Redstate

For him, it's all wholeseome goodness. Plus, he admits in that interview I link to in my second post that he drove a nail into his head as a child and therefore has pretty bad recall, and therefore I suppose, no remorse. In other words, he admits in that interview that he's essentially brain damaged -- but that hasn't hindered his popularity or restricted his (ahem) appeal. Some people could also speculate that his lack of short-term memory consolidation stems from other things, including ingested substances, but it would be pure speculation...

I'll treat this as merely being a joke the day that people from my side are accorded the same privileges by the Left.
I hate selective outrage. It's like when Cruz Bustmonte got a complete pass for use of the n-word, when any Republican would have been run out of government on a rail. Double standards, especially in speech/expression/politics, are horrible for an informed and free society.

He was also the author of a "kinder, gentler" sex advice column on ABCNEWS.COM for about two years.

Before ABCNEWS.COM realized that Savage's advice was better suited to the pages of [insert favorite gay sex magazine] than it was for their "mainstream" news site.

Which hasn't stopped him from building fame and fortune one iota, apparently. Sex sells, and Dan knows everything about it.

Who don't have the stomach to read through the archives of Savage Love over at The Stranger, in keeping with Erick's post today, which was very bold indeed, here's the kind of letter that gets Dan's interest up in his sex advice columns. Dan doesn't have any problem, and as I've said, absolutely no remorse (perhaps for neuroanatomical reasons) addressing questions from people like this one:

Eight months later, despite a few indiscretions on both our parts, I'm happy as can be. But I don't think we're in the same place emotionally. I need him—well, actually I neeeeed him—and he "needs his space." I don't want to date anyone else, and I fear that if we were to split up I would revert to the sexual deviant that I was and he would do the same.

Here's where the story gets on your nerves...

His prior "indiscretion" was with a German shepherd. I have no problems with his zoophilia, per se, except that we have an almost nonexistent sex life. I wouldn't mind this aside from a few issues. First, he still masturbates. Second, he lied about it. Third, the very few times we have engaged in sex, he only receives, and it upsets me when he tries to maneuver us into a doggy-style position.

Dan was on track to become America's premiere sex advice columnist through ABCNEWS.COM for a while there. And make no mistake about it, it is his efforts that have helped to shipwreck Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania. If the people of Pennsylvania are willing to take this, than in Dan's own words: "They deserve the government they get."

If you can stand to read that post that I linked to, you'll note that Savage really doesn't have any problem with the person the writer is complaining about and his proclivity for having sex with German shepherds. His view is that that's probably OK, but that the guy who doesn't like it should just move on.

He's on record as being against bestiality.

Against being against it, he appears to be moderating that restriction in the most recent post that I mentioned. You can read what he says about Mr. Dog Humper in that post, but frankly he doesn't condemn it, he cites the "1-2% of people" who are zoophiliacs as one of the things that are frankly OK if it weren't for the other problems. Read the article. He explicitly states that the problem is not the guy who likes to have sex with the German shepherd, no matter how screwed up that guy may be -- but the other gay dude who is trying his best to "fix" him.

In other words, in Savage's mind, you can't fix the dog-lovers, so just leave them alone, or find one that's compatible with you.

So yeah, NAGS, I'd say there's a problem here—but you're the problem, not him...
...
A person might be able to have a relationship with someone who has had or is still having sex with dogs (1–2 percent of the population has sexual contact with animals, and even passionate zoophiles can sustain relationships with humans), and you might be with someone who isn't all that attracted to you, or with someone who needs his space, or with someone who lies compulsively—but not all four.

So really, for Dan Savage, the problem isn't that this guy is having sex with dogs, it's just that he's not doing other things for his gay lover that would make him attractive and accomodating to his partner. Hence the "deal breaker" rhetoric.

But never in that article is the fact that the guy's primary sexual pursuit is having sex with animals the sole "deal breaker."

I suspect that for most people who want to see a Senator from Pennsylvania reelected, the most prominent opponent of that person who proclaims that it's pretty much OK to have sex with dogs might be of a bit of interest and might influence their decision a little. After all, dogs don't lie.

