Rick Santorum Wants Your Sex Life to Be 'Special'

[asaratis]

Special people need sex too

**** you and your jokes about physically challenged children...just **** YOU!

What's your problem? I said he was special.

It was a derogatory comment poking fun at people that had nothing to do with and cannot change the way they are. You are having a laugh at their problem. Like I said...**** you!

 

[BluePhantom]

nothing.....within a marriage....

outside of marriage it becomes a little more dicey...for example separating the physical from the meaningful can lead to an empty life....

I am married.

Why does Rick care about what we do behind closed doors?

i think he cares more about unmarried young people mislead by the lefties who promote premarital sex....which leads to all kinds of problems that fall into society's lap....such as abortion, fatherless babies, and poverty....

I hate to inform you of this but conservatives **** outside of marriage too. Sex scandals in D.C. don't seem to be limited to only liberals. Divorce due to infidelity is not exclusively a liberal phenomenon. Children of conservatives experiment just as much as liberal ones. I dated a pastor's daughter once in high school. Trust me on this point.

Now as far as abortion, fatherless children, etc....yeah...that's a problem. Hence the reason why I endorse rubbers. The reality of the situation is that, with only rare exceptions, once a person starts ******* they continue ******* for the rest of their lives and there's very little a parent or government can do about it. Believe me...if they are motivated to do so they will find a way to put the puck in the net.

Now for my daughters I would far rather that they have rubbers in hand than a baby in their womb or a disease that kills them. I also know that when the blood starts pumping they are not going to hold off simply because they don't have any protection. They will roll the dice because, as my father put it so eloquently, "a hard dick has no conscience". Now you may argue that is promoting sexual activity. I respond that if they are sexually active it matters not one iota if I promote or discourage it. They're going to do it.

You are free to do as you wish with your children in that regard, but that's a parenting decision NOT a policy issue.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Still waiting. Show me the Republicans that have ever banned birth control.

 

[BluePhantom]

Still waiting. Show me the Republicans that have ever banned birth control.

Ok first of all I am not a liberal. Second of all, no one said that Republicans have ever banned birth control. They couldn't if they wanted to. It would never pass Congress. However there are puh-lenty of conservatives who favor banning birth control. Most are extreme religious conservatives who take that position, not your run of the mill moderate Republican like myself. Santorum, at least on this issue, appears to be in the camp of the former.

Connecticut also banned contraception until it was ruled unconstitutional in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut. While the actual vote on passage of that law (in 1879) is unknown it's pretty safe to assume it was supported by Republicans as Connecticut was solidly Republican until about 1960.

Here's a couple links though since you demand it.

"In the essay already cited, Phil Lawler argues that, as a matter of Constitutional law properly understood, the several States can ban the sale of contraceptives. He goes on to ask: “But why stop there…. Should the states ban the sale of contraceptives?” And he answers: “Absolutely.”

In Depth Analysis : Banning Contraception? The Art of the Possible - Catholic Culture

Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control | ThinkProgress

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[koshergrl]

Still waiting. Show me the Republicans that have ever banned birth control.

Ok first of all I am not a liberal. Second of all, no one said that Republicans have ever banned birth control. They couldn't if they wanted to. It would never pass Congress. However there are puh-lenty of conservatives who favor banning birth control. Most are extreme religious conservatives who take that position, not your run of the mill moderate Republican like myself. Santorum, at least on this issue, appears to be in the camp of the former.

Connecticut also banned contraception until it was ruled unconstitutional in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut. While the actual vote on passage of that law (in 1879) is unknown it's pretty safe to assume it was supported by Republicans as Connecticut was solidly Republican until about 1960.

Here's a couple links though since you demand it.

"In the essay already cited, Phil Lawler argues that, as a matter of Constitutional law properly understood, the several States can ban the sale of contraceptives. He goes on to ask: “But why stop there…. Should the states ban the sale of contraceptives?” And he answers: “Absolutely.”

In Depth Analysis : Banning Contraception? The Art of the Possible - Catholic Culture

Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control | ThinkProgress

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there are 3-4 posts in this thread where lefty idiots claim someone (they carefully don't name names) wants to ban contraceptives.

Which is why I keep asking...who wants to ban contraceptive use?

Shall I quote those posts?

 

[koshergrl]

So did anyone ever clarify exactly who it was that was trying to ban contraception as asserted, repeatedly????

No, I didn't think so.

I think this thread has gone just about as far as it's going to.

Read the OP Kosher. Santorum is going on about contraception and his opposition to it. IL correctly notes that his opinion extends to married couples as well. Santorum's position seems to be that sex without the possibility of pregnancy is unacceptable, married or unmarried. Fine...I have no problem with him holding his own opinion. But when he says "it's an important public policy issue" that's where I draw the line.

