General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRick Santorum Wants Your Sex Life to Be 'Special'
(yes that really is the title in the article)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/rick-santorum-wants-your-sex-life-to-be-special/253104/
What separates issues that are in the proper purview of politics from matters best left to individuals? I'd hate to draw that line for everyone, but watching Rick Santorum in the much-discussed interview above, I'm confident in declaring that he's put himself on the wrong side of it.
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.
Barf.
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)And his right to control how, where and when it happens.
He's a sick puppy.
The Genealogist
(4,723 posts)I know you are obsessed with what people do sexually with each other, Frothman, but normal people tend to think people like you need professional help.
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Isn't that special!
The whole Humanae Vitae box and dice.
niyad
(113,323 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,942 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Yes, just tell a modern nation of 300 million struggling to pay for the children they already have that you are against sex unless it is 'procreative'.
I think taking a short sword and disembowling ones-self is much more quick and painless than the cuts that will result from the above position and statement.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I'm beginning to think none of these creeps in the pug party really want to win (maybe a Norquist directive) so they just come out with the most outrageous stuff they can think of and are laughing amongst themselves at their secret water buffalo meetings.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i cane to the same conclusion. they know they are doomed, so they are going for broke with all types of crazy shit.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)jmowreader
(50,559 posts)That's a word that went out of fashion what, eighty or ninety years ago? Kinda like the concept that the only reason you should have sex is if you want a baby.
I kinda expect him to get up on the stump in a zoot suit talking about your kids "tryin' out Bevo, tryin' out Cubebs, trying tailor-mades like cigarette fiends," then headin' to the dance at the Armory. (Yes, those words are from "Ya Got Trouble" from The Music Man.)
saras
(6,670 posts)Zookeeper
(6,536 posts)That darned artificial birth control went and ruined our perfect society where only married heterosexuals had sex, solely to make babies and only in the missionary position. (Lights out!)
Is Ricky planning to write down for us, what we are and aren't allowed to do? How is he planning to monitor our compliance? What new guidelines and limitations will he come up with next month?
He is such a creepy, pervy, pious, self-righteous little pr**k!
xfundy
(5,105 posts)of Santorum.
Yecch.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)during the fertile window in his wife's cycle? I mean, you cannot remove 'any' part of it and it still be sanctioned apparently.
sP