A sex-advice columnist? He may the most colorful one, but how is he the most prominent opponent? I thought Casey was the opponent.
And, not that I should have to point out this distinction, but here we go: the person did not write in to Savage asking for a moral referundum on bestiality, nor did she ask Savage to tell her whether he personally approves of it. She wrote in asking for advice on whether the relationship would work and what she would do. He answered.
One thing that moralists often confuse is offering advice on the question at hand versus parsing the question for moral violations and going that way. You may disagree, but just because he didn't take time out to condemn their actions before he responded doesn't in anyway mean he approves.

In the first place, if you read the article, it was a gay man having a problem in his relationship with another gay man who happened to like having sex with dogs, German shepherds in particular. That's what was troubling him. I think it's pretty clear from Savage's own words in the article that he could approve of a sexual relationship involving those two and a dog, if it weren't for the other "deal breakers." That's the most salient point of his response.

He never says: "Man, a guy who wants to have sex with a dog really needs some help and here are a few telephone numbers" or "Perhaps this person should be watched because who knows what else they like to put their sex organs inside". Instead, he basically tells the guy who writes in that it's his problem and that maybe it wouldn't be if it weren't for a few "deal breakers."

I don't see how you can read that article any other way, if you've even read it.

I switched the genders on the letter-writer; I thought it was a hetero couple. Thanks for the catch.

I'm not going to defend Savage's column or its subject matter; it's part of the whole libertarian thing. I may find 80-odd% of the letter writers or their practices creepy and disturbing, but it's not my body, my genitalia, or my column, so I figure they should have the right to write in, and he should have the right to respond in any manner he sees fit. Maybe he should have taken the time to state (well, restate actually, since he's already discussed this in old columns) his opposition of bestiality; apparently that's the sine qua non of a Dear Abby for the Ricki Lake set.

What I do think is interesting is that a sex-advice columnist, after being smeared with support for NAMBLA of all things, is now being debated on redstate in order to bolster support for a Senator with distressing poll numbers. I didn't think that the choice between Casey and Santorum hinges on whether or not Dan Savage chose one particular column to remind people that he doesn't approve of sex with animals.
Also, as some down thread have pointed out, his discussion of pragmatic voting despite issue differences has great relevance to the Republican future, as McCain, Guiliani and maybe even Arnold someday seek higher office as a Republican despite their extremely liberal social views. So we're not even talking about the interview or its political points of argument; we're debating his last column. Unfortunate.

And even if someone wrote in to ask for a "moral referendum on bestiality" wouldn't it be enough to have someone write in to Dan Savage, if he really doesn't like the idea of having sex with animals, to say so pretty strongly? That's not what he did. He indicated that for a certain percentage of people in this world, it's probably OK for them to have sex with animals.

Do you know any of those people? It's not OK for me and my friends.

The letter writer was not the one doing it, correct? So to bring in the all-important disclaimer that Savage personally disapproves of bestiality, he would have wasted time telling the letter writer something that didn't even apply to him, something Savage has already stated in other columns, just to satisfy the "I read one column" reader who may not know where he stands. Not to mention, Savage mentions that the fact that the guy has relations with animals is just one of the ways the guy is messed up: how does this translate to support for it? And by citing stats that say people do have sex with animals, is he therefore stating he thinks it's ok? He even refers to the bestiality as one of the four, "issues that any sensible person would regard as... distinct deal-breakers." This is support?

The whole point of his column is that one can write him and get advice without a judgement on the sex in question. Unless the subject is clearly illegal or someone is in imminent harm, the letter writer gets an answer. You may wish to run your advice column differently, but that's his thing.

...and it's a mistake to think that judgments about who he is will invalidate what he has to say. Politically, he's pretty astute.

he may come across as vile but that was not bad political advice - and he also calls out lefty dems for the fools they have been to support minor/fringe candidates.

I wonder if 12-18 months from now as we go through the Republican primaries will people suck it up and vote for mccain or rudy eventhough they may not agree with all their positions but would likely win the general or will they persue a candidate(s) who may be spot on with their personal ideas but a likely loser overall.