As the Screeching Turkey has yet to comprehend, if Santorum had simply said "I encourage abstinence before marriage" I may agree with him. If he would have said "I encourage responsible sexual activity in order to decrease the rates of abortion, dependence on government, etc" I would certainly agree with him. When he implies that it's the government's responsibility to take action about it, I say "go **** yourself. Worry about jobs and the debt".

Yes, I read the OP. Still trying to figure out where he said anything about banning contraceptives.

 

[koshergrl]

I had sex with my girlfriend last night. And this morning. And this afternoon. In large part thanks to her birth control, not to mention the wine and chocolates, it was very special. We have no need to be procreative.

Sometimes (quite often) birth control fails.

In which case, if you don't want a baby, you'll have to kill it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Still waiting. Show me the Republicans that have ever banned birth control.

Ok first of all I am not a liberal. Second of all, no one said that Republicans have ever banned birth control. They couldn't if they wanted to. It would never pass Congress. However there are puh-lenty of conservatives who favor banning birth control. Most are extreme religious conservatives who take that position, not your run of the mill moderate Republican like myself. Santorum, at least on this issue, appears to be in the camp of the former.

Connecticut also banned contraception until it was ruled unconstitutional in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut. While the actual vote on passage of that law (in 1879) is unknown it's pretty safe to assume it was supported by Republicans as Connecticut was solidly Republican until about 1960.

Here's a couple links though since you demand it.

"In the essay already cited, Phil Lawler argues that, as a matter of Constitutional law properly understood, the several States can ban the sale of contraceptives. He goes on to ask: “But why stop there…. Should the states ban the sale of contraceptives?” And he answers: “Absolutely.”

In Depth Analysis : Banning Contraception? The Art of the Possible - Catholic Culture

Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control | ThinkProgress

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there are 3-4 posts in this thread where lefty idiots claim someone (they carefully don't name names) wants to ban contraceptives.

Which is why I keep asking...who wants to ban contraceptive use?

Shall I quote those posts?

Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control | ThinkProgress

Rick Santorum reiterated his belief that states should have the right to outlaw contraception during an interview with ABC News yesterday, saying, “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.” Watch the Jake Tapper interview:

Santorum has long opposed the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling “that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception” and has also pledged to completely defund federal funding for contraception if elected president. As he told CaffeinatedThoughts.com editor Shane Vander Hart in October, “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

 

[koshergrl]

Refusing government funds and "banning" are the same now?

That's what I thought. You are lying through your teeth.

 

[koshergrl]

Think progress...lol...

 

[koshergrl]

He has never proposed banning contraceptives.

He believes in states' rights.

"Santorum says if people have a problem with the laws in their state, they can just take their frustration to the voting booth.
"You shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things," he told Tapper. "You should let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things, get rid of the legislature and replace them."

Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy

 

[BluePhantom]

So did anyone ever clarify exactly who it was that was trying to ban contraception as asserted, repeatedly????

No, I didn't think so.

I think this thread has gone just about as far as it's going to.

Read the OP Kosher. Santorum is going on about contraception and his opposition to it. IL correctly notes that his opinion extends to married couples as well. Santorum's position seems to be that sex without the possibility of pregnancy is unacceptable, married or unmarried. Fine...I have no problem with him holding his own opinion. But when he says "it's an important public policy issue" that's where I draw the line.

As the Screeching Turkey has yet to comprehend, if Santorum had simply said "I encourage abstinence before marriage" I may agree with him. If he would have said "I encourage responsible sexual activity in order to decrease the rates of abortion, dependence on government, etc" I would certainly agree with him. When he implies that it's the government's responsibility to take action about it, I say "go **** yourself. Worry about jobs and the debt".

Yes, I read the OP. Still trying to figure out where he said anything about banning contraceptives.

He didn't specifically say "I will ban contraception" nor did I ever imply that he would...at least I didn't intend to. But he states that the use of contraception is "an important public policy issue" and he opposes the SCOTUS decision on Griswold v. Connecticut. All I am saying is "no it's not a public policy issue....the government has neither the right nor responsibility to provide or ban the use of contraception". It's none of their business.

His comments and his opposition to the Griswold v. Connecticut decision in combination with his staunch Catholic faith suggest that he would support a ban on contraception. That's not to say that he would attempt to enact one, but he clearly favors the right of the states to do so if they wish....which according to the SCOTUS is unconstitutional.

What this boils down to is Santorum stating that the use of contraception is the government's concern. I am simply saying it's not.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, what Santorum says is that the use of contraception is NOT the government's concern, but the concern of individuals. He doesn't think the government should pay for it, but he thinks individual states have the right to decide what they want and what they don't want.

