Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Video: Rick Santorum would try to be a “good father” to a gay son

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The first guy: I do not discriminate (except against same sex marriage).

    The second guy: I respectfullly discriminate against same sex marriage.

    I’m sorry I can’t believe they spoke about equality in the same breath as saying they are against same sex marriage. What a pair of hypocrites.

    1. Jock S. Trap 10 Jan 2012, 9:50am

      Indeed they are hypocrite and expect to be voted for. So these same people expect to be in damaging, powerful positions. Worrying eh? Lets hope the American voters can see through their bigotted candidates.

  2. I’m a little scared that the pair of them can’t see the hypocracy in what they have both said.. it’s almost comical if they weren’t influential! I’m in the UK so it doesn’t impact me directly but it definitely saddens me!!

    1. Spelling!

      1. OCD is an awful affliction, isn’t it? So debilitating for someone like you trying to function in normal society.

        But yet you seem so proud of it in public. Well done you, A N Spit!

        1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 10 Jan 2012, 12:30pm

          Surely you mean pedant.

          1. So we have one complaining about spelling, and another about vocabulary …

            Surely, in both of these comments what was said was already understood. It is merely an online debate forum …

            If clarification is needed because of misunderstanding fair enough – but sheesh!

          2. Pedant?

            No.

            I meant OCD.

      2. Isn’t a spelling contest Spit, its just a forum. Lighten up mate.

    2. Jock S. Trap 10 Jan 2012, 9:53am

      They don’t see their own hypocracy because what they are being hypocrites about doesn’t affect them. It would be a very different thing if it did.

      You tend to find people who have no rights to fight for can’t see the importance of the rights they have, being given equally to others.
      -0
      Again take some rights away and we have a different ball game altogether. You can bet they’ll shout from the rooftops at how hard done by they are and human rights blah, blah, blah…. Yep, hypocrites the lot of them.

  3. Politicians are two faced they say one thing and then another and yet do something else. They are controlled by those who put them in office. They use the mob mentality of people to push their agendas knowing a mob rule only gets minorities hanged or oppressed. You can not use mob or majority rule to protect the rights of any minority and the politicians know this and use it to further their own mob majority agendas. America is marching towards a Christian mob mentality rule and they will destroy anything in their way, much like a car driven by a mad man that cuts down anybody in his path. Who will be next?

    1. Your first sentence would make them 3 faced. The rest of the post is a confusing melange of contradictions.

      1. I’m sure OCD is an awful affliction, and you have my pity that it affects you to such a degree, but do try focus on the content, and not spelling. It will enriched all our lives if you can communicate with normal people and partake in adult conversions.

        And there’s always medications.

      2. Jock S. Trap 10 Jan 2012, 10:00am

        OK A N Spit but what do you think about the story. Would be more interested in hearing the opinion of the story than bitchy comments about grammar and spelling etc. No-body’s perfect, me more than most but hey so long as we get the gist of what someone is saying don’t see what’s your problem. At least they are contributing.

  4. Dave North 9 Jan 2012, 4:20pm

    “Hate the sin. Love the sinner”.

    Well sorry Rick, but as an atheist in my book the concept of sin does not exist, so keep it to yourself.

    PS: Judge not, lest ye be judged.

    Bigot.

    1. That old chestnut – “Hate the sin, love the sinner” which in plain English translates as, “I think you’re lowlife heathen scum, but that’s OK cause I can forgive you in a condecending sanctimonious way.”
      To which my answer is to “go forth and be fruitful”.

      1. Fools like this being “fruitful” is the last thing this world needs! This planet is overcrowded as it is, and speaking as someone who has to put up with these looneys, I can’t help thinking a few laws to demand some kind of testing for parenthood are in order. Unfortunately, the looneys out-number those of us with sense…or so it seems. *sigh*

        1. @ Nigel – my actual response was also the one between the lines ;)

      2. @Flapjack

        I usually use the word patronising when I explain my dislike of the phrase “hate the sin, love the sinner” but I think sanctimonious is more appropriate in most cases!

      3. Jock S. Trap 16 Jan 2012, 10:23am

        Indeed. To love is not a sin. End of.

    2. Jock S. Trap 10 Jan 2012, 10:00am

      Indeed and it’s always them that seem to see ‘the sin’… Why is that?

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Jan 2012, 4:57pm

    This is the same Santorum who once was a trustee for a hospital in which it condoned exoricisms for autistic children. This man is extremely dangerous and unfit for office.

    You can bet if he had a gay son, he’d be the first to get him to an ex-gay ministry to have it prayed away.

