Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
As I type this, I see that Santorum is a distant 5th in New Hampshire and falling like a rock.
"Sticks and stones..."
As to your false statements of fact, well, I'll leave you to figure out what they are.
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Seriously though, I was interested to see your reaction, and you did not disappoint. Well done!
Johnny D.
Column made of win (not a given) Dan. Well done.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that son of a gun and his mind-bogglingly extreme views has been made into a joke that damages his chances of gaining a position that will give him a chance to act on them, but "not" is a pretty relevant word.
You know when homophobic politicians come out as flaming faggots?
Rick Santorum has a different problem. He hates sex. Probably because he *wants* to have all the fun the rest of us are having with our filthy, depraved sex lives, like oral and anal and lesbian sex, but his mind was so fucked up by his religion that he believes that the only way to make his desires go away is by making sure *other* people can't have them. Just like the closet cases who become homophobic senators trying to outlaw the gay. Which is why if elected President, he will legislate against oral and anal and lesbian sex, and empower the police to peek through your bedroom window to make sure you're not having any of it. Because he also thinks you have no right to *privacy*.
So while you think Santorum backfires, you just fail to understand the *scope* of the problem he will become for you. Sorry, he's *also* coming for your condoms and your IUDs and your alternatives to vaginal sex which also include gay nightclubs.
The "it" is marriage, not homosexuality. He's quite clear that he's not "picking on homosexuality", he could just as easily have used bestiality as an example, it would be the same thing. According to him.
@7: Actually, Dan's editor wanted to name the column "My Gay Friend", but cringed on "Hey, Faggot" as the title. Instead, it was agreed that "Hey, Faggot" was okay as a greeting for Dan's column and thus, the title Savage Love was born.
@14 spoon: I second that!!!
Dan--I've got one---now that he's falling fast, and his shit has nowhere else to go, how about Santorum Runoff? Trickle Down Santorum?
Bless you, Dan, fellow readers, and bravo!!
Before Iowa and post Rupert Murdoch starting a Twitter account so he could endorse Santorum, I related the Google Problem story to all my friends and urged them to google Santorum...
He's just a treasure trove of dumbassedness. Whether it's marriage leading to dog orgies with 4 or 5 people, or going to college being "elitist snobbery".
Man, I really wish they'd plop me in front of a camera with a question. Because, this whole issue of biblical homosexuality thing is mostly because it's adultery. Along with any sex outside of marriage, and even thinking about having sex with someone you're not married to. (That's a bit more hardcore).
I just want to see him try and answer a question about how he's going to stop heterosexual adultery as President.
I also find his hypocracy to be beyond the pale. He talks about how states should have the right to criminalize contraception, homosexual behavior, and all abortions. (He would criminalize the very procedure that saved his wife's life when she was carrying a non-viable fetus, which is a whole additional level of hypocracy.) Then, in the next breath he will also talk about how the states shouldn't have the right to legalize same-sex marriage, if that is their wish. So which is it, Sanny? If the states have the right to make laws regarding the legality of such things as contraception and abortion, why can't they make laws legalizing same-sex marriage? Or is he only for states' rights if they are legistating in the direction that he believes is "best for our society"?
Santorum could try to defend his argument by appealing to the bible and claiming it's the authority he respects. If the bible says these thigns are the same, so will he. Then the argument would be about whether or not you should always follow the bible. And so on and so forth.
And this could in principle be done in a civil manner. But given the emotions that power the various worldviews here, especially in America... It seems pretty damn naive to expect that people will always be civil in their public debates.
That is indeed a pity. But unless those who criticize Dan's vehemence can tell me that they criticize also the vehemence of right-wing people (Glenn Beck? Hannity?), and what they're doing to change that -- I have to say it is similarly hypocritical to condemn things only when they come from the people you already oppose.
Changing the mud-slinging habits of American politics starts at home. If you say to your enemy "you stop first", you're just playing the same game again, no change.
You'd think, on the surface, that if your brother, friend, neighbor, or son said that he wanted to have sex with boys, people would shrug and say whatever. From an evolutionary point, they'd say "more females for me." But instead, going back to Biblical times and in many cultures, there's hatred to the point of hunting people down and killing them. Why? I'm not satisfied with the idea, possibly meant to insult, that it's just an aberration. It's too widespread. You could almost call it natural. Why?
End of story, the only people that back Santorum are not deserving of the title human.
We are aware of the surprising rise of (yuk) Rick Santorum, and many Dutch people start googling him to find out who he is (just like all the other republican candidates). With younger people here, Santorum's (yuk) google problem has been known for some time, now the general public gets a taste of it (unintentional pun); only the fourth hit on google has information on the bigoted politican. The rest refers to (the origins of) the word Santorum as we all love and cherish it. Perhaps you already know this post: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comment…
Or better, the comments on this post. I didn't post it, but I sure hope it helped with the google results!
All the best with your Savage Love!
.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/o3cc7/santorum_no_one_has_ever_died_because_they_didnt/
So, if you really want one of his sweater vests, wait till he officially drops out before ordering one (they may discount it then too).
Peace.
By the way, I'm pleased that the definition of "rick" is now established. Perhaps then the collateral damage to other people named santorum can be a little less?
I honestly don't get it. I have tried, but I literally can't think of a single ethical argument against legal polygamy, though surely there would be pragmatic hurdles, as with anything new.
I do the one at a time thing myself, except for a handful of one-shot threesomes and some standard-fare stints dating more than one person when none were serious. But my neighbors are an all-male very stable threesome and they have one of the healthiest and most supportive relationships in my friend group. My kid hangs out with them a fair amount and came to the conclusion on his own that there is not only nothing ethically wrong with multiple partners, but nothing weird about it in practice either.
Even Savagers who happily participate in threads about polyamory seem to find it obvious that it's insulting to suggest a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamous marriage. And Dan seems to do the same above, at least by implication. I think I am in favor of such a slippery slope! If someone had argued back in the miscegenation days, "If we allow interracial marriage, what's next, same-sex marriage?" they would have actually turned out to be prophetic, right? What is the difference?
Don't tell the right wing f*ckwads I said so though ;)
Women don't think that way, because, certainly, you are right, I thought from the first time I understood what a lesbian is: hmm, fine, more men for me. I also thought: gay men, how sad for me! until I realized how fabulous most gay men can be and what a wondrous addition to the population they are.
Santorum slides in polls, and gets a pounding behind Gingrich in NH (Perry ends up on bottom).
Anybody who says someone "should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there's nothing left but the rope." should command nobody's respect.
No polygamy = less societal violence.
That's the reasoning I have heard.
Calling out a bully like Rick Santorum is NOT bullying, it is standing up for yourself and all the other people Rick would like to legislate into oblivion.....double bonus points if it's done as mockery because the Rethugs HATE being mocked.
When Rick Santorum or Rick Perry are found dead, tied to a fence post after being beaten to death or beaten up while walking down the street minding their own business, or raped and then denied healthcare by evil gays and women, THEN we'll talk.
I have never subscribed to the unreasonable theory that we only make up 10% of the population. How can any source, from Kinsey on, be relied on for accuracy when it comes to personal info many gay people are still reluctant to be honest about?
Calling out a bully like Rick Santorum is NOT bullying, it is standing up for yourself and all the other people Rick would like to legislate into oblivion.....double bonus points if it's done as mockery because the Rethugs HATE being mocked.
When Rick Santorum or Rick Perry are found dead, tied to a fence post after being beaten to death or beaten up while walking down the street minding their own business, or raped and then denied healthcare by evil gays and women, THEN we'll talk.
Rick (v) To remove a substance with one's tongue.
"Eww, I'm dribbling everywhere, could you rick this santorum, honey?"
There were so many sites exploiting santorum's name I spent last week on the floor laughing. Examples :
http://gawker.com/5872978/every-funny-he…
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/0…
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattcherette/25-…
But my favorite remains "Santorum surges from behind dislodging Romney". Can we keep the obvious meaning for Romney too?
@51, it's because, in their eyes, polygamy means less cunt to go around and some men might end up without a cunt to abuse and control. Note how the guys bringing this up are often so fortunate as to have one secretly despairing woman who can scarcely tolerate them and only stick around because of a misguided sense of duty -- the likely losers when the two-by-two life-pairing nonsense is no longer enforced at gunpoint.
Speaking of nonconsensual enforcement of cultural norms, here's a nice article suggesting that ab-only sex ed encourages bullying, which the culture warriors, being bullies themselves, are just bully about:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/20…
It's not insulting. But poly marriage is a whole different kettle of fish, for precisely the pragmatic reasons to which you refer: SS benefits, health care benefits, child custody issues in case of divorce... If you only imagine a three-way marriage, those issues seem manageable, but suppose A marries B, C, D, and E, where B is also married to F; C is also married to G & H; and wild D is married to P, Q, R, S, T, U, and V. (Also, V hates G with a passion, so they're definitely not married. F and A are sisters, so they're definitely not married...) Okay, now who gets to share A's health benefits? If B dies intestate, how do you divide B's assets? And if B has a kid with D, who gets custody after B dies?
But mostly the implicit form of your argument just seems deeply wrong. there are deeply perverted, abusive relationships and subcultures of all sorts. It is important to know about that and try to help. I see none of that as having any bearing whatsoever on whether there is something intrinsically sketchy about a particular arrangement of partnered-up bodies or whether we should legalize their union. The polygamous partnerships in my social circle have no more relationship to LDC craziness than do any of my other friends' partnerships.
THANK YOU.
I have nothing else to say that hasn't been said less simplistically or more elegantly by someone else: it's all being driven by fear and repression.
THANK YOU.
What I have witnessed over my 30plus years of practice both before and after the recognition of gay marriage can only be aptly described as night and day. No more can a family ravage with total impunity the possessions of a surviving partner, no more can a child be taken from a surviving parent by the family of the deceased. No more will one person in a family be granted extended health care, while another will not. No more will a surviving spouse be left destitute because the pension plan did not recognise their marriage.
