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

[crabby_lioness]

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.

Comments

[eumenidis.livejournal.com]

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.

[qara-isuke.livejournal.com]

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.

[kiev4am.livejournal.com]

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.

[swordznsorcery.livejournal.com]

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.