    1. Well, of course. That would be his “idea” of being a “good” father. Can’t have the family name embarassed by a “freak” in the family now, can we?

    2. No, it’s Michelle Bachmann that would be the first, Rick Santorum would just beat the hell out of his son behind the curtains.

  6. Don’t believe them, they only want your gay vote, and then put LGBT people back into isolation using the bible.

  7. PumpkinPie 9 Jan 2012, 4:59pm

    Ladles and Jellyspoons,

    I come before you
    To stand behind you,
    And tell you something
    I know nothing about.

    Next Thursday,
    Which is Good Friday,
    There will be a women’s meeting,
    For men only.

    Wear your best clothes
    If you haven’t any,
    And if you can come
    Please stay at home.

    Admission’s free,
    You can pay at the door,
    So take a seat
    And sit on the floor.

    But, no matter
    Where you sit,
    The boy in the gallery’s
    sure to spit!

  8. Mitt Romney an anti-gay marriage Mormon bigot who claims he always opposed equal marriage rights.issued at least 189 same sex marriage licences as Governor of Massachusetts.

    Catholic extremist Rick Santorum would try to be a good father to a gay son while denying him the equal right to marry a same sex partner and branding his child second class and a sinner. The guy is really creepy and gets creepier by the minute.

  9. de Villiers 9 Jan 2012, 6:35pm

    I am opposed to nearly all of Santorum’s political positions – but it is at least worth understanding what his positions are.

    Santorum is no friend, politically, of us. His policies would be an exemplar of discrimination. However, his unfriendliness has a cause other than explicit hate.

    The National Socialists in the 1940s had an utter hatred of Jews and gays. Their desire was to exterminate Jews and gays as an end in itself – with no other justification.

    Santorum does not share this evil. He does not seek the destruction of homosexuals as a virtue of itself. However, he does subscribe to a school of religious thought that posits gay individuals as acting their nature and nature itself.

    His positions are motivated by a desire to promote his school of religious thought and devotion to his conception of the divine. If he were to have a gay son, he no doubt would want to try and promote his “true” nature with love – whereas a National Socialist would seek his death and extermination.

    1. de Villiers 9 Jan 2012, 6:36pm

      I should add that the use of the word “love” should not be seen as agreeing or condoning Santorum’s political or religious positions. But it puts into some perspective the degree to which he is “evil” as opposed to being “wrong”.

      1. So rather than just being a vile homophobe off his own back, he’s doing so at the behest of an international cult of homophobes, child rapists, misogynists, AIDS enablers and teachers of demonstrable theistic nonsense.

        And that makes him less evil how exactly? Someone whose idea of love equates with submission before the arbitrary tyranny of an imaginary being is evil through and through. He needn’t have been this way. He chose to believe the religious nonsense he believes. He is just as accountable for his position as anyone else.

    2. It seems to me you are trying to find any excuse for another Catholic like yourself de Villiers.
      His cause is an extreme Christianist one and given the opportunity he would impose his peculair beliefs upon everyone.
      I imagine with his stated views on homosexuality he would try to turn straight any children of his that thought they might be gay, ex-gay boot camp type therapy.
      He is not only wrong about homosexuals and homosexuality but he is a deliberately devious scaremongerer and spreader of misinformation about gay people.
      A thoroughly unpleasant anti-gay lunatic.

      1. “It seems to me you are trying to find any excuse for another Catholic like yourself de Villiers.”

        What’s new.

        The usual problem with religious people is that they need the rest of us to accept their mumbo-jumbo rammed down our throats before they themselves can be comfortable about it.

  10. de Villiers 9 Jan 2012, 9:07pm

    To reply to both VP and Pavlos, I am not trying to rehabilitate a Catholic or such doctrine. I do try, however, genuinelyto understand the world as it is and why people hold the views that they hold.

    I do not agree that he is devious – his position is open and upfront. That does not make his positions more palatable as a matter of public policy. It also does not give any comfort to gay individuals who would suffer under his politics.

    However, I have suggested that he is not evil as opposed to wrong because in France and in Italy, when I lived in the latter, I saw true evil. It was the true evil of real fascists and the real Front National membership.

    Whereas Santorum would deny us equality, real evil would seek our imprisonment, beating and execution. Perhaps a contrast is the KKK in America towards blacks – members of that group really sought blacks’ torture and destruction. It seems, at least, that Santorum is not motivated by such evil – even though he is entirely wrong.

