I am writing to thank you. I remember reading your definition of “santorum”—”the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex”—when it first appeared. I remember thinking it was a cute way to make fun of a dickhead politician. I never thought it would go this far. But after Iowa, Rick Santorum is in the spotlight again. And so is that frothy mixture. And that’s fucking awesome.
Jeff In Wisconsin
Don’t thank me, JIW. Thank Rick Santorum for making his bigotry crystal clear in a 2003 interview with the Associated Press. Santorum equated consensual gay sex with child rape and dog fucking, he stated that birth control should be illegal, he argued that states should be able to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people—gay and straight—for private, consensual sex acts.
Thank the Savage Love reader who, after reading that interview, urged me to invite my readers to submit new definitions for Santorum’s last name. And thank the Savage Love readers who—in their wisdom—selected “the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex” from a crowded field of equally repulsive candidates.
I did my part: I counted the ballots, I created a website (www.spreadingsantorum.com) that eight years later remains the number one return when you google “Santorum.” But, again, if it weren’t for my creative, kinky, and hilarious readers, JIW, an otherwise distressing news cycle—a ranting, raving, washed-up religious bigot tied for first place in the Iowa caucuses?!?—would not have been leavened by such unintentionally hilarious headlines as “Santorum Surges from Behind,” “Santorum Runs Hard,” and “Romney Squeezes Out Santorum.”
Dan Savage is one sick, pathetic excuse for a human being. Truly a sad piece of sh*t. Especially trying to “insert himself”—pun intended—into the GOP presidential race.
Savage Isn’t Completely Kind
We redefined “santorum” back in 2003, SICK, long before Santorum was running for president. So it would be more accurate to say that the GOP presidential race has inserted itself into me, not the other way around. And, gosh, I hope there isn’t any santorum on the GOP presidential race when it pulls out of me—that would be so embarrassing!
Also embarrassing: Elise Foley’s gushing profile of Elizabeth Santorum, Rick’s adult daughter, that appeared on the Huffington Post before the Iowa caucuses.
“It is tough [being] a young surrogate for a candidate/father clinging to an older worldview,” Foley writes. “Her father’s stance on same-sex marriage and gay rights, in particular, has caused some friction from non-supporters. ‘It’s a policy thing,’ [Elizabeth Santorum] said of gay marriage… Opposed to same-sex marriage herself, Elizabeth said she has gay friends who support her father’s candidacy based on his economic and family platforms.”
Yeah, it’s tough out there for a ‘phobe—and it’s getting tougher all the time. Rick Santorum was nearly booed off a stage in New Hampshire last week after he insisted that legalizing gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamous marriage. (The same argument was made against legalizing interracial marriage—and here we are, 44 years after the Supreme Court declared laws against interracial marriage to be unconstitutional, and Tiger Woods can marry only one busted Olive Garden hostess at a time.)
You know what else is tough? Gay widowers losing their homes after the deaths of their spouses because they don’t qualify for the same Social Security benefits as all other married couples. Also tough: seeing your wife deported because the federal government doesn’t recognize your marriage.
But, hey, Elizabeth Santorum isn’t a bigot—she can’t be! She has gay friends! And her gay friends support her dad!
Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his having equated consensual gay sex to child rape and dog fucking? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his opposition to gay marriage and any other legal framework—civil unions, domestic partnerships—that might provide legal protections for same-sex couples? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his promises to write anti-gay bigotry into the US Constitution, forcibly divorce all legally married same-sex couples in the United States, reinstate DADT, and ban adoptions by same-sex couples?
Who are these faggots?
To Ms. Foley and all the other political reporters out there: When someone like Elizabeth Santorum tells you that she has gay friends and her gay friends support her dad based on his “family platforms”—gay people shouldn’t be allowed to have families—your subject is making an astonishing claim. Your immediate response should be a demand for the names and phone numbers of these gay friends. Offer to quote these gay friends anonymously, to protect their privacy/stupidity, but tell the homophobe that you will need to verify the existence of her gay friends because you’re a journalist, not a stenographer. You’ll either catch the homophobe in a very revealing lie—what does it tell us about this moment in the struggle for LBGT equality that even bigots like Rick and Elizabeth Santorum perceive a political risk in being perceived as homophobic?—or land a fascinating interview with a crazy-ass faggot.
I’ve been a loyal reader for half my life. Today, a friend and I got into a debate about you. My friend says your campaign to redefine “santorum” flies in the face of your anti-bullying “It Gets Better” campaign. Would you please address this issue?
