On the campaign trail former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candiate Rick Santorum told a crowd that the gay community has gone on a “jihad” against him because of his vocal opposition to gay marriage.
According to The Hill, Santorum made the remark Friday in Spartanburg, S.C.
“So the gay community said, ‘He’s comparing gay sex to incest and polygamy, how dare he do this,’ and they have gone out on a, I would argue, jihad against Rick Santorum since then,” Santorum said.
Santorum’s stance on gay marriage has been a source of controversy over the years. In a 2003 interview with the Associated Press, Santorum famously compared homosexuality to bigamy, incest and bestiality.
“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 … 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,” Santorum said.
“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality,” he continued. “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 —”
At this point in the interview, the reporter interrupted him, saying, “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.” (RELATED: Perry top choice for Republican nomination, CNN poll shows)
After the exchange, syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage held a contest at a reader’s suggestion, asking his readers “to nominate sex acts for the honor of being known as a ‘santorum.’” The newly resulting definition is fairly vulgar, so for the sake of the reader it has been omitted from this article. If interested, it is easily found on Google, where it remains the top search result when the term “Santorum” is entered.
Santorum’s campaign did not respond to requests for clarification on the statement.
According to The Hill, Santorum made the remark Friday in Spartanburg, S.C.
“So the gay community said, ‘He’s comparing gay sex to incest and polygamy, how dare he do this,’ and they have gone out on a, I would argue, jihad against Rick Santorum since then,” Santorum said.
Santorum’s stance on gay marriage has been a source of controversy over the years. In a 2003 interview with the Associated Press, Santorum famously compared homosexuality to bigamy, incest and bestiality.
“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 … 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,” Santorum said.
“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality,” he continued. “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 —”
At this point in the interview, the reporter interrupted him, saying, “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.” (RELATED: Perry top choice for Republican nomination, CNN poll shows)
After the exchange, syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage held a contest at a reader’s suggestion, asking his readers “to nominate sex acts for the honor of being known as a ‘santorum.’” The newly resulting definition is fairly vulgar, so for the sake of the reader it has been omitted from this article. If interested, it is easily found on Google, where it remains the top search result when the term “Santorum” is entered.
Santorum’s campaign did not respond to requests for clarification on the statement.
Oh please, like the gay community doesn't have a legitimate reason for being negative towards him? I mean, "how dare they be hostile towards a guy who made horrendously hostile remarks about homosexuals?"
On the plus side, all the gay "jihadists" are sure to look fabulous.
Comment