    1. de Villiers 9 Jan 2012, 9:14pm

      I should add that it is much more comforting to portray Santorum as a deranged demon – but that may be not to recognise the reality of what he is and why he is popular. However unpalabtle it may be to consider that he must be considered as wrong rather than evil, as opposed to his policies having evil effects, it is always better to confront what -is- rather than what we would prefer.

      Perhaps that is why Mao and Lenin are lauded by students – despite being having caused more deaths than Hitler – their ideology was not inherently evil but had evil effects.

    2. de Villiers wrote:
      “I do not agree that he is devious”

      Santorum is a deliberately devious scaremongerer and spreader of misinformation about gay people.
      Why else would he change the subject to the unrelated one of polygamy when asked about same sex marriage…he’s certainly devious.

      1. In fairness Pavlos, that’s just the standard ‘argument’ of his moronic tribe. He isn’t being devious in the sense that he’s portraying himself as being an advocate of equality when he’s not – he’s pretty up-front with his bigotry.

        1. I have to agree that whilst Santorum is bigoted (and in my opinion evil), I think he is relatively transparent in what he seeks to achieve.

          He is more than up front about his desire to deny equality to LGBT people.

          He is crystal clear about his belief in conversion therapy.

          So, no I do not think Santorum is devious.

          Does that mean I think he either deserves election or that I do not think he is evil – categorically not … he is both unsuitable to be in high office and his desire to perpetuate inequality is (in my opinion) evil …

          As a comparitor, when civil rights were being pursued in the USA – whilst there was unfair treatment of black people by the justice system – few were imprisoned due to their skin colour – nonetheless, the maintenance of a system that failed to address racial discrimination was evil – and so it is when LGBT discrimination continues (and even more risible when it is a political policy in the case of Santorum)

          1. As Santorum is unable to explain his anti-gay stance honestly without referring to unrelated things that scare people he is properly described as devious.

            If Santorum was honest and upfront and simply said I oppose same sex marriage because it is against my religion and I want to impose my religious convictions of morality (mainly sexual and reproductive morality) upon everyone else in the US …
            perhaps it would be different but no, there is all the misinformation and lies about polygamy and same sex parents not being as capable of raising children as opposite sex couples…he’s devious, creepy and wants to control people’s sex lives and reproductive capacity by denying access to birth control and making all sex outside of marriage illegal … it’s safe to say he’s a lunatic.

          2. @Pavlos

            The difference between our views on this is miniscule

            Santorum has displayed some signs of lunacy – I tend to agree

            I do feel his polygamy comments are unjust, wrong, disingenuous and potentially devious.

            I dont feel his anti gay stance in itself is devious – its him being frank about his views – which are wrong, deranged and unjust.

    3. “It was the true evil of real fascists”

      And the church is not fascist?

      fas·cism – noun
      1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

      That could read:-

      Catholic Church – noun
      1. a religious system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, with goals of regimenting all society, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive misogyny and often homophobia.

      Similar enough to make a comparison in my opinion.

      1. de Villiers 11 Jan 2012, 11:13pm

        No military power or physical apparatus to enforce power – surely? The ‘complete’ power is properly without basis.

  11. Rick Santorum would love his son just as much as he did the second before he told him he was gay!

    Why do I have the image of a father who though he loves his son, would behave almost like Segourney Weaver in “Prayers for Bobby” and try to change who his son is?

    1. For any one interested here is the link

  12. Edwin in Colorado 9 Jan 2012, 10:16pm

    These people don’t seem to realize that equality means equal in all things.

  13. GingerlyColors 9 Jan 2012, 10:37pm

    If Rick Santorum did have a gay son for argument’s sake and his son finds the man he wishes to spend the rest of his life with, would Mr. Santorum attend his wedding?

    1. Dave North 9 Jan 2012, 10:41pm

      There would be no wedding.

      (P)Rick WSantorum would have banned them constitutionally.

      1. GingerlyColors 10 Jan 2012, 3:02am

        As I have mentioned before in order to get a Constitutional Amendment through he will need two thirds of Congress to agree to it then have it ratified by at least 38 of the 50 States. Less than 0.3% of proposals to amend the US Constitution have been successful and one Amendment was overturned by another (prohibition of alcohol).

      2. @Dave

        Only if Santorum both wins the Republican selection and then the Republicans win the election … hopefully unlikely!

        1. GingerlyColors 10 Jan 2012, 12:38pm

          And they need a huge majority in Congress and not all Republicans are anti-gay, they do have a gay faction. And even if they did they will have to depend on members of the Democrats who oppose gay equality.

  14. Being te closed minded bigot he is means he couldnt be a good father to anyone.

  15. Jock S. Trap 10 Jan 2012, 9:48am

    So being a good father means to discriminate, eh? NIce father…. not.