Google Problems
First, GP, the campaign is over: Santorum has been redefined.
Second, taking the piss out of a middle-aged bigot who has repeatedly and viciously attacked a tiny minority for personal and political gain—a man surrounded by people who support him personally, politically, and financially—is not the moral equivalent of beating the shit out of a vulnerable and isolated 13-year-old queer kid in rural Texas who is a member of the tiny minority that this powerful bigot has repeatedly and viciously attacked.
Third, circling back to Elizabeth Santorum’s blowjob on HuffPo: “[Elizabeth] is aware of her father’s so-called ‘Google problem,’ part of a campaign by columnist Dan Savage… ‘That just makes me sad. It’s disappointing that people can be that mean,’ she said.”
I’m sorry for giving you a sad, Elizabeth. You know what gave me a sad? Reading about Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond. The women, together 18 years, were vacationing in Florida in 2007 with three of their four children when Pond suffered an aneurysm. Langbehn and the children were barred from Pond’s room when they arrived at the hospital. A social worker informed Langbehn—who was distraught—that she wouldn’t be able to see her wife because they were in an “anti-gay city and state.”
Lisa Pond was not a “policy thing,” Elizabeth. She was a human being. And her wife and children were prevented from saying good-bye to her because people who agree with you and your father—people who doubtless felt empowered to act on their bigotry thanks to high-profile bigots like you and your father—persecuted them as Pond lay dying.
By being so mean as to oppose legal protections for gay and lesbian families, Elizabeth, you and your father are trying to make sure that other families headed by same-sex couples will suffer as Langbehn, Pond, and their children were made to suffer.
It is disappointing how mean some people can be, Elizabeth, it really is.
Time to follow through on your threat to redefine “rick,” Dan.
Matt Via Twitter
Already done: To “rick” is to remove something with your tongue—the “r” from “remove,” the “ick” from “lick”—which makes “rick santorum” the most disgusting two-word sentence in the English language after “vote Republican.”
Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday at thestranger.com/savage.
@fakedansavage on Twitter
What an accomplishment! Decades from now, when Santorum’s kids have kids, possibly gay kids, you can be proud of the torment they will endure at the hands of school bullies. This is a high point for the LGBT community. It’s your “I Have A Dream” speech! It shows all of America what you’re made of…a frothy mix of shit.
@254, analogies do get far-fetched — but let us not forget that there is a point behind them.
The point of an analogy is, of course, that things can be compared qua genus, even though of course there are relevant differentia between them. Inasmuch as the argument depends on the genus, the analogy is successful; if, however, it depends on the differentia, then it may fail.
In America, one often seeks to disqualify analogies by complaining that the comparanda are of ‘such different nature’ that even comparing them is offensive or useless (colateral emotions linked to one of the comparanda may be (illogically) extended to the other; in the case of a ‘weasel analogy,’ that, rather than actually discuss the genus-related sameness, may have been the intention). Like everything else, however, this same tactics can be overused: because of the possibility of emotional extension, one forgets or ignores the sameness, and acts as if there was none — call that a ‘weasel analogy refusal,’ yet another rhetorical device found in American political debates.
Since Nazism and homophobia are phenomena with such different historical consequences, it is easy to dismiss an analogy between them simply because of their differentia — which, in terms of concentration camps and civilian casualties, are distanced by several orders of magnitude and intensity.
But the genus similarity should not be thrown out with the bathwater. The main point is that there is a difference between the kind of damage done by the system of stereotypes and prejudice that Mr Santorum defends, and the kind of damage done by the santorum redefinition on Santorum’s family, or any people of the same family — just as there was a difference between the kind of damage caused by the Résistence and the kind of damage caused by the Occupation.
Any attack on Mr Santorum will hurt him. Even if it does not spill on anyone else in his family, it will also hurt his family, by virtue of hurting him. If opinions such as Mr Santorum’s are ever banished from the mainstream, they may very well become reasons for bullying at school — maybe someday Santorum’s children will be bullied because of who Santorum is, redefinition or no redifinition.
The only way to prevent suffering for Santorum and for his family would be never to attack him. The only way to prevent any possible potential future bullying of his children is never to say anything negative about their father. This, however, would make fighting against the man and his opinions impossible — it is therefore not a reasonable option.
Fighting hurts. Fighting back also hurts. Both imply the possibility — and reality — of collateral damage. Unless politico-cultural adversaries in America agree not to fight anymore, I don’t think this can ever be fully avoided.
