Keith Devens .com

Isn't he the guy who compared homosexuality to incest, bigamy and
adultery? That doesn't make him good in my books.

Actually no, he wasn't. That was a common mischaracterization of his argument, from people who didn't understand the point he was making.

Santorum said: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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."

How is this not equivocating homosexuality to bigamy to polygamy to incest to adultery?

I've covered this before. Read the full interview before you judge him. Most people take that quote out of context without even caring to understand the context in the original interview.

He was arguing about the "right to privacy", and how there is no such "right to privacy" enumerated in our constitution. For example, you don't have the right to do drugs, even though it's within the privacy of your home. Santorum was making a similar point.

Furthermore, the "(gay)" parenthesis was not in the original interview. It got added in somewhere along the way.

Finally, to Simon. Can someone not be a good person if he thinks homosexual acts are wrong?

That's completely dependant on how you define a "good person". It also depends on what "thinks homosexual acts are wrong" means - wrong in a moral sense, wrong in a biological sense, wrong in a religious sense? I accept people's right to disaprove of homosexuality, but the moment they start acting on that disaproval by attempting to limit the rights of people who /are/ homosexual I would consider their behaviour "bad".

Incidentally, I always find this aspect of reading your blog really interesting because while I share many of your opinions and interests on a technical level, from a political and religious point of view we are sat at pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum.

That's completely dependant on how you define a "good person".

Well, you said "That doesn't make him good in my books." What did you mean? Do you still feel that way after reading the full interview and reading my explanation of his comment?

It also depends on what "thinks homosexual acts are wrong" means

Did you read his interview?

but the moment they start acting on that disaproval by attempting to limit the rights of people who /are/ homosexual I would consider their behaviour "bad"

Keep in mind that Santorum's main argument wasn't that homosexual acts should be illegal, but that the Supreme Court shouldn't be deciding such cases.

are people aware that dan savage had a contest regarding the word santorum? if you search on google the definition comes up close to number one - the mix of fecal matter and lube that leaks out after anal sex.

I'm aware of the "definition". I think it's shameful.