Yep, another idiot republican goes and opens his big trap:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-22-santorum-gays_x.htm

I don't know what's worse, being a homophobe or being so stupid to make comments like this in public. If you're for or against gay rights, and you're in the public eye, wouldn't the smart thing to do is to just keep your mouth shut about it? I give this guy a couple weeks before he steps down.

I give NY Madam four minutes before he jumps all over this post . . . bonus points: he'll throw in an anti-homosexual remark, plus call someone a "liberal" or "deviant" . . .

Most likely me.

I agree with with the comments. I don't think a man should have to fear anything for voicing his opinion, regardless of whether they are PC or not. Everyone defended the rights of those left-wing celebs about the war and their 1st admendment rights. Why can't the man express his. He isn't discriminating gays. He isn't predujiced against gays. He just doesn't like butt pirating. Nothing wrong with that. I want to know what my leaders are really thinking.

Not discriminating against gays? Perhaps you didn't read the whole article:

"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."

He equating homosexuality with crimes; incest and polygamy, two VERY different acts.

How can he say that he has: "no problem with homosexuality — I have a problem with homosexual acts."

Let me get this straight....

Liberals, atheists and deviants of all kinds can make all sorts of remarks insulting the majority of the population. Condemning anyone who believes in God. Claiming separation of church and state whenever the word God is mentioned. Crying the state is forcing morality on them...

But the majority of the population is supposed to keep quiet when
laws protecting deviants and immorality is forced upon them through gay agenda legislation, etc.

You and your kind are a bunch of hypocrites. Is there a deviant that you don't support Sean?

Santorum is a good guy. The gays as usual twisted this around. He will not apoligize. Why should he? He stands for family values. People like you and the deviants you support do not.

Even the NY Times isn't making too much of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/23/national/23TALK.html

Sean.. you deviant. The AP misquoted him. The article above has his full quotes. Nice try asshole.

There are PLENTY of actual "deviants" I would LOVE to see put to sleep, like child molesters
murders, and rapists. But if two people of the same sex love each other, and don't hurt anybody, they're not deviant in my book, but Priests who rape little boys ARE, asshole.

Fuck.

22 minutes.

Got everything else, though . . .

Oh, but there aren't that many, Sean . . . a very low number . . .

Only something like 70 in Boston . . . very low number . . .

Gay people are Gay.

Tell me about it. Seems like every week some priest in New England is being brought up on charges.

They both have the same thing in common. They are GAY!.

Anyone with half a brain should realize The Catholic Church is a perfect example of what happens when you fill the ranks with a bunch of gays.

And who's fault is that? In that situation, being gay is not the main problem. Being told that you'll burn in hell if you're gay, and trying to supress that innate urge for years is the problem. Just goes to show how ignorant you are on the subject, being gay doen't mean you'll rape little boys anymore than it means if you're straight, you'll rape little girls.

My bad . . .

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories4/013003_suits.htm

16 priests named for first time in sexual abuse lawsuits

At least three still active; total of accused at 130

By Michael Rezendes and Matt Carroll, Globe Staff, 1/30/2003

The number of priests in the Boston Archdiocese accused of sexually molesting children
grew to 130 yesterday, with the filing of a rash of new lawsuits that name 16 priests as
molesters for the first time.

The new lawsuits, filed on behalf of 70 new alleged victims, include charges of rape, attempted
rape, and fondling of minors against 40 priests and a former church worker who is believed to be
a deacon. At least three of the 40 priests are in active ministry.

Also named as defendants in some of the suits are two former auxiliary bishops in Boston,
Archbishop Daniel A. Cronin of the Hartford archdiocese and Bishop Daniel A. Hart of the
Norwich, Conn., diocese.

They bring to eight the number of bishops, including Cardinal Bernard F. Law, who have been
accused of negligence while they supervised the abusive priests.

Law resigned Dec. 13, but the seven other bishops all head their own dioceses.

Of the 16 newly accused priests, at least three are diocesan priests in active ministry, according to
church records, and one is retired. At least 10 of the other 12 are believed to be dead, according
to attorney Mitchell Garabedian, who filed the lawsuits.

---------------------------

Now, to be fair, let's say 50% of these are false accusations. Is 50% a reasonable number?

That leaves 65 accused priests . . . in just the Boston Archdiocese . . .

That's an ugly number, man, an ugly number . . .

[/QUOTE]And who's fault is that? In that situation, being gay is not the main problem. Being told that you'll burn in hell if you're gay, and trying to supress that innate urge for years is the problem.[/QUOTE]

OK!! So tell us! Where did the bad man touch you???

It's the fault of liberal idiots like you who think gays are normal. Yes being gay is the problem. They ruined the Catholic Church.

Perverts like you want them to go camping with little boys as scout masters.

You will just never get it. I'd be willing to bet money you are a gay yourself. There is no way a normal guy would defend this deviance with such veracity.

Did you save the tear stained pillow.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I've never been hit on by a homosexual. But if a homosexual ever touched my son, I'd have no problem ending his life.

Why wouldn't the guy have the right to voice his opinion? Is he being discriminatory by saying that? No. Has he been caught discriminating against gays? No.

I don't see the problem.

Do we actually have to approve of everything and be PC or can we formulate our own opinions based on personal religious or moral views? I don't have to like everything about everyone. I just have to treat you fairly and with indifference as to your personal choices. Right?

I love it when the RepubliKKKan party shows it's true colors. No matter how hard they try, they just can't seem to escape "what they really are". Gosh, after Lott; they looked so moderate. Ha, ha, ha!

They would be classified as a pedophile, not a homosexual. (Just being P.C.)

Making shit up again to skirt the issue here, huh? Why is it that anyone who believes in equal rights for everyone is gay to you? What are you so afraid of any way Mr. Homophobe?

"can we formulate our own opinions based on personal religious or moral views?"
You and I can. Yes.

The gentleman in question is a legislator. That means he does have to consider his constituents' and party's feelings before spouting off.

If the party and his district don't have a problem with it, then fine. If they do, then tough shit, a politician so stupid as to touch that subject at all deserves to go home . . .

Let me get this straight...

Conservatives: abortion should be illegal. Nobody gets to make their own decision.

Liberals: abortion should be a choice. Not required. Each decides for themselves.

Conservatives: Ten commandments are ok in a courthouse, because we are a christian nation.

Liberals: Ten commandments are NOT ok, but we are NOT a christian nation, but a hodgepodge of MANY beliefs, and nobody in the government should be putting one above the other.

Conservatives: Gay people shouldn't have rights above anyone else. But religion sure can.

Liberals: Gay people should have EQUAL protections against discrimination (not above), just a religion does.

Conservatives: No problem telling people that we should all be living by christian standards.

Liberals: Nobody *has* to live by christian standards.

Conservatives: Our morals are the right morals.

Liberals: Each person has their own morals, and NOBODY has the right to decide how others should live.

The difference? What liberals want does NOT affect individuals in their private lives. What conservatives want CAN affect individuals.

I don't know any liberals personally who *condemn* religion. Just that you can't put it into laws or regulations with the government.

Did you squeal like a pig when the red neck with the "perty mouth" bent you over? How old are you anyway, 12?