@256, did this happen to Jim Crow? Or to Charles Boycott? Or to Charles Lynch?
Hey,
I swear I remember Dan saying that he had R. Santorum used to be college roommates. Is this true? Can anyone point me to where he’s said this?
@257: I don’t forget the point behind the analogy, and I am not one of those saying that Dan has eclipsed the bounds of decency by creating spreading santorum. I agree that collateral damage in this case is tolerable.
We’re on the same side.
@259: I think this was a joke.
@260, OK.
I think what those who criticize Dan are missing (@256, etc.) is that comparing Rick Santorum’s support for anti-gay bigotry and Dan Savage’s ‘poop joke’ about him is indeed comparing things that are several orders of magnitude apart.
And my honest impression is that the complaint comes because Dan’s move actually (and quite unexpectedly, to me at least) worked. I don’t know if his name will be forever associated with the (now eponymous) frothy mix, but there is some chance it will be associated with anti-gay bigotry — who knows, in the same way Jim Crow’s is with racism. Would the critics above oppose to that — to Santorum’s name being forever linked to his opinions? So that laws that restrict marriage to straight people could be called ‘Santorum laws’ in the way segregation laws were called ‘Jim Crow laws’? (Of course, ‘Jim Crow’ was not the proponent, but the target; but still…)? Would the critics be against that? Probably not — and yet this would be as good a source of bullying as the poop joke.
To everyone who has been discussing whether it’s fair for Dan to have reacted to an attack from Santorum by giving santorum a hitherto unknown definition, I’d like to offer the following for consideration.
Those of you who think it’s unfair for Dan to have done this and that he should have made a more polite rebuttal instead (to a vicious attack by a vile man) are labouring under the delusion that we are still living in the good old days – when there were public debates that were honest attempts to sway opinions. When logic might truly prevail over unruly emotions.
Unfortunately, even in those days, polite didn’t work. Polite only extended the racism or homophobia. Think of Rosa Parks or the Stonewall riots. They fought back and ended up changing history. It wasn’t necessarily pretty and it didn’t happen overnight. And it wasn’t “polite”.
Today, we may offer homophobes study after study after study demonstrating how children raised in same-sex homes are no different from those raised in opposite-sex homes. No, wait. Actually, many are better off. Yet the eyes of homophobes glaze over, their ears are filled with a loud humming noise and they sing la-la-la to themselves. Anything to NOT acknowledge what’s in front of them. Even worse, they’ll be presented with pretty strong evidence that equal marriage does NOT destroy society, that same-sex parents do a damned fine job AND then try to pass the most offensive, restrictive and anti-human laws banning recognition of anything other than traditional marriage. I’m looking at you, Iowa, in particular. Remember Zach Wahls, the impressive 19 year old who spoke before the Iowa House about his two moms. They may have heard him, but didn’t bother to listen.
In any case, please consider the real difference of what Santorum is doing: whether overtly or not, he encourages hatred of LGBT people, a hatred that not only fuels discrimination but can easily turn into physical attacks, some of which result in death (through murder or suicide). OTOH, all Dan has done with “santorum” is to ridicule “Santorum”. Nolo contendere. [No contest.]
Just now on MSNBC Hardball, Michael Steele made the following statement:
“People are underestimating the juice that Santorum has going into this race.”
Steele kept on going with no irony.
Just thought you’d like to know.
To Helenaka – you need to read some history! (to compare Dan to Rosa Parks is comparing Newt Gingrich to MLK)
It was peaceful resistance that changed the minds of the great middle earth. What Dan has done is show the vulgar underbelly of gay advocracy.
@260 You’re right. Long after Santorum has left the scene — #SavageWords will be associated with the LGBT community. And hey! It’s only words right? Like …..
The story about Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond gives me a sad too. Thank you, Dan for explaining loudly, clearly, and repeatedly what the consequences are of some people’s “policy things.”
Also note that it’s not considered bullying when someone speaks of a savage attack or of a lot of annoying noise sounding like it’s coming from savages. If we’re worrying about Santorum’s children getting taunted on the playground because their name means santorum, shouldn’t we be doing the same for all the kids named Savage?
