Which gets us to the question of bigotry. I hate this term; and very rarely use it. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If you care to, read Santorum’s full remarks again. When you do, you begin to understand why he was the protege of Trent Lott. His first comments about homosexuals relate to the recent crisis in the Catholic Church:
In this case, what we’re talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it’s consensual between people.
“Post-pubescent men.” What a bizarre term. They were minors! Doesn’t that make a difference? In fact, isn’t their being under-age the entire criminal issue here? Not to Santorum. In his view, the abuse of minors is a “basic homosexual relationship.” In this quote, Santorum conflates the abuse of minors with adult homosexual relationships. He calls every homosexual in a relationship the equivalent of a child-molester. That is a despicable charge and Santorum must withdraw it. For good measure, Santorum then equates any same-sex relationships – faithful or unfaithful – with adultery. Subsequently, his attention wanders onto marriage where he opines:
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.
Here, homosexual relationships are associated with bestiality and – again – child abuse. (In the sentence beginning, “It’s not, you know, man on child, …” the “It’s” clearly refers to marriage, not homosexuality. The referent is picked up again with: “It [i.e. marriage] is one thing.”)
YOU DECIDE: Santorum, of course, doesn’t believe he’s prejudiced against gay people. I wonder if he knows any, or any work for him, or have ever worked for him. He claims his remarks are only pertinent to the Texas case before the Supreme Court. That’s a lie, as anyone reading the transcript can attest. He further says he has nothing against homosexuals, except that if they ever want to express their homosexuality in an actual intimate and physical love, it’s the equivalent of molesting a child or having sex with a dog, and they should be put in jail for it. That’s what the Christian far-right means by “compassion.” In the abstract, I suppose you could argue that if you have no problems with celibate homosexuals, then you’re not a homophobe. Some saintly people might fall into that category, and I wouldn’t like to say it isn’t possible. But in practice, I’m really not so sure. It’s hard to find the right analogy, but it’s not that far from saying that you have nothing against Jews, as long as they go to Church each Sunday. (Which was, of course, the Catholic position for a very long time.) Worse actually. It’s like saying that, even if Jews practised their religion at home, in private, they could still be arrested for undermining the social order. Their very persistence in their identity – which harms and could harm no-one else – is a threat. Do you think someone who said that would remain a leading pillar of the Republican Party?
The Dish 