« That's not ketchup | Main | Rap lyrics of the month »

April 23, 2003

Santorum equates homosexuality with beastiality

I don't know about you, but speaking as TOPDOG04, I am personally offended by Santorum's references to "man on dog" sex acts. It could take me a week to burn the image of Santorum lustfully chasing a helpless pooch through the Pennsylvania countryside completely from my mind. I think Senator Edwards put it best when he characterized all of Santorum's remarks as "disturbing and inappropriate." Santorum even questions the rights of women to use contraceptives! Welcome to the 21st century Mister Santorum. Maybe you would be more comfortable living in Tehran? Here is the quote I'm referring to reprinted by The Baltimore Sun:


AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws, and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue, yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold - Griswold was the contraceptive case - and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you - this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: That society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. 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. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality -

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

Posted by Mike at April 23, 2003 07:16 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.topdog08.com/cgi-bin/mt-trackback.cgi/38

Comments

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?