We At Silentio Love Anal Sex!!

Ahem... I just wanted to get that out in the open right away. I have never personally, or perhaps I should say 'intentionally' (thus leaving you wondering . . .), participated in that sort of sodomy; but, alas, neither have I been to Papua New Guinea either, and I've no problem with it or its people. Dare I say it -- that I love Papua New Guineans as much as I do anal sex and those cuddly little deviants who participate in it? Yay, I think so.

Indeed, I think this upcoming week should be "I Love Anal Sex" week -- create a button, a sticker, a rub-on tattoo, a permanent tattoo even. Where the hell is he going with this, you ask. Easy. Senator Santorum. It's been a crazy week, with my extracurricular activities ranging from air and train travel, lecturing, and vomiting, so I've not been able to post as often I'd like. In my absence, I never got a chance to say too much about the brouhaha brewing over said senator's homophobic remarks in a recent AP interview. Let's recap:

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: 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. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

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--

AP: 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.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

I don't know about you, but Ricky is one US Senator I'd like to invite to my next dinner! (Note to self: clean hard drive and remove my sub-mattress reading, should Sen. Santorum be a nosey visitor.) So, basically, it seems anyway, the #3 Republican in the Senate equates the general right to consensual sex behind closed doors with a whole host of specific icky no-no's. Of course, so he reminds us repeatedly, he's not picking on homosexuals here. He thinks they're cute -- especially that one spastic one on Will & Grace, he's sooooo funny -- but the idea of hairy, grunty, sweaty man-on-man action is where he must draw the line, for the skae of the children. I think somewhere in the interview he broke into a stirring rendition of Whitney Houston's classic, 'I Believe That Children Are Our Future.' (Note: I sang that in junior-high chorus, too). The fact that he's not just picking on homosexuals here, though, should perhaps frighten all you unmarried folk out there doing the nasty -- and I do mean 'nasty' -- into changing your sinful ways, because sex, when you're not married, is wicked and destructive to the moral fabric of society. Again, think of the children!!! Oh, and don't think you married folk who like to do the nasty nastily are off the hook, either! (To the couple, both of whom are frequent visitors of Silentio, who enjoy a bit of gay porn prior to sex -- shhhhaaaaammmmmeee on you both, says the highly-regarded Senator who, incidentally, our gay-porn star lovin' President refuses to censure.)

I'm obviously very late on this story, so the rest of the way I'll let the links do the talking. Not everybody has been as quiet on this matter as our God-fearing President and Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist. No no, there are at least a few Republicans upset about this (not to mention a few polygamists in Utah, and -- hmm -- Sen. Orrin Hatch). However, for the true tale of the GOP, Santorum, and gay sex, see everybody's favorite sex advice columnist, Dan Savage:

Gay groups are trying to turn Senator Rick Santorum into the next Trent Lott. It's not going to work. Mr. Lott lost his post as Senate majority leader because he said something he wasn't supposed to. Mr. Santorum, who holds the No. 3 position in the Senate leadership, was only repeating what many Republicans have already said.

Two additional comments of note: (a) those of the mighty Mark Morford, and (b) those of the Vermont governor cum Democratic presidentical candidate, Howard Dean.

And remember, my heterosexual friends (the homosexual ones can move to the next post), close the bedroom door tightly and cover the peephole the next time your significant other asks you to do that quirky thing, the one involving the seal suit, spare car keys, and the rubber ducky, s/he requests from time to time. You just never know.