Rant Street! www.rant.st

If what Savage is after is a country where there can be Romanesque sex clubs on every corner where the market will support them, that creeps me out. But if what he's doing is using dramatic rhetoric designed to gross out the sorts of people who read a site like RedState and enrage us, I'm guessing that its in service of a less dramatic aim. Can you explain-- I don't mean to be patronizing AT ALL, i'm honestly curious, because this is a thread I've never been able to understand in social conservative thought-- the connection you see between gay marriage/private sexual freedom so far as it doesn't hurt others and threats to "america's future and safety"?

Say, the last 30 years for the outcome of what DS and those like him desire. Only factor in that they not only approve of what consenting adults do with each other behind closed doors/out in the streets/wherever, but they actually like NAMBLA and Incest, etc...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

...is making it more difficult for people like me to make a rational case of extending marriage privileges to same-sex couples via the legislature. Which, given that the gay rights movement has already mucked up what should have been a simple, straightforwardly incremental exercise in applied federalism, personally ticks me off no end.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I agree-- his politics seem to come from a fight-fire-with-fire sort of foolishness that only makes it harder to make progress on gay marriage. My point though is that I totally understand how he'd be pulled to that sort of rhetorical idiocy. Harsh, consistent and in some cases violent repression of homosexuals in this country has produced this sort of rhetoric. Then again maybe I'm not getting it all-- maybe he really wants people to be able to schtup dogs in peace...(Is that what you mean about recent European history? 'Cause that I'm not real sure about...)

In other news, the thing I've seen people seem to reference here (and something I think I've seen Santorum bemoan on TV) is the definition of freedom that some liberals extoll: that it's the ability to do anything they want so long as it doesn't directly harm others. Now if the principal beef with that notion is that there can be more subtle effects of that kind of freedom, there's an argument to be made... but insofar as it can be applied to who can marry whom and private citizens' ability to decide for themselves when to stop fighting an illness and die peacefully and without pain, I buy it.

I hear him talk on NPR every once in a while (NPR is like pro wrestling, it's not that it's particularly good... but you can't go back to the other channels after you get used to it) and he talks about his significant other and his kid and you (or, okay, *I*) get the idea that he's a fairly well-rounded guy who just wants to be left alone with his family and to have legal protections for it.

Stuff like this totally undercuts the reasonable (and persuasive) arguments he makes elsewhere.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Or does this guy scream "MOBY!!!"?

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

At least according to the polls. When I saw he was added to the "Featured Contributors" section my first thought was that he found his post-Senate job already.
That said, Newt's missive to the faithful demonstrates that there's always hope. Winners never quit and quitters never win. Spread the word in PA that we can't afford Harry Reid calling the shots in the Senate!

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Alan Greenspan

"...other loud-mouthed social conservatives who seek to exert their personal or religious beliefs about private sexual conduct through legislation..."
How do his actions differ him from those he opposes aside from his lack of decency and having the opposite position of Santorum et al?

As for breathing room for non-traditional family units:
A) His columns have expressed open approval of incest and NAMBLA and similar sexual relationships which are not merely "non-traditional" but Actively harmful to the seduced.
B) Look to European modern history to see what kind of damage "non-traditional" family units do to the Nuclear Family and tell me he isn't trying to destroy that cornerstone of civilization...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

w/ regard to the European history you're referencing? Like a study maybe? I have a hard time believing that the European family is completely falling apart and that that's manifesting itself throughout society in ways that will actually undermine civilization-- at least not throughout the entire continent.

Obviously incest, pedophilia and pedarasty are despicable and harmful to the abused, "consensual" or otherwise (how the hell can those things ever be consensual?). By non-traditional families I meant children being raised conscientiously by two men or two women-- not children being raised by an incestuous couple, or a man and a german shepard, or anything like that. I could understand if Rick was pushing anti-man-humps-dog legislation, but attempting to legislate the bedroom activities of private, nonincestuous, consensual pairings of people who are of legal age boggles my mind. Again, please please please point me towards the sociology you're talking about in Europe.

Santorum was doing no such thing. He's just not agreeable to the whole idea of homosexual marriage.

