, vicious, bigoted and an accomplished bully in his own right. Hell, he could give lessons to those he accuses of bigotry for making statements of religious or personal conviction.

And you might ask yourself this- Take any 100 men or women and engage them in conversation about the weather or their jobs or their kids or pets. In the middle of this inconsequent conversation, abruptly ask them if they are homosexual. The startled look of revulsion in the eyes of the vast majority of these people will tell you the real story about how the choice of homosexual behavior is viewed. Not the polls in which people try to paint a courteous face on a grotesque like homosexuality.

Because at heart the vast majority of us understand that while my neighbor may switch Brooks Brothers for Victorias Secret camisoles in his bedroom, there's something contemptible about it something not right.

And while my neighbor may pervert normal sexuality, the biologically inescapable reality that sexual function was designed to be between the opposite sex, to gay sex it may not be my business, but it is perverse and it is wrong.

Turn on the lamp, Tiffany-

What I write, and what is demonstrably true, is that one of two things is true.

Either those with the predilection to homosexuality choose to indulge their vices, or in having same sex relations they are raped.

The single difference between the Savage and myself that matters is that he chooses sex with men to gratify his vice. His private business, with which I'd never dream of interfering, to be sure-

But that choice imposes not a single obligation on any other citizen. He's made a great deal of money being a national deviant clown at which people can laugh. He's made a seemingly happy life with a boyfriend, and is allowed or encouraged by this boyfriend to sexually indiscriminate behavior with others. All this, for him though not for moral or decent people, on the positive side of the balance.

But on the negative, honorable people see him as the disgusting thing, the half animal, that he's chosen to be. They see him as corruptive and destructive of the national discourse and the national morality. They see him as the unfunny clown that he is. And he can't marry his boyfriend, since marriage and his relationship have no common ground.

So an adult would take the gains, balance them against the losses and decide if his decision was a good one. But not the Savage. He won't be happy until the entire nation occupies the same mental sewer that he does. He won't be happy until family and morality and sexual decency are entirely destroyed.

He's an ape in clothes, no more, no less.

@75 You realize you're an ape in clothes as well, don't you? As are we all. I find it very funny that you claim moral superiority at the same time that you resort to the same tactics that you (sometimes falsely) criticize in others.

I also like it that you've changed your position from homosexuality being a "choice" to it being a "predilection". You seem to be evolving, even if you don't believe in evolution. But you've already had it explained to you by your intellectual superiors why your "homosexuality is rape" argument is false. Perhaps you should go back and read that, and this time read for comprehension.

And, again, if you're going to make arguments, cite facts not opinions. It's your opinion that Dan wants to see "family and morality and sexual decency are entirely destroyed". You want to see his family destroyed because it doesn't fit your personal interpretation of what a family is. Can you come up with a fact-based argument to explain why your view is so superior? Probably not. You've had ample opportunities here and you've never done it.

@74 "You really don't understand English, do you?"

This from someone who doesn't know what "anecdotal" means but uses it anyway.

You know what? You're right, in a way.

I've re-read the comments I've made about Savage. Whatever else he's chosen to make of his life, however destructive he's chosen to be, he is a creature of God. More than that, I deserve or desire the responsibility for judging his life.

In a general way, I will never change my view that homosexuality is physically, morally and personally wrong. I will never see it as other than a vice whose sufferers are to be sincerely pitied.

So long as Savage continues his campaigns of bigotry and hatred, I can't see ever believing his work to have any positive value whatever. I can't see how the gay community which he seems erroneously to believe persecuted and denied civil rights gaining from such a spokesman. Nor can I see the general tone of political discourse in this country improving when this is the standard increasingly used to define what is or isn't acceptable.

But in speaking of the man, rather than the issue, I've fallen into the same error Savage has with Rick Santorum.

And for that I do apologize to other readers, but also to Savage himself.

Correction-

"I neither deserve or desire the More than that, I neither deserve nor desire the responsibility for judging his life."

In leaving out 'neither' I erased the entire point of the sentence. Apologies.

@78 Perhaps you should go back and rephrase what you've said. When you say, "I deserve or desire the responsibility for judging his life" you're stating the obvious--you seem to think you deserve the responsibility for judging others, and for whatever reason you obviously desire it, but I don't think that's what you meant to say.

