If you can take one part out, if it's not for the purpose of procreation, that's not one of the reasons you diminish this very special bond between men and women. So why can't you take other parts of it out? It becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure.Rick's on a roll! The statement is from an interview, which is posted on YouTube. The conversation is nearly 45 minutes long. Watch if you care to. I didn't.
How would you like such thoughts thrust upon you for four years?
Read more from Charles Pierce at The Politics Blog at Esquire.
UPDATE: I watched approximately 20 minutes of the video, (It was difficult!) and Rick did, indeed, say the words above.
Seems to me that "parts" of his brain are missing.
ReplyDeleteHeaven forbid that people who love each other have sex for pleasure. Rick's is such a stupid argument, because so many straight married couples have sex for reasons other than procreation, say, for instance, after the women ceases to be fertile because of menopause.
ReplyDeleteBesides the argument being stupid, it doesn't even compute grammatically! He's obviously speaking off the cuff! And he loves the word deconstructed. "After all it has 4 syllables! It must mean what I want it to mean!!"
ReplyDeletesusan s., Santorum's words don't make sense, though I think I get his point. He'd rather be reading Derrida than having sex for pleasure. ;-)
ReplyDeleteummmm.... which part would one have to take out?
ReplyDeletemargaret, you'd have to take out the wrong part and replace it with the right part. Which is the wrong part and which is the right part, I can't be sure. All I know is that IT can't be deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure.
ReplyDeleteLet's ask Ricky to define "deconstructed."
ReplyDeleteAnd then ask him why things can't be done simply for pleasure.
On the other hand, let's don't. I don't really care what he has to say, especially on this subject. Any more than I understand why, if this statement was made in a Muslim country by a politician, it would be considered "sectarian." Yet in this country, it's just politics.
Rmj, Grandpère just told me that at least Newt has a sense of humor. I said I didn't really care if he has a sense of humor. He asked me why I disliked Newt so much. I said I don't dislike Newt, the man, because I don't know him. I dislike Newt as a candidate for president of the US.
ReplyDeleteThe same with Santorum. I don't know the man. He may be a lovely person to sit with in a room to have a conversation, but as a candidate for president, I want him far away from the Oval Office. That's why I pay attention to his silly pronouncements on sexual morality, which I believe ARE sectarian.
Rmj, PS: You're the person who taught me how not to hate George Bush. You may not have a church, but you're still a pastor.
ReplyDeleteI am quite sure one of his advisors told him to use the word "deconstructed". I do not believe he thought of it himself.
ReplyDeleteIt becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure.
ReplyDeleteEven in the most loving relationship of the most committed spouses, there is NO reason why, *** some times *** , sex shouldn't be EXACTLY that. Mindless pleasure.
I pity the (Gnostic? Where God is NOT really Incarnate?) worldview that doesn't have room for that which is "simply pleasure."
Actually to be honest I don't understand what on earth he's trying to say except that he doesn't like gay sex because it doesn't produce babies. But that in itself doesn't "diminish" straight sex, does it. He is talking rambling codswallop essentially.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, Cathy, but codswallop is only 3 syllables. ;-)
ReplyDeleteRicky's trying to say, "You must not have gay sex," without actually saying it. He does not believe in birth control, either, but he does not want to say directly, "You must not use birth control." He uses code talk which he'd rather only the true believers to understand and the folks who may be undecided to remain fuzzy about what he means. At least, I think that's what he's doing with his gobbledygook.
ReplyDeleteI doubt Santorum knows the definition of deconstruction.
It may be merely three syllables, Susan, but in Santorum's case it is an entire interview.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, Mimi, "deconstruction" is what he thinks he wants to do to the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteYes, Paul (A), but Santorum is not alone in his desire to deconstruct the Constitution. I think all the Repub candidates want that.
ReplyDeleteBut he is the only one who seems bent on replacing it with Vatican Sharia.
ReplyDeleteWhat Ricky and his ilk want is the destruction of the Constitution and the establishment of a system of government very like a 'Christian' theocracy.
ReplyDeletePaul (A.), did you and I just say close to the same thing?
ReplyDeleteI helped vote Rick out of the Senate from Pennsylvania and I am proud of that! God knows he would be a disaster in the oval office.
ReplyDeleteIf he's not in favour of birth control or a state welfare system, I guess that must mean he is in favour of infanticide, since where you don't have the first two you get higher rates of the third.
ReplyDeletewv - login. That's weird.
whiteycat, you have my forever gratitude.