    People like Rick Santorum should never be around children, period!

    1. Well, he is a Catholic, so not allowing him around children was already implicit.

  16. ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin’ – ‘I love you as a person but I hate the mode of loving which in large part makes you a person’. The usual manipulative and oppressive condescension. I wonder how seriously these folk would take it if we said we loved them but devalued and condemned their marriages. We know how Santorum would be a ‘good father’ – and it bears out the old adage that an honest fanatic is much more dangerous than a scoundrel.

  17. There isn’t any “try” about it.

    You have a kid you ARE a good parent. Otherwise don’t have kids.

  18. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 10 Jan 2012, 12:50pm

    Do the repulsicans even know the meaning of the word “discriminate”? You cannot say that you cannot agree with gay marriage or gay adoptions rights and still be able treat to gays with dignity and respect.

    It’s just a religious merry-go-round, American politics! While the europeans have ditched the ‘good’ book in favour of thinking for themselves, the US will still be slavishly pouring over the new testament (and selected books of the old) trying to save face with rich people who don’t actually go to church and who aren’t up to the job of actually being the president.

    If they really think that America will be smoted by a supposed supreme being like Sodom and Gomorrah for allowing gay rights and equality (and Obama’s health care programme!), they really should be made aware of the supervolcano in Wyoming and what it will be capable of.

    1. Well, in the UK at least, a lot of the laws are based upon teachings from the Bible. Those laws certainly haven’t changed very much, so technically our law system still has a basis in the Bible.

      While more modern laws tend to not be inspired by religious texts, it should still be recognized that the basis of the (UK) law is the Bible.

  19. Suddenly Last Bummer 10 Jan 2012, 2:38pm

    “Hate the sin,love the sinner”. Or just don’t class homosexuality as a sin perhaps?

  20. Suddenly Last Bummer 10 Jan 2012, 2:45pm

    I’m betting Mitt Romeny has at least one gay in the family closet.

    http://www.teapartytribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/mitt_romney_five_sons.jpg

    1. Dave North 10 Jan 2012, 3:32pm

      My Gaydar is pointing to the guy on the extreme left.

  21. Lovely to see!

    Crowd Chants ‘Bigot’ at Rick Santorum at Final NH Campaign Stop: VIDEO:

    http://www.towleroad.com/2012/01/bigot.html

    1. Lovely!

  22. carrie baker 10 Jan 2012, 7:20pm

    HELL, NO , RICK SANTRUM WOULD NOT MAKE A GOOD FATHER TO A GAY SON, WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT, IS HE IS NOT A GOOD HETESEXUAL FATHER , THAT WOULD TEACH HIS CHILDREN HUMAN RIGHTS AND KINDESS AND TO LOVE AND TREAT OTHER FAIRLY AND KINDLY AT THEIR SSCHOOLS NO BIGOT IS A GOOD FAMILIY, UNITY, THE CHILDREN CANNOT GROW UP AN BE PROUD OF HIM AND HIS BIGOTRY , THEY WILL NO HIM AS ONE OF THE BAD SENATOR S WHO WAS A BIGOT, AND TRIED TO VIOLATE OTHERS RIGHTS AND HAPPINESS , INCLUDING CHILDREN, AND THEIR SUICIDES, THAT RACIST BIGOTS LIKE HIM OR RESPONSIBLE FOR, NO HE CANNOT BE A GOOD FATHER TO A GAY SON, THE BOY WOULD NOT HAVE A SUPPORT GROUP OF LOVE , AND SOME ONE HE ENJOYED TALKING TO AS A BEST FRIEND AND CONFIDONT IN HIS FATHER, HE COULD NOT DEPEND ON HIM AS A SAFEY NET, BECAUSE HE WOULD BE PART OF HIS PROBLEM , AND THE RUIN OF HIS HAPPINESS AND THE BOY , WOULD GROW TO HATE HIM AS A FATHER FOR TRYING TO RUIN WHO HE WAS AN HIS HAPPINESS, WITH SOMEONE HE LOVED , INSTEAD OF BEING A GOOD DAD

  23. burningworm 11 Jan 2012, 5:21pm

    The only person who embodies republican ideals is the one gay that won’t get the nomination; Ron Paul.

    The rest are playing to the Bush era. And then complain about the front runner.

  24. If you don’t have the right to marry the person you want, you don’t have FULL rights

    1. de Villiers 13 Jan 2012, 1:16pm

      Interesting article. Thank you for posting it.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all