April 23, 2003
My Patriotic "Orientation"
Senate's third-highest ranked Republican, Rick Santorum, R-Pa., is quoted
today by the Associated Press as saying, "I have no problem with
homosexuality -- I have a problem with homosexual acts." Maybe
I'm stupid, but isn't that just like saying, "I have no problem
with cats -- I have a problem with cat actions"? When cats act
like cats, it drives me insane! Santorum goes on to elucidate
this theory by adding, "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."
Can I separate my three cats' actions from the cats? When Anna brings
me a dead mouse to admire, should I admonish her for acting too cat-like?
Or is she only cat-like enough when she's asleep on my lap?
I somehow missed the point of the word "accept"? There are
nine definitions in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, but the first
three cover the concept: 1. To take or receive (what is offered) with
a consenting mind. 2. To receive with approval or favor. 3. To consent
or agree to; as, to accept the terms of the contract. So that's blatantly
not what he means.
seems to be saying is that he doesn't accept homosexual's orientation.
But, like all politicians, his first inclination is to lie because the
public is unworthy of the truth ever, so he says that he does accept
when he clearly doesn't.
the word "orientation" that's confusing the issue. The first
1. To turn or be directed toward the east, as a church. Well, that certainly
can't be what he means. How about number 2. To adjust to a situation.
Do we believe that homosexuals have "adjusted" to their "situation"
by having sex with partners of the same gender? Or is that just part
and parcel of the "situation"? My cats are not "orientated"
to being cats, they are cats. Whether or not I am oriented toward
being heterosexual, that's what I am.
the English language that's getting Santorum down. What he's trying
to say, but having difficulty with big words like "orientation,"
is "Homosexuality is wrong." Obviously you can't be a homosexual
and not act like one at all; then you wouldn't be a homosexual, you'd
be an asexual. Ergo, to be a homosexual you must act like one at some
point. And ditto for heterosexuals. If you never act on it, you're not
that thing. You cannot logically call yourself a pianist if you've never
played the piano.
says, "I have a problem with . . . acts outside of traditional
heterosexual relationships." I'm not sure what the exact tradition
is in Pennsylvania where Santorum hails from, but it's probably the
missionary position between a married male and a female without a condom.
Since I've never been married, do occasionally have sex, and always
use a condom, I too would be outside the "traditional heterosexual
relationship," even though I'm not gay. Perhaps it's my orientation
and I simply need to adjust to my situation of being single by getting
married. Then I could be like Rick Santorum, which clearly everyone
ought to be -- married, heterosexual Republicans from Pennsylvania.
Leader Bill First, R-Tenn., said, "Rick is a consistent voice for
inclusion and compassion in the Republican Party and in the Senate .
Why do I
have such difficulty understanding these guys? "Inclusion and compassion"
for whom? Obviously not homosexuals. Or anyone outside of "traditional
So, if may
again interpret what I believe Mr. Santorum is actually trying to say
within his circumlocution is, "I am appalled by homosexuality and
I wish it would go away."
appalled by exclusionary, uncompassionate Republican senators and I
wish they'd go away, but I have enough common sense to know they
won't. Which is why I generally don't come out with stupid statements
like, "I have no problem with Republicans -- I have problems with
Republican acts." I do have problems with Republicans, and it's
because of their acts and their statements.
homosexual friend Rick Sandford had a big problem with heterosexuals.
Rick's logic went like this -- Fact, we're living in a highly overpopulated
world; Fact, heterosexuals continue to have children in spite of this
knowledge. Therefore heterosexuals are irresponsible, completely lack
foresight, and don't care at all about the world they live in or the
well-being of future generations.
He had a
point. I didn't agree with him, but, like a good American, I always
respected his right to have his own position. And I'll defend it, too.
is against the basic American principal that other people can have different
ideologies, religions, or sexual "orientations" than him and
still be good Americans -- just as good as him. He is not a better American
nor a better citizen for being a heterosexual, a male, married, a Republican,
or being from Pennsylvania. We're all Americans, and we're all equal.
To deny anyone their rights in this country is in fact un-patriotic
to be a leader, Mr. Santorum, you might try understanding the rights
and rules within the country where you supposedly lead.