Here's a response to Wednesday's column on Rick Santorum, apparently from non-heterosexual male:
Gil, my problem isn’t with how he chose to grieve, my problem is that he equates being gay as the same classification as incest and bestiality.
OK, I get how Santorum comparing homosexuality to incest or bestiality would be offensive gay people. But ...
He and other Republican candidates run ads and literally ask people if they really want to live in a place where “homosexuals can serve openly.” Apparently being a candidate for the president provides executive privilege and an exemption from discrimination.
Huh? Well, the government does exempt itself from certain discrimination laws that it requires mere citizens to obey. That's true.
If you’re a candidate and do not support “gay marriage” or “civil union’s” – o.k. State it just that way. But while we are on the subject of this orientation as a “choice,” then I would like to add this. I cannot have children. Gay people do NOT create nor recruit gay persons. So it is heterosexuals who CHOOSE to have children. Then I feel that I should not have to pay for their choice to educate and populate a geographical region and should be tax exempt from doing so.
Well, I know lots of gay people who actually do have children. But one way to avoid having to pay taxes in a particular geographical region is to move out of it. Otherwise, you're pretty much stuck with whatever taxes the elected officials there choose to impose on you.
Ask Mr. Santorum how he would answer this. It’s taxation w/o my representation.
That's an odd way of putting it but I say, YOU ask him. I think Rick Santorum would look at me funny if I asked him that.
Republican Candidates are scary….
Not as scary as some voters.