I'm sorry you live in opposite land.

 

[Dot Com]

"One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea... It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative.

That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure. And that's certainly a part of it--and it's an important part of it, don't get me wrong--but there's a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special. Again, I know most presidents don't talk about those things, and maybe people don't want us to talk about those things, but I think it's important that you are who you are. I'm not running for preacher.

I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues."

Rick Santorum Wants Your Sex Life to Be 'Special' - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic

Every Sperm is Sacred - YouTube

 

[BluePhantom]

Actually, what Santorum says is that the use of contraception is NOT the government's concern, but the concern of individuals. He doesn't think the government should pay for it, but he thinks individual states have the right to decide what they want and what they don't want.

I'm sorry you live in opposite land.

I don't think the government should pay for it either. I agree with him on that point...and he is certainly free to hold the opinion that if a state wants to ban it they can. But that by definition means that government has the right to provide or ban. The Supreme Court clearly disagrees with him as do I. Opposite land, my ass. Government intrusion is government intrusion whether it provides or bans contraception and whether it is at the federal or state level. It's still government setting policy on what we can or cannot do in regards to our sexual practices.

The government, federal or state, has no right to take a position either way. Again.....the Supreme Court appears to agree with me.

 

[koshergrl]

I see government intrusion as the federal government and supreme court justices telling states what their government must pay for.

Opposite land.

 

[BluePhantom]

I see government intrusion as the federal government and supreme court justices telling states what their government must pay for.

Opposite land.

Ok how many times do I have to say that I do not support tax dollars being used to provide contraception? Is there another language everyone might understand more clearly?

How about these:

No creo los impuestos deben ser gastados para dar a la gente anticoncepción.

Je ne crois pas les impôts devraient être dépensés à donner aux gens la contraception.

Ich glaube nicht, daß Steuern ausgegeben werden soll, den Menschen zur Empfängnisverhütung.

Я не думаю, что налоги должны расходоваться на цели предоставления людям средств контрацепции.

私は税金が避妊を与えるに使われるべきであるとは考えていない。

Is that enough or would you like it in Mandarin too?

Just as the states or federal government have no right to say that contraception must be provided, neither do they have a right to ban it. Santorum endorses the position that states have the right to ban it. Sorry...no they don't.

 

[Montrovant]

I see government intrusion as the federal government and supreme court justices telling states what their government must pay for.

Opposite land.

Ok how many times do I have to say that I do not support tax dollars being used to provide contraception? Is there another language everyone might understand more clearly?

How about these:

No creo los impuestos deben ser gastados para dar a la gente anticoncepción.

Je ne crois pas les impôts devraient être dépensés à donner aux gens la contraception.

Ich glaube nicht, daß Steuern ausgegeben werden soll, den Menschen zur Empfängnisverhütung.

Я не думаю, что налоги должны расходоваться на цели предоставления людям средств контрацепции.

私は税金が避妊を与えるに使われるべきであるとは考えていない。

Is that enough or would you like it in Mandarin too?

Just as the states or federal government have no right to say that contraception must be provided, neither do they have a right to ban it. Santorum endorses the position that states have the right to ban it. Sorry...no they don't.

 

[BluePhantom]

You seem, Kosher, to be of the belief that Griswold v. Connecticut had to do with state government refusing to provide contraception. No. The law being challenged banned any drug or device meant to prevent conception even in private sale or possession. In other words it was illegal for a drug store to sell rubbers. People were arrested for selling rubbers. The state government wasn't providing anything. That law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Santorum's position is that he disagrees with that ruling and that state governments should be allowed to ban the private sale or distribution of contraception.

There is no reasonable argument that can be made against the use of contraception that is not grounded in religious belief although Screeching Turkey tried with the "rubbers leads to rape" line of reasoning. Interesting approach but I think any rational person will conclude that's a total line of bullshit. Thank you very much but I prefer that the government keeps its nose out of religious motivated issues. If someone wishes not to use contraception because of their faith, that's completely their business. If someone else does not subscribe to that religious belief they should not be forced to go without contraception simply because someone else thinks that spilling your seed on the road will land you in the fiery pits of hell.

For me, I will spill it on the road, I will spill it with a toad. I will spill it on a tree, religious zealots let me be. On a stoop or in a group. With a flower or in the shower. I will spill it on my knees, I will spill it where I please!

 

[koshergrl]

And as far as I can see (and I'm not a follower of Santorum, I'm just going by what is on here) Santorum hasn't ENDORSED the law so much as he supports the right of states to pass such laws.

You go right ahead and spill wherever you like, I have exactly zero interest in where you're spilling it. My only objection is to claiming you have the right to kill the babies that are the result of your spilling...