@ankylosaur,
I don’t think there was a real “Jim Crow”; that was just a character made up for blackface minstrel shows:
>>> Three stock characters were among several that reappeared in minstrel shows throughout the nineteenth century. “Jim Crow” was the stereotypical carefree slave, “Mr. Tambo” a joyous musician, and “Zip Coon” a free black attempting to “put on airs” or rise above his station.>>>
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/jackson/mins…
@256 stillonline,
If you are so concerned about the damage that name calling creates, then surely you should extend your condemnation to Sen. Santorum as well as Mr. Savage. Don’t forget the reason that Santorum’s name was converted into a naughty joke was because of Santorum’s attacks upon the LGBT community. Make no mistake, this was a political counterattack by one of the LGBT community’s defenders (It get’s better) upon one of the LGBT community’s most imminent oppressors, and a highly effective one at that. In the historical perspective, this was a relatively mild rebuke that doesn’t do anything worse than remind people of Santorum’s relentless intolerance. Bullies like Santorum are used to having their way, picking on perceived easy targets. This time the LGBT community, and their supporters, fought back.
Peace.
If anal sex is an objective good, pursued by good men with good intentions, shouldn’t the byproducts of anal sex be good?
Why is anyone here disgusted by the definition offered by Mr. Savage? Why does Mr. Savage find his own definitions the MOST disgusting phrase in use?
I think that by admitting that the definition is disgusting, you are ceding ground to those who think like Mr. Santorum. The only difference between your positions is the physical point at which you draw the line of disgust.
Afterall, the mixture of semen and feces is the best possible physical byproduct of anal sex. On the other hand, the best possible physical byproduct of marital sex is a human being. I can certainly understand why he doesn’t want the two conflated.
Well, stillonline, you clearly missed the point of my post. That’s OK, I didn’t think you’d get it anyway.
Go on, believe what you will, live peacefully and try not to get too angry over things. Dan is doing his part in changing the minds of the great middle earth, even if you don’t think so. Live long and prosper.
@272, by your logic, the best by-product of marital sex is not a human being, but a mixture of semen and pee. Which again, by your logic, wouldn’t be disgusting, right?
Oh wait — you’re being ironical. OK, I get it. Now go, and sin no more.
@234 re @223 anklosaur: Here’s a little update: I’m jotting ideas for a bel canto opera buffa satirizing manipulation, greed, and spitefulness among siblings, using fictionally used names and locations. I’m thinking of Mozart / Rossini era costumes and that the scenes and script could depict any time period. And of course, we can’t forget The Wicked Queen.
This and my second symphony ought to keep me out of trouble for a while.
@272: I’m disgusted that Rick Santorum is considered a human being!
@272,
It is only disgusting because it is messy.
Dear Dan,
You are a legend. Spreading Santorum is both the funniest and most impressive thing I have ever seen online.
Jack
@274,
I don’t follow. All semen probably carries at least trace amounts of urine and certainly some is mixed with trace amounts of urine, but unless you are attempting to penetrate a urethra, I don’t know why that mixture would be considered the best possible byproduct of marital sex, as opposed to the creation of a human being.
@276
I don’t find your statement compelling. All sex is “messy” as bodily fluids are necessarily involved. I think that few would argue that all sex is a matter of disgust.
I also don’t understand how some here can be “against” polygamy but “for” homosexuality.
The polygamist feels attracted to more than one person and wants to legitimize their attraction with the weight of law. They want the same legal rights afforded other marriages.
Without an appeal to authority or tradition, there is no means possible to deny them their desires. It is hateful to try and should have its own term: polyphobia.
@272
A) Santorum is not the best possible byproduct of anal sex. It’s avoidable and often avoided. It’s really the worst possible byproduct. It’s what happens when you don’t prepare correctly.
B) “If anal sex is an objective good, pursued by good men with good intentions, shouldn’t the byproducts of anal sex be good?”
We are essentially talking about thinking poo is gross. It is not gross because it’s frothy. It’s gross because it’s poo.
Poo is not the byproduct of anal sex. Poo is the byproduct of eating. The byproduct of anal sex (SOMETIMES) is that the poo has a certain texture.
Do we have to pretend poo isn’t gross lest everybody think eating is sinful?
@280
Please list for us the other physical by products of anal sex so that we may determine whether it is best among them as I assert, or worst, as you do.
By saying “prepare correctly”, aren’t you standing in judgement of a particular form of anal sex — that which makes no such preparations?
Like it or no, we are NOT essentially talking about whether poo is gross. If that were the case, Mr. Savage might have simply come up with a new definition of feces to fit his calumnious impulse. He didn’t. He specifically makes us consider the mixture of substances and mentions the human body as the place where it occurs.
