Rick Santorum Wants Your Sex Life to Be 'Special'

[BluePhantom]

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...

Who said a word about killing babies? This isn't about abortion, it's about using a rubber.

 

[koshergrl]

My point is that despite the claims that this thread topic shows some sort of desire on the part of Santorum to BAN contraceptives, I can't find anything whatever that supports that.

 

[BlindBoo]

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...

Hmmm, and the state used to have legal slavery laws on their books too. The Rebel use to think that too.

 

[BluePhantom]

My point is that despite the claims that this thread topic shows some sort of desire on the part of Santorum to BAN contraceptives, I can't find anything whatever that supports that.

I am not claiming that he particularly intends to. Santorum does hold the personal belief that contraception should be eliminated from society (and let's not BS around here, that belief is based on his unwavering adherence to his Catholic faith) and that doing so on a state level would be legal. He stops short of saying "as President I would attempt to ban it" and frankly I don't think he would even bother trying because it would have no prayer in hell of passing.

But his statements and his position on Griswold v. Connecticut support and encourage states to do so themselves. He defines in his statement what a "perfect sexual union" is and indicates that anything else is unacceptable and follows by saying "it's an important public policy issue". So what he is implying (somewhat directly actually) is that it IS the government's business to define for the people what is acceptable sexual practices and what is not. When he says "it's an important public policy issue" he is saying in effect: "it's the government's business".

 

[koshergrl]

I don't see that implication at all.

And I never said that you, specifically, claimed that he was seeking to ban contraceptives. Though it appears to me that IS what you are saying, while at the same time you're saying you're not saying it...

 

[Mustang]

There's got to be something wrong with Santorum. I say that because I think it's pretty darn strange for a grown man to care about other people's sex lives. I could understand it if he was a therapist who counseled people on personal issues affecting the quality of their lives. But a politician running for higher office? It's just plain strange. I would expect him to focus his attention on bigger issues...national issues.

 

[BluePhantom]

I don't see that implication at all.

And I never said that you, specifically, claimed that he was seeking to ban contraceptives. Though it appears to me that IS what you are saying, while at the same time you're saying you're not saying it...

I think he is taking a safer route. It would be political suicide to say "as president I will ban contraception", but he is playing the political game of indicating agreement with the concept of such a ban on the state level (outside the President's authority). That way he gets support from the ultra-conservatives who favor such a thing while being able to say to those who don't support it "I never said I would do it myself".

However, I think if one's combines his faith, his statements, his positions on related matters it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that supports such a ban whether he necessarily is willing to take action upon it himself or not. But what it does strongly indicate is his belief that religious faith is a legitimate basis upon which to set policy. There are rare times when I may or may not agree with that concept, but in the area of human sexuality I say "absolutely no way"

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't see that implication at all.

And I never said that you, specifically, claimed that he was seeking to ban contraceptives. Though it appears to me that IS what you are saying, while at the same time you're saying you're not saying it...

I think he is taking a safer route. It would be political suicide to say "as president I will ban contraception", but he is playing the political game of indicating agreement with the concept of such a ban on the state level (outside the President's authority). That way he gets support from the ultra-conservatives who favor such a thing while being able to say to those who don't support it "I never said I would do it myself".

However, I think if one's combines his faith, his statements, his positions on related matters it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that supports such a ban whether he necessarily is willing to take action upon it himself or not. But what it does strongly indicate is his belief that religious faith is a legitimate basis upon which to set policy. There are rare times when I may or may not agree with that concept, but in the area of human sexuality I say "absolutely no way"

you're barking up the wrong tree as usual.....claiming Santorum's religion is the main reason for supporting a state's right to ban contraception....as you say ..."outside the President's authority"....[wtf i thot congress made law not the prez but that is another argument]

Santorum (as many here have already pointed out) has NOT supported ANY ban on contraception and his reason for opposing the Griswold case was based on his belief in STATES RIGHTS.....which i've pointed out before....

just because states might create a dumbass statute does not mean that people have to run immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court to create some new "right".....like the "right to contraceptives"......