And you are right that it's your view that "homosexuality is physically, morally and personally wrong". What you've never been able to explain, though, is why others should share your opinion. And let me reiterate: it's your opinion, but in your arguments you always speak as though it's a fact.

@79 Oops, I was too quick and missed your correction. But it must have been a Freudian slip.

Now how about going back and addressing 61 or 59 or any of those other arguments you've been dodging?

Last chance, Seattleblues. How is gay sex a vice? (Pay special attention to my post @ 61 - don't indulge in any irrelevant tangents.)

Psuedo @ 68, your response to me @ 40 doesn't answer the question. There's a difference between eating an apple and eating a piece of pie; that difference has nothing to do with whether one is moral and the other is immoral.

@82

I have a Triumph Spitfire and a Ford pick-up. I also tow a trailer on occasion. Which vehicle do you imagine I use for that purpose?

A gay person would say the Triumph, if their understanding of mechanics is mirrored by their understanding of human sexuality. The human body simply is designed for heterosexual sex, not homosexual.

And it really doesn't matter. I don't seek to impose my morality on others. If someone wants to be have gay sex, it doesn't matter to me one bit. If they want their vice to determine marriage and family and normal sexuality for everyone else, then I have a problem.

And that's where the 'gay rights' movement is going. They don't want protection from discrimination. They want to redefine every aspect of society for their deviancy. And they ought not be allowed the tyranny of the minority.

@82

You might be honest and admit that I rarely mention my faith in relation to politics or civil rights issues. I'm not ashamed of it, but I understand the role of the 1st Amendment in protecting both my right to free expression of religion and someone elses right to freedom from religion.

Because of that, I don't except mention my faith except where Christianity is grossly mis-stated by someone else.

@84 You might be honest and admit that comparing vehicles, which are designed for a specific purpose, and people is intellectually dishonest.

And then there's your "I don't seek to impose my morality on others". Well, maybe you think you don't after your smug self-pat on the back @78 and 79, but your insistence that it's your special right to decide what's "normal" and what's "deviant", or, for that matter, who's a Christian and who isn't, with only your opinion serving as your guide, imposing your morality on others is exactly what you're doing.

@ 84, this is simply another way of saying that you can't define what makes gay sex a vice. I'm sure you wouldn't be so reticent if I asked you to describe what makes gambling, drinking, or drug use a vice.

BTW, where on earth did I mention your faith? I merely stated that religious proclamations simply wouldn't do. "Be honest," indeed.

Anyway, the record is clear - you are unable to state what makes gay sex a vice, so if you're as honest as you claim, you will hereby refrain from ever referring to it as such.

Matt @83 I guess you're right, my argument doesn't make "just fun" sex objectively immoral. It's relatively less moral in that it does less good for the world, but I haven't compared it to any official line with "good" on one side and "evil" on the other. Any such line I could draw would be a guess. Maybe it's the kind of thing that reasonable people can disagree about and still remain civil.

Seattleblues: you are a bigot.

You also have serious difficulty with English comprehension.

Yup. Us good ol' boys back here in the suburban bayou jes cain't talk ner writ no English no-how! We leaves it to y'all libruls in Seattle and sech-like places to talk purty and we jes stan back and admire y'all fer it.

Y'all have a good week-end now, while I try to lern me to talk as good as you do. Maybe read me some Naomi Klein or some such other of them America hatin' writer types so's I can unnerstan all the high falutin stuff you smart city fellers do!

That's about how most liberals view anyone who dares disagree with their revisionist views of history, politics, economics, culture or morality, as far as I can tell.

You don't have to read "America haters," whoever they are, Seattleblues. You just have to be honest in your debate - something that has yet to be in evidence. Your comment @ 90, for example, has at least three claims which I could challenge you to prove - with the full knowledge that you would fail to do so.

@ 88, the thing about sexual activity - I'm going to use my specific description that I used @ 61 here - is that it isn't about morality at all. Procreation isn't a moral issue; neither is recreation. We humans don't procreate because it's a good thing for us to do (unless you are coming from a religious perspective - but things that are truly moral or immoral can be judged as such without the implied coercion of religious instruction); we procreate because that is what organisms do. Calling it "moral" is like calling eating "moral."

If ending a life is immoral, starting one is moral. If death is the loss of something valuable, birth is the creation of something valuable. Unless you're completely denying the existence of right and wrong, I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion.

Hrm... that answer could have been more complete.

Even if recreational sex is of exactly zero moral value, neither positive nor negative, it still occupies time that could have been used make your own or others' lives better. It's still relatively moral even if it's objectively neutral.

I guess eating is the same way. If you spend twelve hours a day eating, what kind of life are you going to have?

@ 93, sorry, but you got that mixed up. The opposite of birth is death, not murder*. And @ 94, are you saying that activities that don't "better your own or others' lives" aren't activities that shouldn't be pursued? There are millions of activities that can be described that way. (Parenthetically, I would say that sex** does indeed make life better for you and your partner - it's healthy, it's fun, and it's enriching.)

* Also, people can make the case for moral taking of life - capital punishment and war, anyone? It's not a view I subscribe to, but it's widely held.

** Again, referring to sex as I defined @ 61. Gotta preempt those who would willfully misconstrue my words to include rape, incest, and the like.

@84: Ah, so the human body was designed, was it?
Well, whoever designed it must have had anal sex in mind, otherwise it wouldn't be possible for most people to have orgasms as a result of it. Form reflects function, after all!
Who designed the human body, anyway?

Senator Criticizes Dirty Satan-Spawned Shit-Eaters for Vulgarity, Viciousness

See Page A-4

@75: "Either those with the predilection to homosexuality choose to indulge their vices, or in having same sex relations they are raped. The single difference between [Dan] Savage and myself that matters is that he chooses sex with men to gratify his vice."

Wait, SeattleBlues, are you saying you're gay?

@93: Just because it's wrong to end a life that already exists doesn't mean we have the duty to create more. Otherwise, we'd have the ethical duty to overpopulate the world even further beyond its carrying capacity, and not having as many kids as possible would be as bad as murder.

There is no argument, nothing in this universe, no miracle, no word, no sight, sound or vision that could convince Seattleblues of anything. He bases opinions off of a reality that exists only in his mind.

I've watched him proven wrong decisively and completely a hundred times, and it never gets to him. He is impenetrably ignorant. He will die an old man in a world he was too pig-headed to know. Observing reality, and basing your opinions off of those observations is what makes your arguments invalid in his mind. You are only right if you base your opinions off of demonstrably false ideals.

Even if he actually believes the vicious lies he tells, he's still as pointless to engage as the average pimple faced basement dwelling troll. Engaging Republicans rationally will get nowhere. They've already decided that rationality is the enemy. They can contradict themselves in the space of a sentence. Seattleblues is a lying sack of shit. Rick Santorum is a lying sack of shit. Rick Perry is a lying sack of shit, and a crook. Fuck them, and stop replying to them. They don't care if they are basing their opinions off of their imagination, or if they hurt or murder people with their ridiculous policies. They base their opinions off of either reactionary opposition to reality or the desire to harm innocent people. They aren't worth talking to.

@95 I'm not saying actions with less moral content shouldn't be pursued. I'm saying better is better and worse is worse. So long as procreation is a positive good, X < X + procreation. That doesn't mean "Don't X." It means exactly what it says.

Also, I said death, and I didn't say murder. Cases like executions and wars are defended by claims that the good gained outweighs the life lost. It's not always true, but that reasoning demonstrates that life is held to be inherently valuable even then.

@96 The ability to do X does not prove a designer's intent to do X. I can use a butter-knife to loosen a screw or to prevent a door from shutting, but that's not what butter-knives are designed for. I'm not criticizing your sexual orientation here, just your logic.

@99 I've done a lot of research and I've never found any evidence that the Earth as a whole is overpopulated. Specific places are, but I estimate the Earth can support at least 20 times as many people without any new technology. I love that topic, and if you want to discuss it in more detail I'd greatly enjoy it.

I'm not declaring any ethical duty to do anything. I'm not pigeonholing behavior into "Thou shalt not," "You may," and "You must." I'm saying procreative sex has an extra reward that recreational sex lacks. Feel free to respond to that fact however you like.

@100 If you give up on rationality, you sink to their level. If you don't, you give your point of view a demonstrable moral advantage. People respond to that, and your movement will gain ground.