This is an appeal to disgust and is recognized by many here in the same vein. If the neologism offered by Mr. Savage appeals to disgust, we must ask what that disgust is predicated on.
Even if 280 is correct, it begs the question: Why is poo disgusting? It is natural and normal and universal. We must not appeal to authority or to tradition in the aversion to poo. Without any reason to think poo disgusting, we must coin a term for those who do. I suggest: Poophobia.
@3, there is a difference between prejudice, and just plain judgment. Rick Santorum is prejudiced. He judges gays before knowing anything about them. We have judged Santorum based only on things he has said himself. We are now being mean to him. But not because of what he is, but because of WHO he is, who he has shown, proven, and proudly declared himself to be. Not a straight, not a Christian, but an anti-gay politician bent on devaluing gay people and stripping them of all their legal rights.
@272, the best possible byproduct of anal sex is intimacy, closeness, a physical reinforcement of love. Lovemaking, no matter who does it or how, has a purpose. Or are you claiming that a stain on a sheet is the best possible byproduct of straight sex past menopause?
@280
“It’s really the worst possible byproduct.”
I think anyone with HIV would beg to differ. (Or are we talking about byproducts unique to anal sex)
Otherwise you’re right on the money.
I propose that gay people who support Rick Santorum in particular, or the GOP in general, be referred to with the following term:
“santorkommando”
http://tinyurl.com/333dov
283– tsk, tsk. If you’re going into the realm of intimacy, closeness, and a physical reinforcement of love, you might as well mention orgasm as a byproduct. But 272 was ahead of you. It specified PHYSICAL byproduct. i.e. babies are the byproduct of the sex act, and a woman’s contribution in gestastion, gestation which, by the way, requires food, digestion, metabolism, and shit, is irrelevant. Don’t try to argue with these people (unless it’s fun for you). You might as well note that santorum makes good fertilizer so the byproduct could well be roses.
@281 First off, feces is a health hazard. That’s why it’s generally better to be disgusted by poo than attracted to it, assuming of course that maintaining your life and good health is a goal you have. I mean, really, who am I to say that being sick or dead is bad? That would be me standing in judgment of those who are no longer living, one of whom is my mother. I like being healthy so I’m rather glad that I think poo is gross. If I wanted poo for breakfast every day, well, I’d need better health insurance.
Nor did I claim we were talking about whether poo is gross. The reason those of us who find it gross do is because it is poo, not because it is anal sex related.
But, I do think there is a reason Savage chose something that is widely considered ‘gay’ and is also disgusting. I think it’s clear on its face why, actually. Like it or not, you are missing something really obvious.
@275 (auntie grizelda): for some reason I like the idea of having not only 18th-century costumes, but actually having the story happen in the 18th century, too. The relationship between Mozart and Salieri always struck me as an interesting model for my family relations — with a later role reversal, à la Ugly Duckling. (In the beginning I felt I was playing Salieri to my brother’s Mozart, since he was so much more socially successful; later the roles were reversed.)
I hope you can keep yourself out of trouble sufficiently long to also be happy. (Not that it’s a very successful endeavor. I’ve tried to stay out of trouble all my life, and somehow trouble always managed to find me. :-).
@288: You know me, anklosaur—I’m just a happily wild, crazy woman–with a twinge of Wile E. Coyote thrown in for good measure. I avoid Road Runners to keep out of trouble.
I like your idea of keeping with 18th century costumes and set designs, and the Mozart / Salieri metaphor. What are your thoughts on The Wicked Queen as appearing somewhat like Marie Antoinette (i.e.: ‘Let them eat cake’)?
Meanwhile, my older sister (“Marie”) is still living in denial after 35 years of having life handed to her on a silver platter. This ought to be some delicious fun!
Re Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond: there seems to be no limit to the disassociation from humanism and reason incurred by that thing known as “the Law”. Gov’t is a BAD top who ignores all safe words.
I’m a middle aged vanilla woman. In my youth, I used to vacay in Mykonos, and most of the guys I met had an “International Gay Guide” or something to that effect. Does that still exist? I mean, why spend your tourist dollars on non LGBT friendly places?
VOTE WITH YOUR MONEY, IT’S THE ONLY THING THEY UNDERSTAND.
Hi, Dan. Me again, after a long time. You know I am an ardent supporter of yours (even though you put the kibosh on my “Dan Savage for Pope” campaign), so why the kick in the teeth? I’m pro-choice, pro-GLBT rights, pro-teaching-Dan-Savage’s-doctrines-in-all-public-and-private-schools, etc., etc.,
I also happen to be a registered Republican, ardent in some ways. I have been campaigning AGAINST Santorum (the person). I am not sure what to do about the rest of the candidates, but I am doing what I can against Ricky boy.
