Rick Santorum Defends Interview Linking Homosexuality To 'Man On Dog' Sex In Interview (VIDEO)

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Rick Santorum Defends Interview Linking Homosexuality To 'Man On Dog' Sex In Interview (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/rick-santorum-homosexuality-man-on-dog_n_1187103.html

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum defended his infamous 2003 comments on homosexuality and "man on dog" sex Wednesday night in an interview with CNN's John King.

King asked Santorum how he "connected the dots" between those two things. Santorum responded, "Hold on a second, John. Read the quote. I said it's not. It is not. I didn't say it is. I said it's not. You know, I don't -- I'm trying to understand what you're trying to make the point. I said it's not those things. I didn't connect them. I specifically excluded them."

An Associated Press reporter pressed Santorum in 2003 on whether he thought if someone is homosexual that would he argue that they should not have sex. Santorum responded:

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...

[justiceischeap]

1. I'd just like to point out--he's wrong about homosexuality, society and marriage

Before Christianity overtook the Roman empires, there was indeed same-sex marriages. Nero was reported to have married a man.

At least two of the Roman Emperors were in gay unions. The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. Nero "married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse" A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law."[21] The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[22] The emperor Elagabalus married an athlete named Hierocles in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.[23]

Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:

When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Right-wing extremists ignore history yet again.

[Moonwalk]

2. Even if they paid attention to history, Nero would hardly convince them...

...being that Nero is associated with fiddling while Rome burned, having sex with and killing his mom, throwing Christians to lions and being sexually abnormal and decadent. He's hardly an argument for homosexual marriage even if he does put a lie to the "homosexuals have never been allowed to marry" meme.

Ultimately, it's better to forget about trying to convince these people that "homosexuals have never married" is a lie, and poke holes in the rational of the argument, like does he mean that two elderly people who can no longer have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry? If marriage is only for having kids, then why outlaw homosexuals but not those who can't or won't have kids? And if we're only going to have marriage according to what was done by people in the past, does that mean we can go back to polygamy, to marrying off little kids to adults, to marrying brothers and sisters, etc.

We don't make laws according to what was, we make them according to what is and what we wisely know to be true, not what our ignorant and bigoted ancestors thought to be true--or wanted to be true.

[justiceischeap]

3. I'd stay away from the whole polygamy, small children argument

They consider that the slippery slope argument they love so well. If we allow gay marriage, then we'll have to allow polygamy, marrying off little kids to adults, brothers and sisters, animals (they always have to throw in the animals).

Plus, I only used Nero because it was a recognizable name. There was another Emperor in that paragraph I posted.

[riderinthestorm]

6. I agree with that. We need to keep the focus narrow on basic equal rights for everyone

Start with equality in marriage for two people to get married which is more normative in our culture and history.

If we ever get equality in marriage, after that if anyone so desires they can try to legalize polygamy but otherwise we ARE going down a slippery slope and its unproductive.

[riderinthestorm]

4. Here in our own country there has been a rich history of same sex marriages

"Two Spirit" marriages were celebrated in Native American society and culture. Santorum's myopic view of history leaves off our own native people.

[justiceischeap]

5. Thanks.

I mostly wanted to point out that Christianity put an end to same-sex unions.

[MisterP]

7. and then we throw John Boswell into the mix!