Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Politicians

Politicians For topics and discussions about politicians, political leaders, or political figures

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 3rd, 2012, 11:19 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
An insightful column by Charles Blow:



Quote:
http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all



Rick Santorum wants to bring sexy back ... to the 1950s, when he was born.



That is because Santorum seems to have an unhealthy fixation with, and passionate disdain for, the 1960s and the sexual freedoms that followed.



To fully understand Santorum’s strident rejection of the 1960s, it’s instructive to recall a speech and question-and-answer session he gave in 2008 to a course on religion and politics at the Oxford Center for Religion and Public Life in Washington.



The speech was interesting, but the answers he gave to the questions that followed were truly illuminating.



In response to a question about the kinds of words he had heard “attached to religion and politics” during his years in the Senate, Santorum ventured off onto sex:



“It comes down to sex. That’s what it’s all about. It comes down to freedom, and it comes down to sex. If you have anything to do with any of the sexual issues, and if you are on the wrong side of being able to do all of the sexual freedoms you want, you are a bad guy. And you’re dangerous because you are going to limit my freedom in an area that’s the most central to me. And that’s the way it’s looked at.”



Next a commenter falsely claimed that my colleague Maureen Dowd “said that the Republican Party is trying to repeal Woodstock.” It was a misrepresentation of a 1998 column she had written about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. What she actually wrote was:



“Since Watergate, there has been a pendulum of partisan revenge. And, right now, Republicans want their payback for Watergate, for Bork, for Iran-contra, even for Woodstock. Like Kenneth Starr, the Republicans are attempting to repeal the 1960s.”



But let’s not let facts slow us down. Santorum, predictably, deflected back to sex:



“Woodstock is the great American orgy. This is who the Democratic Party has become. They have become the party of Woodstock. They prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that’s sex. And the whole abortion culture, it’s not about life. It’s about sexual freedom. That’s what it’s about. Homosexuality. It’s about sexual freedom. All of the things are about sexual freedom, and they hate to be called on them. They try to somehow or other tie this to the founding fathers’ vision of liberty, which is bizarre. It’s ridiculous. That’s at the core of why you are attacked.”



The next question was: “Do you see any possibility for a party of Christian reform, or an influx of Christian ideas into this [Democratic] party?”



Santorum’s answer included what? That’s right: Sex!



While explaining what he saw as a shift in the Democratic Party away from “blue-collar working-class folks with traditional values” Santorum said:



“What changed was the ’60s. What changed was sex. What changed was the social and cultural issues that have huge amounts of money because if you look — I haven’t seen numbers on this, but I’m sure it’s true — if you go socioeconomic scale, the higher the income, the more socially liberal you are. The more you know you can buy your way out of the problems that sexual libertinism causes you. You have an abortion, well, I have the money to take care of it. If I want to live an extravagant life and get diseases, I can. ... You can always take care of everything. If you have money, you can get away with things that if you’re poor you can’t.”



The questions finally got around to asking about sex directly, much to Santorum’s delight, I’m sure. To one of those questions Santorum answered in part:



“Sex is a means. Evolution is a means. And the aim is a secular world. It’s a, in my opinion, a hedonistic, self-focused world that is, in my opinion, anti-American.”



Santorum may now cloak his current views in Catholic fundamentalism and Constitutional literalism, but, at their root, they are his reaction to, and revulsion for, the social-sexual liberation that began in the 1960s.



In fact, Santorum’s distaste for the sexual revolution of the 1960s leaks over into a deep dislike of everything that the 1960s represents
. Santorum continued in the question-and-answer session:



“You’re a liberal or a conservative in America if you think the ’60s were a good thing or not. If the ’60s was a good thing, you’re left. If you think it was a bad thing, you’re right. And the confusing thing for a lot of people that gets a lot of Americans is, when they think of the ’60s, they don’t think of just the sexual revolution. But somehow or other — and they’ve been very, very, clever at doing this — they’ve been able to link, I think absolutely incorrectly, the sexual revolution with civil rights.”



Maybe that’s why he has such a dyspeptic reaction to the 1960 speech by John F. Kennedy, in which he said that “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”



Santorum said that the speech made him want to throw up because it was an “an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960.”



Nothing could be more absurd. James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” and fourth president of the United States, wrote in 1822 that:



“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.”