So don’t lump all Republicans into one evil group. That’s be like lumping, oh, I don’t know, all Gays into one group because of the actions of one person (or several) who happens to be gay.
I’m working it here, trying my best. Don’t persecute me because I happen to be mostly Republican.
Besides, where better to change an institution than from inside?
Marcus
@291: Your post is one of several reasons why I try not to generalize.
But equally, don’t persecute me because I happen to be mostly left-center.
Thank you for squeezing out Santorum. If you could oust Romney, Gingrich, Perry, ad nauseum, too, that would be great.
283
Those are byproducts of monogamy.
And the opposite of those things are the byproducts of cheating.
With permission or without…..
Hey Danny!
They were talking about you on CNN tonite!
by name!
(we know how much you get a hardon about being on CNN….)
Pierce Morgan had on Rick; and the wife and kids
(damn lovely family, we must say.
you know Danny,
you could have married a nice catholic girl and had a houseful of kids as well…..)
So the daughter was saying how she prays for your depraved pathetic soul.
She seemed like such a nice kid, you almost wonder if god would answer her prayers.
PS….oh, hey, Slog fanboys- were your ears burning too?
(and still the yellow discharge? eeeeew….no, just kidding!)
Cause Morgan said people who mock the Santorums for how they grieved the loss of their child are first rate assholes.
are you going to let him call you first rate assholes?
Farting Monkeys! to your email!!
According to Dan Olweus, who is an eminent researcher on bullying, there needs to be a power imbalance between the victim and the bully. Dan Savage doesn’t have a higher social status than Rick Santorus therefore he cannot be accused of bullying him.
Looks like Dan Savage has intricate knowledge of what comes out his behind when he uses an orifice for a purpose that nature did not intend.He just decided to name it with a good man’s name simply to destroy his future.
If Santorum gets rid of the sweater vest, will his followers start wearing Brown Shirts? The Mayan 2012 prediction of disaster: Gingrich/Santorum (Gingrich would never be behind anyone). Romney? Look at what “his people” did with Prop. 8. F*** ’em all. I vote Libertarian!
Just to drop a note, Santorum’s fundraising site is titled:
Conservatives
Unite
Moneybomb
So now not only is he frothy, he’s also having donate people to CUM. I’m giggling.
*having people donate to
Bless you.
Amen my brotha and thank you. Very well said.
@298: Thanks for sharing! I’m giggling, too.
What do we think about the open-minded liberal who bashes something they don’t like? Hypocrisy?// The same exact thought process that labels Rick Santorum a bigot. He believes in something AS strongly as you believe in the opposite- that does not make him a bigot, it makes a different world view that in liberal media you don’t accept… But to be that open-minded liberal YOU MUST accept his point of view even though you don’t like it.
I think a lot of you have a lot of pain towards religion. And while you don’t want to repressed or told your lifestyle is wrong, you blame that on the WHOLE of Christian religion. Do you have a problem with religion or being told you might be wrong? Sounds like a 2 year-old tantrum because you clearly don’t understand another persons point of view and all you can do is respond with hatred.
What do we think about the open-minded liberal who bashes something they don’t like? Hypocrisy?// The same exact thought process that labels Rick Santorum a bigot. He believes in something AS strongly as you believe in the opposite- that does not make him a bigot, it makes a different world view that in liberal media you don’t accept… But to be that open-minded liberal YOU MUST accept his point of view even though you don’t like it.
I think a lot of you have a lot of pain towards religion. And while you don’t want to repressed or told your lifestyle is wrong, you blame that on the WHOLE of Christian religion. Do you have a problem with religion or being told you might be wrong? Sounds like a 2 year-old tantrum because you clearly don’t understand another persons point of view and all you can do is respond with hatred.
How do you know those headlines were unintentional? Reporters know all about Santorum’s “Google Problem.” Putting puns and references into headlines is a very old custom in journalism. As long as it sounds innocent to people who aren’t in on the joke, they’re in the clear, even if they write for a family newspaper.
Savage’s Google posting is a turn off to sympathy for the homosexual community. While it my be attention getting, it leaves such a bad taste as to motivate otherwise neutral people to speak out against his hate message. Stressing division in the country is not the way to bring it together.