Santorum's New Lobby -- NAMBLA?

By Anthony Levensalor

Monday, July 18, 2005 at 06:24 PM

I came across this piece from the AP and felt the need to comment on it a little bit.

It seems Santorum is shilling for NAMBLA these days. The sad thing is, he doesn't seem to realize it.

The most telling part, and the subject of today's rant, is this paragraph, in response to a reporter asking him to clarify his bullshit on Liberalism causing the Catholic Church's Pedophilia:

In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

The Senator just said that statutory rape does not exist, and has inferred that it's ok to fuck anyone you want who has gone through puberty, whether you are an authority figure in their lives or not.

So, as long as the person someone is having sex with has gone through puberty, it is consensual sex, and a normal relationship. Way to blame the victims, you fucking retard.

This man is a fucking nightmare. He is insane. This is the GOP top contender for the White House in '08? They're fucked.

When asked if homosexuality should be made illegal:

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.

Does that answer actually mean something? I mean, it is very telling, and a not-so-good cover for the obvious bigotry seething from this retard's pores, but does it actually answer the question?

He has "no problem with homosexuals" just hates the thing that makes them homosexual, their, um, sexual preference. So what the fuck? When you say "I like homosexuals, I just hate homosexuals", I think you've answered the question very well, and surprisingly honestly.

Santorum hates homosexuals, thinks homosexual sex between two men should be outlawed. Not them wanting to, just them doing it.

Fifty bucks says this guy jacks off watching hot chicks get it on when the wife's out of the house. That could just be my intuition talking, I don't have any proof, but I'm betting he doesn't have the same problem thinking about girl-on-girl as he does man-on-man.

Dickhead.

~A!