ReplyDeleteCathy, Republicans are notoriously bad at thinking things through and calculating consequences. Democrats are not all that good at the practice, either.
codswallop
ReplyDeleteI think that can be defined as replacing one certain part with another...
...or two of them being hit really hard....
oh dear.
It's a lovely word Cathy!
wv: sengsz
sexual angst?
Well, whitey, I voted that he never be elected to the Senate in the first place, but you know how well that worked out [And he beat the exceptionally honorable Harris Wofford, civil rights hero, who'd been appointed to the position---IIRC after Sen. Heinz died in a plane crash]*
ReplyDeleteHe was a little snot then (in '94), and he's a little snot now.
wv, "schexpal": sounds like something Ricky would like to ban!
* I had such a culture clash, when I moved to Central Pennsylvania in 1994 (right after my {ahem} marriage. My then husband had been appointed a college chaplain there). I grew up in Northern California, then lived in Portland Oregon, then (for grad school) NYC (i.e., gay, gayer, Gayest!) Suddenly, I was transported to the area known as "the Alabama between Philly and Pittsburgh". The execrable Santorum was VERY popular there! >:-(
The execrable Santorum was VERY popular there! >:-(
ReplyDelete>:-( indeed.
This article calls him out for his degradation of our relationships.
ReplyDeleteLast week, for example, Rick Santorum argued that same-sex marriage would be a slippery slope, because “in terms of pleasure,” polygamous marriages offered as much pleasure as gay marriages do. This strange new line of thinking pre-supposes that the only reason for same-sex marriage is pleasure, just as the only reason for a homosexual “lifestyle” is pleasure, lust, and so on.
This is, of course, absurd. Gay couples get married for the same reasons that straight couples do, with pleasure being pretty far down the list, behind, say, love, companionship, taking care of one another, societal recognition, raising children, and so on. Santorum’s ignorant comment (one of many, of course) assumes, incorrectly, that homosexuality is a (changeable, optional) predilection of the gonads, rather than an orientation of the heart. Lust, not love.
And why is he like this?
But he can’t really say that on television. If he were honest, he’d just come out and say something like: “I’m sorry, but God just cannot abide any homosexual behavior.” But he isn’t....Rick Santorum’s views are not dictated by St. Paul, but he believes that they are, and that’s enough.
I am beginning to believe that the Catholic church is doing immense harm .
IT:
ReplyDeleteBeginning?
IT, wot Paul (A.) said.
ReplyDeleteMimi, as to your update, are you sure that he didn't actually say "this very special blah between men and women"?
ReplyDeletePaul (A.), that's a bridge too far.
ReplyDeleteHe's really vile. Santorum is against any pleasure for anybody. Check on Rachel's Jan. 9 segment on the "anti-contraception" candidate, according to whom contraception is only for "sexual libertines":
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#45935951
Which would have come as surprising news to my mother and my aunts, I think.
The video of Rick that Rachel highlighted, with him in the blue shirt, is the one linked above. I believe the quote comes right after the segment Rachel showed.
ReplyDeleteI am thinking that JFK, our first Roman Catholic President(remember him?) who was so very private with his religion and kept Church and State apart in spite of what everyone thought about his being a Catholic and how he would run to the Pope every time there was a crisis, is rolling in his grave at this point.
ReplyDeleteHow did we get from there to here, susan?
ReplyDeleteIt's easy for me to draw the following conclusion, but it's hard to for me to articulate. Two RCs, one refusing to combine church and state, and the other who will do everything he can to have a theocracy. At least that's what I see happening here. And I think that Kennedy would not have gotten(and didn't get) the vote from the very people who now will vote for Santorum. If that doesn't make any sense to you I will take both of my comments down. . .
ReplyDeleteWhenever the subject of JFK arises on EWTN, they criticize him. [I think they'd do the same of JohnXXIII, if they could get away w/ it. They certainly never speak of him in the same reverent tones as they do "John Paul the Great"! {gag}]
ReplyDeletesusan, please don't take down your comments. I think you're right.
ReplyDeleteJCF, we don't hear much from the present hierarchy in the RCC about John XXIII, because, in his long reign, John Paul II appointed bishops who were like-minded (extremely conservative), and the bishops were horrified by the results of Vatican II, after John XXIII threw open the windows to let in fresh air. The present pope and the previous pope have been rushing around to close the windows ever since.
Psychology Today points out that much of what Mr. Santorum thinks he knows about sex is just plain wrong.
ReplyDelete