Griswold v Connecticut was about a very OLD state statute created way back in 1879 that banned contraceptives even for married couples. I'm sure like a lot of old laws nobody was even paying attention to it. It is very interesting that it was PLANNED PARENTHOOD that brought this statute and the whole issue into the court system which resulted in the 1965 Griswold v Connecticut case.....which of course paved the way for Roe v Wade in 1973....this should make one take pause.....

conclusion.....Santorum knows what he's talking about....and it's not about taking away your stupid ******* rubbers....

 

[koshergrl]

I don't see that implication at all.

And I never said that you, specifically, claimed that he was seeking to ban contraceptives. Though it appears to me that IS what you are saying, while at the same time you're saying you're not saying it...

I think he is taking a safer route. It would be political suicide to say "as president I will ban contraception", but he is playing the political game of indicating agreement with the concept of such a ban on the state level (outside the President's authority). That way he gets support from the ultra-conservatives who favor such a thing while being able to say to those who don't support it "I never said I would do it myself".

However, I think if one's combines his faith, his statements, his positions on related matters it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that supports such a ban whether he necessarily is willing to take action upon it himself or not. But what it does strongly indicate is his belief that religious faith is a legitimate basis upon which to set policy. There are rare times when I may or may not agree with that concept, but in the area of human sexuality I say "absolutely no way"

Lol..so what you do is you speak to a point that has never been made, based on what you THINK he's THINKING.

 

[BluePhantom]

you're barking up the wrong tree as usual.....claiming Santorum's religion is the main reason for supporting a state's right to ban contraception....as you say ..."outside the President's authority"....[wtf i thot congress made law not the prez but that is another argument]

Oh come on....don't be such a fool. He based his argument on a moral code endorsed by his Catholic faith and his interpretation of acceptable sexual practices also endorsed by his Catholic faith. To suggest that his opinion is not based upon a religious perspective is flat out ridiculous.

Santorum (as many here have already pointed out) has NOT supported ANY ban on contraception and his reason for opposing the Griswold case was based on his belief in STATES RIGHTS.....which i've pointed out before....

And which I have pointed out to you before has already been determined to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS

just because states might create a dumbass statute does not mean that people have to run immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court to create some new "right".....like the "right to contraceptives"......

Apparently they do since people were still getting arrested for distributing contraceptives as recently as 1976

Griswold v Connecticut was about a very OLD state statute created way back in 1879 that banned contraceptives even for married couples. I'm sure like a lot of old laws nobody was even paying attention to it.

Hence the reason why people got arrested for violating it as recently as the early 1960s

conclusion.....Santorum knows what he's talking about....and it's not about taking away your stupid ******* rubbers....

Actually the conclusion is that Santorum is an ultra-religious individual who feels his religiously influenced opinions are a valid basis for government policy despite multiple instances of the Supreme Court disagreeing.

 

[BluePhantom]

Lol..so what you do is you speak to a point that has never been made, based on what you THINK he's THINKING.

If I see a tiger tail hanging out of a bush it's safe to assume there is a tiger attached to it, Kosher. I don't need to see its entire body to know not to pull on that tail.

 

[koshergrl]

You're full of shit. Imagining what someone really means, and pretending that's what they "mean" based upon nothing they've said is just lying. Sorry.

 

[koshergrl]

And if someone were to say "Obama likes chicken because most blacks like chicken" they would be called a bigot.

You're saying that because he's a Christian, you can "tell" what he really means, even though he hasn't said anything like it. You're a bigot. And a liar.

 

[Montrovant]

And if someone were to say "Obama likes chicken because most blacks like chicken" they would be called a bigot.

You're saying that because he's a Christian, you can "tell" what he really means, even though he hasn't said anything like it. You're a bigot. And a liar.

I'm curious what you took from the quotes in OP, in which Santorum discusses why contraception is bad and then describes his comments as important to public policy? That certainly sounds to me as though he feels the government should get involved with whether or not people use contraception. If you got something different from his statements, perhaps you could share that and I might see that I am misinterpreting things.

