Since homosexual marriage turns that concept on its head to satisfy active homosexuals’ desire to have access to marriage (that is, because they WANT it), Santorum said, then such a change places our culture on a slippery slope. Other “aggrieved” groups will cite the changes made for homosexuals in demanding further re-definition of marriage: polygamists (probably first and foremost), advocates of incest, pedophiles seeking to marry minors of either sex, and - here’s where the “man on dog sex” reference comes in - bestiality advocates - ALL seeking to utilize a liberalized marriage definition to provide cover and to bestow acceptibility, if not legitimacy, to carrying out their favored sexual activities.

None of these groups actually have genuine need of the marriage structure (nor do homosexuals), but obtaining the “right to marry” brings a range of benefits that fulfill other agendas, not withstanding the arguments about partner perks.

THAT is what Santorum was driving at, but the gay lobby, the media, and their Democratic allies on the left all joined in a chorus of shouting that Santorum was comparing homosexuality to bestiality. Actually, the comparison was between the “rationale” of the arguments for creating legal but non-traditional forms of marriage. Once you open the door, it will be impossible to hold back the flood.