Santorum’s stances are not about our Constitution, but his. He views personal freedoms as a personal affront. His thinking exists in a pre-1960s era of aspirin-between-the-knees contraception and read-between-the-lines sexuality.



The kind of conservatism that Santorum represents has been described as a war on women, but I would rephrase that. It’s a war on sex beyond the confines of traditional marriage and strict heterosexuality in which women, particularly poor ones, and gays, particularly open ones, are likely to suffer the greatest casualties.


I'd add that apart from the Catholic / Opus Dei obsession with all things sexual - especially icky lady parts - Santorum seems particularly fixated on hot gay sex.

The SNL church lady had a similar obsession with sex.



I suspect the supreme court will object to Santorum's plan to introduce sexual morality police to America's bedrooms.
skrekk is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 04:38 PM   #2
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 32,158
I understand it's hard for you to agree with someone "on the other side."



But I was there in the 60s. I saw peace and love become sex and drugs.



More than half of all children born to women under 30 are born to unmarried women. More than 25 percent of employees visit Internet porn sites during working hours.



If you want to claim this is a good thing, you are standing on quicksand.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 04:57 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Ironic that a guy who advocates the legalization of pot complains about "sex & drugs."





Most women wouldn't want to return to the pre-60s era, when they neither had control over their own reproduction or their careers.



By 1960, the baby boom was taking its toll.



Quote:
Mothers who had four children by the time they were 25 still faced another 15 to 20 fertile years ahead of them. Growing families were hemmed into small houses, cramped by rising costs. "By the end of the fifties, the United States birthrate was overtaking India's," Betty Friedan would write...Both men and women were beginning to ask, "Is this all there is?"


These are the realities that self-appointed arbiter of morality, Rick Santorum and his supporters, want to force onto Americans today. Their version of the idyllic times of the pre-pill days has little in common with reality:

Quote:
Though popular culture had glorified the image of the happy homemaker, in reality, vast numbers of American women worked outside the home.... Most women worked at low paying jobs as teachers, nurses, waitresses, secretaries or factory workers...


The Pill and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "which prohibited employment and educational discrimination"

Quote:
"...helped make it possible for women to go into professional fields ...With almost 100% fertility control, women were able to postpone having children or space births to pursue a career or a degree that had never been possible prior to the Pill...


These are the advances that Santorum wants to reverse, and the reversal would adversely impact both women and men.



I also doubt mixed-race couples or gays would like to return to the pre-1960s era.



I do agree though that one's view of the 60s is a good indicator of whether you're a liberal or a conservative. I'm on the side that thinks people's sex and reproductive lives are their own concern, and not the concern of government. Conservatives prefer an invasive government.
skrekk is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 05:02 PM   #4
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 32,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Ironic that a guy who advocates the legalization of pot complains about "sex & drugs."





Most women wouldn't want to return to the pre-60s era, when they neither had control over their own reproduction or their careers.



By 1960, the baby boom was taking its toll.



Quote:
Mothers who had four children by the time they were 25 still faced another 15 to 20 fertile years ahead of them. Growing families were hemmed into small houses, cramped by rising costs. "By the end of the fifties, the United States birthrate was overtaking India's," Betty Friedan would write...Both men and women were beginning to ask, "Is this all there is?"


These are the realities that self-appointed arbiter of morality, Rick Santorum and his supporters, want to force onto Americans today. Their version of the idyllic times of the pre-pill days has little in common with reality:

Quote:
Though popular culture had glorified the image of the happy homemaker, in reality, vast numbers of American women worked outside the home.... Most women worked at low paying jobs as teachers, nurses, waitresses, secretaries or factory workers...


The Pill and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "which prohibited employment and educational discrimination"

Quote:
"...helped make it possible for women to go into professional fields ...With almost 100% fertility control, women were able to postpone having children or space births to pursue a career or a degree that had never been possible prior to the Pill...


These are the advances that Santorum wants to reverse, and the reversal would adversely impact both women and men.



I doubt mixed-race couples would like to return to the pre-1960s era.


You are one of the best dodgers I've ever seen.



Are you happy that half of all children born to women under 30 are born to unmarried women? Do you think, overall, this is a good trend?



