" 
 :Thank you for taking the time to respond extensively to my position on the issue. I agree that the relevant Talk page is not appropriate for such an extensive discussion, especially since the issue is now under the process of a Request for Comments. There is no disingenuousness or malice on my part, of course, and I resent the implication that this is a possibility. Starting off a discussion by (unnecessarily) stating what you stated above is extremely counter-productive. Simply ask yourself what good could it possibly do. 
 :Moreover, critiquing another editor's position as being driven by that editor's personal opinions and points of view is not an ""accusation"" and is not a personal attack. When I say, ""Aw, you're saying this only because you feel strongly about it"" or ""because you allow your personal opinions to influence your stance"", it is not a personal attack. Let this be absolutely clear. 
 :Internet discussions on polarising subjects (or even on trivial issues) more often than not degenerate into personal animosity and flame wars, if a consensus is not reached early on. It has always been my contention that we internet travelers should be, individually, exercising restraint in our exchanges, generally speaking.  
 :You invoke the comparison, made by Santorum, of homosexuality to paedophilia and bestiality as ""ordinarily"" and ""predictably"" causing a backlash. But by whom? I happen, as I already stated many times over, an opponent of almost everything Santorum stands for - and that includes his ridiculous stance on homosexuality. (On which, I happen to personally believe that one simply cannot have a ""moral position""; it is what it is. One cannot have a ""moral position"" on blonde hair or river banks.) As things stand, it's not some small minority among the American public, not to mention the world at large, that holds Santorum's views as being largely correct! Successive polls clearly indicate as much, though they also indicate a progress towards enlightment and increasing tolerance. Hence, there can be no case made that a backlash should be ""ordinarily"" or ""predictably"" expected, except by activists on the issue. But activists (of any issue) will always act and react, by definition, so characterizing their actions and reactions as ""ordinary"" or ""predictable"" is a redundancy. 
 :You wrote ""When a politician or other public figure makes a statement comparing some person or group of people to, say, Nazis, dog fuckers, pedophiles, street criminals, or any other deplorably-behaved people, or heaps praise on someone or something that actually is connected with something similarly unsavory."" 
 :Barack Obama has repeatedly and prominently being accused of being or acting like a ""socialist"", a ""racist"", a ""hater of whites"", a ""Muslim terrorist"", an ""enemy agent"", etc etc. There has been ""backlash"" to that commentary but not nearly as much as those wild accusations would normally merit! But that's my opinion! I would find it ""normal"" if the majority of the media and both parties would rise up and confront the bigots and the smearers. In other words, what we see, from our point of view, as normal or predictable might be seen by others as abnormal or unpredictable. Therefore, a neutral point of view sees neither. 
 :The stance of many editors voting to keep the articles separate (and, thus, more prominent) is driven clearly and mostly by personal motivation, rather than Wiki rules, as shown by some comments. (Some did not even bother to justify their voting; others simply asserted ""for the 30th fucking time - Yes!"") Of course, this goes both ways: Supporters of Santorum or his positions are rallying to his ""cause"". This means more work to maintain neutrality. 
 :You wrote ""The fact that for almost a decade, enough internet searches have ended with a click that makes Rick Santorum's name into a disgusting joke - is notable"". Sorry but I simply do not think that this fact (which, we agree, is a fact) does not justify independent notability. And indepence of notability is what it's all about. As you wrote, ""Dan Savage's reaction to Santorum's comments does not fall under [the] ordinary and predictable strain of reaction,"" which means that Savage's has been an extraordinary effort indeed. Google searches present an artificially inflated picture of notoriety because of a trivial google-bombing campaign.  Yet, despite that effort, ""it is not clear that the neologism,"" as you wrote, ""is actually in widespread use as...(indeed many would argue it is clearly not in such use)"". Exactly! Which means that we cannot take the ""effort"" as something notable in itself and isolate it from the issue of Santorums' controversial positions on homosexuality, esecially since the neologism never acquired independent traction. It should be patently cl