As per the references to Europe, check the Netherlands and what has happened to the nuclear family since they legalized gay marriage 6 years ago. It's not pretty.
And with the breakdown of the nuclear family has come an increase in crime and poverty and everything else the goes hand in hand with large groups of single parent families.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/livestro200406290924.asp
That's the National Review, so it takes awhile to get to what I'm talking about. I'm not very good at finding stuff on the internet, so that one link is the product of a couple hours of work...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

Kurtz' article has been debunked many, many times. He is eager to point out the decline in marriage and increase in out-of-wedlock births since gay marriage was legalized. What he for some reason forgot to point out is that the trend pre-dated same-sex marriage legalization and the trend simply continued the way it had been going. There is no proven connection between the two events; metaphorically and statistically speaking, it's like seeing a rock rolling downhill and watching it pass a gay couple getting married, and then blaming the gay couple for the downfall of the rock: it was falling long before they got hitched and no connection has even been hinted at, much less proved.
The rest of his argument is even funnier: that the push for same-sex legalization, 15 years earlier, started the destruction of marriage. So, according to Kurtz, the mere thought that some gays somewhere wanted to get married (i.e., wanted to share in marriage, not end it) was enough to shatter the institution in the eyes of the Dutch populace. Is this credible?

His columns have expressed open approval of incest and NAMBLA

Citation please? Actually, I'm curious what Erick meant with "NAMBLA type activities" as well -- I don't have sound at work, so I haven't listened to the interview yet, but perhaps someone could give me a rough transcript of the part where Savage discusses this?

(no text)

Savage has always stated his opposition to bestiality, the same as he opposed "NAMBLA-type activities" for the crucial reason of consent. Adults can consent to sexual activity (and in the eyes of this libertarian should need no government approval for the same). Neither animals nor children can consent to sex, and as such he opposes them both.
I hate to break up the insinuation game with facts, but this thread is full of misinformation.

Then my apologies to him. I didn't have the stomach strength to get through much of his essays and what little I read certainly seemed to allude to what I posted. Though now that I read back on what I posted, perhaps I was betraying a little bit of a bias and failed to be fair in what I was writing...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

but he hates Santorum and other loud-mouthed social conservatives who seek to exert their personal or religious beliefs about private sexual conduct through legislation.

You have any details on any legislation proposed by Santorum to "exert his personal or religious beliefs about private sexual conduct?" Has he called for a federal sodomy or adultury ban that I haven't heard of? As far as I know, this is all based on his non-support of SSM... which can hardly be considered "private sexual conduct."
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Back when he was Governor of Texas, Bush signed at least one (I think it was actually two)death warrent for just that.

Icythus

No one will vote for him. He will never decide policy no matter who is in government. How is voting for the party that has used gay marriage as a wedge issue at political helpful moments over the past few years the same as voting for toleration? If this is sarcasm it is very rigorously executed...

Thank you for pointing out that info, Virginia.

As a long-time reader of Dan's, I guarantee you guys your summaries barely scratch the surface of this complicated, intelligent man. He has a stable family, and he speaks from the heart. He's not a politician, or beholden to traditional advertisers, so he's freer than most public figures to get inflammatory--but you can tell he really understands the big picture.

(psst... That freedom of wild hyperbole isn't because he's left wing, it's because he's a fringe media personality. Mike Savage enjoys it as well.)

Still, Erick is just plain crazy to insinuate that Savage is representative of the solid majority of Pennsylvanans who are about to hand Santorum his hat. It's a sideshow, albeit entertaining for both sides I think.

I'd like to add that Republicans the only people I ever hear bringing up NAMBLA, which has been completely ostracized by the gay community and all decent people.

I'd like to add that Republicans the only people I ever hear bringing up NAMBLA, which has been completely ostracized by the gay community and all decent people.

You mean besides the ACLU when they are representing them in court?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Just plain weak. The ACLU defends Nazis for freedom of speech as well. Do you think the ACLU are Nazis? Do you think they want more Nazis in the world? Give me something real, not a freedom of speech case from6 years ago.

But when you said "the only people I ever hear bringing up NAMBLA are Republicans," that wasn't true. Not only does the ACLU "bring them up," they've spent money defending them.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

That would be a lot more compelling if it was 6 months ago rather than 6 years ago.

Why, do you think the ACLU has since moderated its position on defending pond scum?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Didn't the ACLU defend Col. North?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Didn't Oliver North sell arms to Iran?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Is subject to a 6 month time limit. Good to know. Maybe you should've mentioned that time limit in the original post.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson