I don't recall claiming to speak for the gay community. And I think you'll find neither does Dan Savage. Now who's fault is it that your hypothetical (but probably all too real) rural Tennessee dweller assumes that Dan Savage's actions represent the ENTIRE gay community?

My point isn't that the entire gay community should be vulgar all the time, but you know what? Some people in it are vulgar. Should they be silenced in order to make the discourse palpable to the most backward of their opponents? Or should they be taken part and parcel along with everything else?

Nobody should be silenced, @Mafia. But it would probably be helpful if they were aware that they are damaging the cause they subscribe to, and are also lowering the level of dialog.

Incidentally, I finally looked up Santorum's remarks. Unless there are other remarks than the 2003 interview, I certainly disagree that he is claiming that every gay is a child molester. (I can't remember who suggested that; maybe I mis-inferred it).

@Santa - but while it may have put it under a microscope, it made realtions *worse* for a long time and we are just now starting to recover from *both* the Rodney King and Reginald Denny cases. I live in one of the most racist and backwards cities (well the suburbs of this city) in the US by some studies. We have our own serious set of race problems and every time something goes wrong, racial tensions get worse and the city waits to explode in violence. This is not a good thing. People get hurt and killed for what? To make a point? Some of those people, like Reginald Denny, are completely innocent victims. Harming innocent people is *never* a good thing. If a movement feels the need to get violent, they better make certain their violence is directed at *real* targets. Let's look to 9/11 for a moment. I can't speak for anyone else but me, but I got tired of hearing 9/11 comapred to Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was violence directed at the appropriate target. I may not like that the Japanese attacked us (I wasn't there, admitedly, as it was 25 years before I was born) but at least they attacked the source of their anger. And while there are still those upset with the Japanese government even today, the backlash and recovery from WWII has been much quicker with regards to Japan than it will ever be with the terrorist organizations who financed and/or attacked civilian targets using civilian airliners full of civilian passengers and crews.

If you attack the innocent, you effectively become a terrorist and do more harm than good for your cause.

@ Santa Clausowitz - He's not a serious candidate despite saying things like that. He's a serious candidate BECAUSE he says things like that. There's a very real and very vehement part of America that is clamoring to hear things like that from candidates.

@Santa - Mafia is right, unfortunately. There are still those hate mongerers and bigots who would love to see someone like Santorum get the nod. And, also unfortunatley, their numbers seem to be growing. Just as the militant "left" (for lack of a better term) continues to grow, so does the bigoted "right".

probably right, good points

@semck:

"He didn't impact Santorum's popularity.... Certainly calling it a masterstroke suggests you badly need a conservative friend."

I cannot believe that that form of google bombing did not negatively impact the Senators chances of being elected for president. Maybe it wasn't a "good" or "fair" tactic, but then again, neither is equating homosexuality as a move towards bestiality. Were Savage a politician, I would not like his action. Since he isn't, I think he's making a loud and very fair statement. "You can't fuck with us anymore without considering the consequences."

I have conservative friends. Smart ones. They keep me sharp :P


"At least we agree that he wouldn't in fact, and wouldn't even speak support for such (illegalizing premarital sex)"

Agreed, which is why I stated that my "deeper" point is irrelevant in reality. Still,if you're going to attack contraception, it's not so huge a step to get here next.

"I cannot believe that that form of google bombing did not negatively impact the Senators chances of being elected for president."

Really? I'd be quite surprised. I just don't see whose opinion it would change.

It's more subtle than that. If people see him as a joke or disgusting or even unworthy of respect that is all going to impact his campaign. For a citizen of Savage's relatively small political clout, I think he's done more than enough to make a difference - cheap shot though it is, it is richly deserved.

I hate to bounce this thread, but I have to say something as a moderate conservative with libertarian sympathies.

Santorum scares the hell out of me. He has zero chance in the general election. Just look at the polls. He's projected to lose to Obama by more than 10 percent.

But it's more than just election strategy. Who cares about what goes on between two men in a private bedroom when gas is pushing $5 a gallon and unemployment is at 10%.

Gunfighter it should be obvious that high gas prices are God's punishment for our refusal to persecute sinful homosexuals.

Well now that this thread has already been bumped I don't feel bad bumping it again with this video.

http://www.theonion.com/video/heartbroken-santorum-condemns-gay-marriage-for-two,27497/

@ Yellowjacket

Lol. I blame the oil speculators.