I hope for direct answers, rather than obfuscation.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 05:05 PM   #5
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
When did Santorum say he wanted to make contraception illegal?



He has simply expressed his views on the link between contraception, promiscuity and single parenthood.



Social developments since the sixties have not all been positive.



Santorum has also expressed his views on religious freedom which most people support. If a religious organisation opposes contraception and abortion medication on doctrinal grounds they should not be forced to fund them.



Yet another thread based on a hysterical and inaccurate premise
garysher is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 05:10 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Are you happy that half of all children born to women under 30 are born to unmarried women? Do you think, overall, this is a good trend?


I don't know if it's a good or bad trend, per se. The more important question is whether those children are wanted and whether their families can afford to raise them. Certainly government has an interest in encouraging stable relationships, but the marriage rate is just one factor of many.



Whether couples choose to marry isn't my concern, but I do think that no fault divorce and other changes in marital law since the 1950s have been a very good thing indeed.
skrekk is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 05:10 PM   #7
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 32,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
When did Santorum say he wanted to make contraception illegal?



He has simply expressed his views on the link between contraception, promiscuity and single parenthood.



Social developments since the sixties have not all been positive.



Santorum has also expressed his views on religious freedom which most people support. If a religious organisation opposes contraception and abortion medication on doctrinal grounds they should not be forced to fund them.



Yet another thread based on a hysterical and inaccurate premise


Agreed.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 05:10 PM   #8
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 32,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1330826520' post='387290

Are you happy that half of all children born to women under 30 are born to unmarried women? Do you think, overall, this is a good trend?


I don't know if it's a good or bad trend, per se. The more important question is whether those children are wanted and whether their families can afford to raise them. Certainly government has an interest in encouraging stable relationships, but the marriage rate is just one factor of many.



Whether couples choose to marry isn't my concern, but I do think that no fault divorce and other changes in marital law since the 1950s have been a very good thing indeed.


Obfuscation, and evasion.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 05:54 PM   #9
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Whether couples choose to marry isn't my concern, but I do think that no fault divorce and other changes in marital law since the 1950s have been a very good thing indeed.


Yeah it's been just great:





Since 1974, about 1 million children per year have seen their parents divorce — and children who are exposed to divorce are two to three times more likely than their peers in intact marriages to suffer from serious social or psychological pathologies.



In their book Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur found that 31% of adolescents with divorced parents dropped out of high school, compared to 13% of children from intact families.



They also concluded that 33% of adolescent girls whose parents divorced became teen mothers, compared to 11% of girls from continuously married families.



And McLanahan and her colleagues have found that 11% of boys who come from divorced families end up spending time in prison before the age of 32, compared to 5% of boys who come from intact homes.



http://nationalaffairs.com/publicati...ion-of-divorce
garysher is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 06:27 PM   #10
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 32,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1330827005' post='387292

Whether couples choose to marry isn't my concern, but I do think that no fault divorce and other changes in marital law since the 1950s have been a very good thing indeed.


Yeah it's been just great:





Since 1974, about 1 million children per year have seen their parents divorce — and children who are exposed to divorce are two to three times more likely than their peers in intact marriages to suffer from serious social or psychological pathologies.



In their book Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur found that 31% of adolescents with divorced parents dropped out of high school, compared to 13% of children from intact families.



They also concluded that 33% of adolescent girls whose parents divorced became teen mothers, compared to 11% of girls from continuously married families.



And McLanahan and her colleagues have found that 11% of boys who come from divorced families end up spending time in prison before the age of 32, compared to 5% of boys who come from intact homes.



http://nationalaffai...tion-of-divorce


The facts reveal skrekk's primary concern: advancing a far-left agenda.



How much do you get paid to post, skrekk? lol
imaginethat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Politicians

Tags
santorum, sex

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Santorum tadpole256 Politicians 158 April 12th, 2012 07:04 PM
Santorum Vs Andrew Sullivan skrekk Politicians 0 February 28th, 2012 09:50 AM
Santorum The Bigot... tadpole256 Politicians 92 February 23rd, 2012 10:25 PM
Santorum Can't Help It - He Was An Altar Boy tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 3 February 23rd, 2012 07:07 AM
Santorum Is A Dangerous Man... tadpole256 Politicians 2 February 22nd, 2012 06:17 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.