<SANTORUM: 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. Emphasis mine.

No, the word "gay" doesn't appear. Only its synonym.

This entire passage sounds familiar to me: "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Which is a fundamentalist Christian slogan used to condemn any behavior of which they disapprove, while deflecting the accusation of hate- and fear-mongering that the condemnation begets among the faithful.

The Senator's remarks go nowhere near what the implications are if there is a genetic predisposition for homosexuality. Does any government have the right to punish non-violent consensual activities among adults that may be determined by their biology? Does that mean we get to go back to sex for reproductive purposes only, for heterosexuals as well, and the FBI goes back to having a sex squad?

You had it right in your post citing Andrew Sullivan, below. Homosexuals are merely the first target, an easy one in that many people already fear and loathe them, but they are a loud target as well. Think of them as the peacock in the coal mine.

Regards--
Mary Anne