crabby_lioness | Ric Santorum Disses All Married Couples, Straight As Well As Gay

Entry tags:

personal

Ric Santorum Disses All Married Couples, Straight As Well As Gay

Ric Santorum, a Republican presidential candidate who is not afraid to admit in front of a national audience that he doesn't understand the difference between a dog, a child, and an adult, or between a parental relationship and a marital relationship, has said some incredibly offensive things about gay married couples. So offensive, in fact, that it's possible many people have missed his other offensive statements against straight married couples.

Ric Santorum opposes birth control even when used by married couples because it is "disrespectful" of women and families and so "hurts" women and society. Think about it. If a particular straight married couple honestly decide that they would make terrible parents and choose not to have babies and not to inflict their complete lack of interest in children or child-rearing on the next generation, Santorum thinks they are being "disrespectful" of children and families. Really.

More commonly, if a married couple who want to have children choose to delay pregnancy for a few years in order to increase their own maturity and/or achieve a more stable financial base for their family, Santorum thinks they are "disrespectful" of women and families. Honest.

Or if a married couple with children decide to limit the number they have so they can spend more time parenting the offspring they've already got, Santorum believes they are "disrespectful".

It's worth noting that the reason birth control was sought after in the first place was to prevent married women from dying in childbirth after their uterus ruptured from too many pregnancies, a horrible but common occurrence 100 years ago. Santorum apparently thinks dying in childbirth is more "respectful" to women than living to care for the children they already have (or doing whatever else they choose to live for).

Of course without birth control more married women would die in childbirth and leave behind more orphaned children, significantly raising the number of single parent households in America. Their surviving children would suffer all the problems associated with being brought up in a single parent family; but hey, they would belong to "respectful" single parent families! Better be brought up in a "respectful" single parent family where the mother died trying to give birth than to be raised by two loving parents who "disrespected" the mother by not risking her health.

So to all the gay people upset about what Santorum has said about gay couples, You Are Not Alone. Santorum doesn't just hate all gay married couples. He hates all married couples, period. There's only one thing you can say about a man who tries to win the Presidency of a country where over 90% of people marry with such an attitude. Jesus, what a moron.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Not a moron, a would-be totalitarian despot; his ideas are pure fundamentalist Catholicism, including the notions that limiting the number of children in a family, let alone choosing to be childless, is "disrespectful" & "hurts" women & children. Those views only makes sense in the context of Catholic doctrine, & the most charitable thing I can say about that is that they're clinging to ideas that were arrived at during the late Roman Empire & reflect the social views & understanding of biology at that time.

You're being far too charitable. In The Pill: A Biography of the Drug That Changed the World Bernard Asbell devotes a chapter to how The Second Vatican Council was going to give their blessing to birth control until they heard Catholic married couples whose honest opinions they had sought out describe consensual sex as the most profound spiritual experience of their lives, which brought them far closer to God than anything they had ever experienced in church. THAT was when the Catholic Church decided that from the viewpoint of an authoritarian religion birth control was a Completely No Good, Very Bad Thing.

Interesting! I did not know that piece of Catholic Church history, but it doesn't surprise me one bit.

It's a great book, read it if you ever get the chance. Asbell was a English professor who believed historical non-fiction could be just as engrossing as the most outlandish thriller.

Sadly, I am not surprised by this. People who fail to realize how much politics are involved in religion really are fooling themselves. Too many doctrines and policies that shape organized religion come about strictly for reasons of political power, and have nothing at all to do with faith or God.

I will admit this is one reason I have never really found myself drawn to organized religion. There's a part of me that distrusts it.

Reeeaaally. I wasn't aware of that; I can sure see why the Vatican would consider it threatening for the laity to experience closeness to God in each other's arms rather than in church. What a bunch of power-crazed, perverted old sociopaths they are.

Not to mention the headlines. Church Quizzes Couples About Their Sex Lives would have been a sure winner if it had gotten outside The Catholic Register.

What a bunch of power-crazed, perverted old sociopaths they are.

Sometimes I just want to shorten that to "evil".