 

[koshergrl]

Doesn't sound that way at all to me. He never says that he thinks government should ban contraception.

 

[Montrovant]

Perhaps not ban contraceptives, but do you think his use of the phrase 'public policy issues' means he feels government involvement is called for? If that is what he's saying, and considering the views on contraception he put forth, it's not a stretch to say he'd like to see a ban. I'll agree he in no way said, "If elected president, I plan to push a ban" or anything of the sort. It was more of an insinuation, "I don't think people should use contraception. I think government should be involved in contraception issues.". It's fairly vague, but I think the problem I (and perhaps others) have is just that these comments, when taken together with some of the other things I've heard attributed to Santorum, leads me to question if a ban on contraceptives might not be what he would ultimately like to see.

I'll admit that my bias might be causing me to read more into the comments than I should.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

He's lying. What he wants is to stop people from having sex EXCEPT for the purpose of procreation. All you have to do is reas what he has said to know that's true.

We know he is against contraception and abortion. Then there's this -

Obama To Reporter Asking About Contraception Ruling: 'Come On Guys' (VIDEO)

Santorum wants abortion banned in all circumstances, even in cases of rape and incest; is opposed to all family planning programs; and believes that schools should be forbidden to teach students about contraception.

As senator, Santorum voted against funding pregnancy prevention programs for teens and voted for the "family cap" and the "illegitimacy cap," which would have financially penalized low-income women for having children and penalized states for children born out of wedlock.

That leaves only two possibilities - no sex at all or sex only for procreation. And, he'll be peeking in your windows to make sure you follow his incredibly backward beliefs. This guy has some very real problems and they should not become the problems of the women in this country.

(Note that the above quote is about half way down, #4 of the slides.)

 

[Peach]

He's lying. What he wants is to stop people from having sex EXCEPT for the purpose of procreation. All you have to do is reas what he has said to know that's true.

We know he is against contraception and abortion. Then there's this -

Obama To Reporter Asking About Contraception Ruling: 'Come On Guys' (VIDEO)

Santorum wants abortion banned in all circumstances, even in cases of rape and incest; is opposed to all family planning programs; and believes that schools should be forbidden to teach students about contraception.

As senator, Santorum voted against funding pregnancy prevention programs for teens and voted for the "family cap" and the "illegitimacy cap," which would have financially penalized low-income women for having children and penalized states for children born out of wedlock.

That leaves only two possibilities - no sex at all or sex only for procreation. And, he'll be peeking in your windows to make sure you follow his incredibly backward beliefs. This guy has some very real problems and they should not become the problems of the women in this country.

(Note that the above quote is about half way down, #4 of the slides.)

I can understand someone opposed to ALL abortions before I can those who make exceptions for rape & incest. How is the manner of conception relevant if life begins at conception?

 

[Amelia]

He's lying. What he wants is to stop people from having sex EXCEPT for the purpose of procreation. All you have to do is reas what he has said to know that's true.

We know he is against contraception and abortion. Then there's this -

Obama To Reporter Asking About Contraception Ruling: 'Come On Guys' (VIDEO)

Santorum wants abortion banned in all circumstances, even in cases of rape and incest; is opposed to all family planning programs; and believes that schools should be forbidden to teach students about contraception.

As senator, Santorum voted against funding pregnancy prevention programs for teens and voted for the "family cap" and the "illegitimacy cap," which would have financially penalized low-income women for having children and penalized states for children born out of wedlock.

That leaves only two possibilities - no sex at all or sex only for procreation. And, he'll be peeking in your windows to make sure you follow his incredibly backward beliefs. This guy has some very real problems and they should not become the problems of the women in this country.

(Note that the above quote is about half way down, #4 of the slides.)

I can understand someone opposed to ALL abortions before I can those who make exceptions for rape & incest. How is the manner of conception relevant if life begins at conception?

Not everyone who believes that elective abortion is wrong believes that personhood begins at conception.

It can be wrong for other reasons - in a nutshell, it's not a good solution to irresponsible behavior.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I've always thought of my sex life as "special" - especially when I have a willing woman partner.