Santorum doesn't think people should use birth control, even married couples!

[kenobi_65]

@Swords_to_Plowshares

I know a lot of conservatives, a lot of Catholics, and a lot of conservative Catholics, and I have never heard any non-clergy member advocate that position.

But how many of them have run for office? Santorum, especially because he’s running on a moral conservatism platform, as well as making his faith a central part of his run, likely can’t afford to take any stance that strays from his church’s doctrine without it coming back to bite him in the butt.

[Marley23]

@Swords_to_Plowshares

I know a lot of conservatives, a lot of Catholics, and a lot of conservative Catholics, and I have never heard any non-clergy member advocate that position.

Sorry, maybe I’m not being specific enough. You’ve never heard anyone but clergy say that nobody should use contraception, even married couples?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Steve_MB

The more times the GOP Base hears the GOP Establishment repeating “Dude, you’re getting a Romney… so STFU!”, the more entertained I am at the spectacle.

The former gave the latter a nice tiger ride for a while, and now the tiger is hungry.

If they can’t nominate a conservative this year, then they just can’t nominate a conservative.

[Rhythmdvl]

@Swords_to_Plowshares

I know a lot of conservatives, a lot of Catholics, and a lot of conservative Catholics, and I have never heard any non-clergy member advocate that position.

Definitive, authoritative cite.

[Enderw24]

@dorsk188

reluctant sex after church

Choir name!

[Simplicio]

@Swords_to_Plowshares

I know a lot of conservatives, a lot of Catholics, and a lot of conservative Catholics, and I have never heard any non-clergy member advocate that position.

I’ve known Catholics that only use the rhythm method for contraception (and only have sex when married), so they’re out there. But even amongst the ranks of conservative Catholics I suspect its pretty far from a universally followed teaching.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Jenaroph

What’s the next step, sending the Fuck Police to your bedroom to make sure you and your partner are doin’ it right?

I am interested in applying for a position with this organization, but first I have to see what the uniforms look like.

[Enderw24]

The Fuck Police, they work inside your bed
The Fuck Police, for when your wife’s giving head.

[Voyager]

@Rhythmdvl

Or is this a legal question of states rights? That he thinks the courts overreached in Griswold v. WallyWorld (I think that’s the case) and that the expansion of a national right to privacy, the expansion that makes both contraception and abortion off the table for state legislatures, is wrong and should be reversed. Is it really just a “this is a matter for state control” with prurient examples?

ETA:
Doesn’t he mean something simple like sex out of wedlock?

From the link in the OP

Among those important public policy issues: Sex for fun. In the same video, Santorum bemoans sex becoming “deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.”

Griswold was about contraception information to married couples, so sex in wedlock is being attacked also. At my age all sex is purely for pleasure - a no-no for him.

In a GD thread, I think, I posted a quote from George Wallace from 1963 where he defended standing in the University of Alabama door to keep out black students on states rights grounds also. Odd how state bans on abortions and contraception would be fine, but state acceptance of gay marriage is awful.

The Times Magazine covered the evangelical movement against birth control a few years ago. It is where they want to go if they win the abortion fight. Their first strategy is to start spreading lies about how dangerous the pill is.

If he isn’t an extremist, I don’t know who is.

[Ann_Hedonia]

@Marley23

Sorry, maybe I’m not being specific enough. You’ve never heard anyone but clergy say that nobody should use contraception, even married couples?

This guy
“I think contraception is disgusting – people using each other for pleasure.” - Joe Schneider, Director: Pro Life Action League August 1985

[Jenaroph]

@Rhythmdvl

Can anyone pull quotes from the video? Is he actually advocating policy? Or is it a case where someone finds he holds this wacky (to them) worldview and it’s getting traction? That is, if someone were to find out my disdain and general loathing of reality television, they’d ask me about it in interviews. I can be honest about what I think of it and that I honestly believe people shouldn’t watch it, but would have nothing to do with my policy views or candidacy in general.

ETA:
Doesn’t he mean something simple like sex out of wedlock?

I listened where dorsk188 indicated, around 17:00, and he’s speaking of when he’s president he’ll work on repealing Obamacare, cutting funding for programs for contraception and abortion, and other such laws, mainly because Won’t Somebody Think of All The Unborn and Yet Unconceived Children, not because of states’ rights.

Re the ETA: Still possible without contraception. And given his track record on comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, incest, and bestiality, I doubt that was all he had in mind.

[Swords_to_Plowshares]

@Marley23

Sorry, maybe I’m not being specific enough. You’ve never heard anyone but clergy say that nobody should use contraception, even married couples?

No, I haven’t, and I come from a very large conservative Catholic family. Maybe some believed it but they didn’t advocate it.

[John_Mace]

@Jas09

Well, sort of. The standard Catholic position, from the conservative Catholics I know, is that it is a sin to use contraception to prevent pregnancy but that the state doesn’t have a right to ban them. So basically current law.

As I recall, Santorum believes that SCOTUS was wrong in Griswold when they decided that states can’t ban contraception - he hasn’t advocated for a national ban, AFAIK, but does think that states should be able to (and should in fact) limit and/or ban them. He has extended this to laws against sodomy as well, and also believes states should not allow for no-fault divorce.

Best post in the thread. The link provides no details about what Santorum thinks public policy should be, only that he sees lots of “problems” with birth control. I assume that he’s focused more on sex outside marriage than anything else, but I could be wrong.

As for this being standard Catholic doctrine… yes, but I think it is only a tiny minority of US Catholics who abide by it. Large Catholic families (like Santorum’s) are rare these days, considering 25% of the country is Catholic. Similarly, the % of pro-choice Catholics is pretty much the same as the population as a whole.

[aruvqan]

@Jas09

Well, sort of. The standard Catholic position, from the conservative Catholics I know, is that it is a sin to use contraception to prevent pregnancy but that the state doesn’t have a right to ban them. So basically current law.

As I recall, Santorum believes that SCOTUS was wrong in Griswold when they decided that states can’t ban contraception - he hasn’t advocated for a national ban, AFAIK, but does think that states should be able to (and should in fact) limit and/or ban them. He has extended this to laws against sodomy as well, and also believes states should not allow for no-fault divorce.

Sorry, last I heard there was both a separation of church and state, and that our country was more or less founded by protestants, not catholics.

I am not catholic, and categorically refuse to be forced to act like I was. I am not the only person in the country that refuses to become catholic just because some damned politician wants to make us all toe the line.

[moldmonkey]

I didn’t know much about him until this NPR story today.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/05/144752778/spotlight-shines-on-late-riser-rick-santorum

“They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, we shouldn’t get involved in bedroom, shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues, well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone, that there is no such society that I am aware of where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture,” Santorum said in a 2005 interview on NPR.

I don’t use this word often but that is goddamn anti-American. Hopefully, this ass clown will last about as long as the rest of the anybody-but-Romney crowd with the spotlight on him.

[John_Mace]

@moldmonkey

I don’t use this word often but that is goddamn anti-American.

So now you know how some people feel about the individual mandate in the HCRB.

[Steve_MB]

@moldmonkey

I don’t use this word often but that is goddamn anti-American.

To the extent that this authoritarian mindset is informed by his Roman Catholic religiosity, one imagines the century-and-a-half-dead ghosts of American Know-Nothing Party voters crying, “See! I told you so!!”

[j666]

@John_Mace

As for this being standard Catholic doctrine… yes, but I think it is only a tiny minority of US Catholics who abide by it. Large Catholic families (like Santorum’s) are rare these days,…

Maybe they are just very sophisticated at bio-monitoring?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@BrainGlutton

OTOH, Romney will be needing a running mate . . . One who can appeal to hard-right voters . . . You know it won’t be Paul, and who could stand to share the podium with Gingrich?!

There’s Huckabee, heck even Perry’s better.

[Lemur866]

@John_Mace

Best post in the thread. The link provides no details about what Santorum thinks public policy should be, only that he sees lots of “problems” with birth control. I assume that he’s focused more on sex outside marriage than anything else, but I could be wrong.

Here’s the quote:

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

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.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold—Griswold was the contraceptive case—and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you—this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality—

AP: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about “man on dog” with a United States senator, it’s sort of freaking me out.