No more will a same-sex couple have to execute agreement after agreement in order to protect themselves and their children from multiple civil intrusions because their union was not recognised.
One last point: I prepare income taxes for both Canada and the US. Here in Canada, one spouse can stay at home and raise the children. The couple receive a significant income tax deduction for this arrangement. This is not the case in the US. The 1040 will not recognise same sex family units -for that matter, common law relationships are not granted the same priviledges under law as married relationships. Common law has been recognised throughout the British commonwealth for many decades.
This is an excellent and moving article. I've seen you quite a few times on various TV venues, but this is my first time seeing your writings. I was so moved by the hardship of the Langbehn-Pond family that I cried. Generally, due to my cynicism, it's difficult for writers to touch my heart so deeply. I hope that somehow Elizabeth Santorum had the opportunity to read this, too.
I TOTALLY Believe that Rick Santorum is gay and he hates himself for it (Lord knows why).
Redirecting his self-hate into trying to "save the world" by becoming a politician..
Seriously: WHAT A FUCKING DOUCHEBAG SANTORUM IS!
It's all so *sad*. Some will never know and never get it.. Santorum is among those people.
Who cares who's gay and who's not anymore?
Fuck, it's 2012 already: there's gay marriage now in several states, a lame show like 'Glee' is more of a hit than it should be, and fuckers like Rick Santorum are comparing being gay to something evil?
Look in the mirror, you dickhead! Eh, not to worry: Santorum's run will be done within a month/two months' tops.
The more bits people drag out about Santorum, the quicker his shit will tumble and he can hopefully return to semi-obscurity where he belongs (There, in therapy and in a bathhouse. Not necessarily in that order ;-) lol...).
I counter with- "think about your parents or children having sex". Funny to watch their expression change when thinking of an icky form of 'godly' straight sex.
I agree, it is complicated. And honestly I am not some big crusader for it. But I think the tone on both sides is a moralizing one, not just a matter of getting a headache contemplating the policy complexities. I'm happy for people to decide that multiple marriage is just too complicated to deal with in the short or medium run. I'm not happy for same-sex couples to martial the rhetoric of "we are basically normal, not like those poly freaks, how dare you compare us". Notice @51's immediate rush to talking about creepy LDS misogynist cult stuff when I brought the topic up.
My personal stance on all this is probably closest to that of the great Jimmy McMillan of the Rent is Too Damn High Party: "If you want to marry a shoe, I'll marry you". But I will leave my case for inanimate object unions to another time ;)
Also, what's so bad about polygamy? As long as its between consenting adults why should we care?
People would have to figure out other ways to indicate legally where want their stuff to go when they die, who they want to raise children with, who they want making decisions if they get ill, etc. But it's totally doable, and might get around the problems I raised @66. Like you said, "in the short or medium run," we're probably not ready yet. But long term, maybe.
Why did I have to go online to read this today instead of finding you in the SFWeekly as usual? Where you aware of this? I hope this is dome sort of deadline problem and nit editorial fuckwittage on the part of what I thought were the slightly less conservative owners of what was formerly a very conservatively owned free weekly in a big market that ran your column regularly with no problems.
Cheers,
DeBoner
As EricaP points out, most of the problems with polygamy are practical ones for which some practical solution can be found, if one is willing to think carefully about it.
Running the risk of seeming too radical even for SLOG, I would even maintain that, in principle, the same can be said even for bestiality or sex with children (and the corresponding types of marriage). The task would be more complicated yet, and the redefinitions more radical (and there would be the question of asking who would benefit from it: if too few people, is it worth the trouble?), but I think it probably is doable. But that's of course a different question.
Hopefully polygamy will indeed be the next topic to be talked about and considered, after same-sex marriage becomes mainstream. The practical difficulties that EricaP mention are considerable, but -- I agree -- probably solvable if one is willing to think enough about them.
Running the risk of sounding too radical even for SLOG, I'll even maintain that the same could be said about the other boogiemen, sex with animals and with children (and perhaps even the corresponding forms of marriage): the difficulties, again much more considerable, could probably also be solved (though here I might think it would be better to abolish marriage altogether rather than trying to solve them). I'd also throw in incestous marriage as an easier case to solve.
It took some time, and was at first surprising, to think that someone could be at the same time gay and not obsessed by his gayness, gay and not willing to jump and rape other people. I know, it is not at all logical to think so; but if you started out with this image in your head, it does take some time to get rid of it.
And it's all well and good for you to make your pronouncements from a civilized country, but over here, wait and see. If I were inclined to gamble, I'd bet on a HUGE rollback, and would likely not rule out government-enforced dissolutions in addition to same-sex couples permanently and irrevocably being barred from marriage. Much more doable. Sorry to sound bitter. I am.
As for your more radical questions, I suppose there could possibly be solutions for at least some of them, but it would likely just be Mary Crawford playing speculation (winning the hand only to find that it didn't repay what she'd given to secure it) on a larger scale.
In case you were wondering why RANDALL TERRY is running as a Democratic party presidential candidate:
It is because political ads can't be censored, even during the super bowl. Brilliant in a ass juice kind of way.