Fun things about him:

-His wife had a medically-necessary abortion to save her life. He readily admits to this, but also states he would deny that same proceedure to any OTHER woman in the exact same circumstances.

-He's stated children are better off with an imprisoned father than being raised by a gay couple.

-He believes that every young person having access to a college education is "elitist"

-He believes income inequality is a good thing, because gosh darnit! All rich people are rich because they're better, worked harder, and deserve it. (Ignoring, apparently, all those that are rich because they were born into wealth and are lazy, worthless excuses for human beings.) Also, ignoring the amount of poor people that literally work themselves into an early grave.

-Insurance companies denying those with pre-existing conditions coverage is perfectly reasonable and fair. He had to buy insurance for his special-needs child! ....which I guess is good that he's rich, since most of us cannot afford to pay thousands a month in health insurance. But we deserve it, in his opinion, because we're bad people that have made bad life decisions.

Yessiree, that plainly demonstrates the kind of clear-eyed thinking and problem-solving abilities that the leader of the world's greatest super-power needs to have -- not.

It also shows a Christian who hasn't spent enough time letting the words of Jesus Christ sink into his heart. "As you treat the least among you, so you treat me."

He really is a typical "Christian". Everything is looking down on others, and judging them, and believing clearly the reason they are sick, or poor, or whatever is because they are BAD PEOPLE. You know, all those things that Christ himself was not, and spoke out against. He was a man who spoke out for the poor, for the downtrodden, who fought against the corruption and greed within the Temple and the Roman government, who kept company with those considered by society to be "bad people". He was, in essence, everything that "Christians" like Santorum hate.

Yup. I picked up a KJV the other day to read to my children for Literature -- my own KJ was missing and I usually prefer other versions for reference purposes. I may make some rather pointed posts about that fact soon.

I will admit, I haven't really sat down and read the Bible. Much of my knowledge comes from my brother's long rambling lectures on theology, as it Judeo-Christian theology happens to be one of his passions. He himself converted to Judaism, but is also extremely well-versed in Christian theology as well. He tends to look at things through a historical and Jewish viewpoint, but between that and the History course I took last year, it brings things into interesting perspective.

I think that's one issue I have with people like my father, who take the Bible at face value with everything being completely accurate and literal. Historical context is very important to understanding things, I think. People need to step back and realize how things were handled in those times. I lovelove my teacher forever for touching on how, in the time of Jesus, something like Revelations would be essentially their version of our political satire. Not something to be taken quite literally, but understood as passing along a message through story.

(True fact: My brother likes to joke that Christians are "bizarro Jews from the square planet".)

Gandhi put it best, "Christianity is the greatest religion the world has ever seen. It's a pity no one practices it."

I agree, that really does sum it up. There is SO MUCH good there, and Jesus was perhaps one of the most amazing people to have ever lived. Regardless of whether or not you believe he was God/the Son of God, he stood up for the common decency of all. He stood for good things, and was not afraid to die for it. Too bad his message has been twisted and perverted for two-thousand years by people claiming to follow him.

Faith should be something that makes you a kinder, better person. It shouldn't be about feeling superior to others, or looking down on them. It should be about comforting a stranger when they cry, offering to help someone in need without strings attached, having a smile for the people you meet, and just generally.....countering all the negative in the world with a little bit of hope.

Not fire and brimstone.
Not sneering down your nose at others.
Not forcing someone to believe as you believe.
Not using your faith as a weapon.
Not deciding that anyone who is less fortunate is that way because they suck and deserve it.
Just....not putting more negative into the world.

Have you read Jack Spong? He's a retired Episcopalian Bishop who has written several books on how to interpret the Bible for modern times and using modern historical evidence. He believes Jesus was the adopted Son of God, that the real miracle was his life and his teachings, and that we should not be shackled to the more barbaric interpretations of the past. He is a champion of a liberal, progressive Christianity; and receives regular death threats from Fundamentalists. Every book he's written that I've read I enjoyed immensely.

http://johnshelbyspong.com/about-bishop-spong/

Just reading one of his sample essays, I have to say....yeah, he seems pretty damn amazing. Thank you for sharing. I had not heard of him, but I like what I am seeing now.

You're welcome. :)

Desmond Tutu is worth seeking out as well. It's not so easy to find his work online, as he tends to write books instead. He's not very tech savvy! Here's a couple of short pieces of his that make good reading though:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/sep/25/charter-compassion-tutu-armstrong

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/desmond-tutu/god-is-not-a-christian_b_869947.html

He's quite old now, and can be quite old fashioned in some ways, but in others he's strikingly liberal, and refreshingly pro-all-faiths, despite being a Christian bishop. He's pro-gay, too. It was lovely to hear him speaking along those lines on TV a few years back. Makes such a change from those who use their faith as an excuse to hate. He's another one who warns against literal interpretation of the Bible as well.

I'd be interested for both Santorums to explain how they justify her abortion, as the Church's policy for the last few hundred years has been no abortion, even to save a woman's life. & I'd like to see the Santorums stand in front of the cameras & explain to American women why her life is too precious to allow to be ended by a pregnancy gone wrong, but every other woman should be allowed to die.

I'd also be very interested for Ricky to explain how all students having access to higher education could possibly fall into the category of "elitist" when the definition of the word means the opposite.

Many years ago I observed a tendency among educated Catholics toward social Darwinist ideas; clearly, Rick Santorum is one of that type, & it makes me wonder just what the hell Catholics are learning in church.

I would too, but we know it won't ever happen. Not really, but the record stands that he is a hypocrite at best.

According to what I read, his attitude was that "If my child wanted to be an auto mechanic, I would still be proud" which......fails to address how wanting people to be college-educated is elitist. Auto mechanics have to go to school to do so, especially as cars become more and more complicated. Being educated is a good thing, and giving everyone the opportunity to go to college is a wonderful thing.

I've noticed that, too. And it just....bothers me, since Social Darwinism goes completely against the teachings of Christ.

Oh, man. Every time I think I've heard the absolute batshit outer limit in Republican 'ideology', along comes another gem, even more bizarre and jawdropping than the last.

I *used* to find a sour satisfaction in reading this sort of thing, because I'd welcome any utterance that helped discredit and otherwise make a laughing stock out of that party. I'd think 'good, keep on spouting this medieval illogical crap and that way you'll help yourselves be unelectable.' Now it just frightens me, though; I've seen too many presumed-unelectable wingnuts get elected.

What a thoroughly poisonous, throwback hypocrite he is.

There's an awful lot of time and effort put out in this country to keep grown people from thinking clearly and to not teach young people how to think in the first place.

Oh boy. I was reading this earlier. (The link is to another blog that I read, by a British writer who has an interest in American politics, and comments on them sometimes). You add some interesting extra colour to Santorum. What is this peculiar march further and further right that there is in politics at the moment? We're seeing it here in the UK as well, although not nearly to the same degree. A former Conservative Prime Minister here, Edward Heath, commented a few years ago that the present left wing politicians are further to the right on many issues that he was, when he was still leader of the right. It infuriates me, but at least our lot still seem sane. Corrupt, but sane!

Oh Republican Party. What has become of you.

To a certain extent it's a dialogue problem, an extended case of, "I do not think that means what you think it means."

Side A asks a question, thinking that with the inferences everyone will surely understand what they mean.

Side B hears the question but not the inferences, thinking instead that Side A means a completely different question. They answer that different question.

Side A doesn't understand why their question wasn't answered. They ask it again.

Side B wonders what's wrong with Side A and repeats the answer they've already given only Slow-er and Loud-er.

Side A thinks they're being insulted and starts yelling.

Side B starts yelling back.

Meanwhile the unanswered questions only get less likely to be answered, as everyone descends into name-calling. Both sides feel justified in their belief that one just can't talk to those people, they don't understand anything important.

Umm...I think it's more a matter of ideologies being so alien that what makes sense in one is pure madness in the other. It's all but impossible to have any meaningful dialog in those circumstances.

It's depressing that people aren't even really trying though. The "melting pot" has thoroughly clogged.

I'm about to continue this conversation in another post.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ric Santorum Disses All Married Couples, Straight As Well As Gay

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject