Santorum on sex in the military
Sep. 23rd, 2011 10:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutSaw a clip in response to Stephen Hill's question about whether, if elected, they'd try to undo the recent change in military policy.
"I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military and the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we're going to recognize a group of people uh and give them a special privilege and uh and removing don't ask don't tell tries to inject social policy into the military and the military's job is to do one thing and that is to defend our country. We need to give our military which is all volunteer the ability to do so in a way which is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform and I believe this undermines that ability."
He doesn't come out and actually say, people in the military having sex undermines the ability of the military to protect our country. He does, however, come kind of close. He _does_ however say quite clearly that "any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military" -- which would presumably include his one kind of okay sexual activity (heterosexual activity within a marriage between a man and a woman, and without using any form of contraception barring the timing or, possibly, coitus interruptus). It would seem that Santorum views the men and women who are in the military as having taken a vow of chastity for the duration of their service, which is utterly amazing: does he think the men and women who stay in for decades should just _sacrifice_ any possibility of reproduction? Does he believe that men and women in the military who are married to each other _should abstain from sex_ while they are in the military?
What an outrageously unsettling insight into how this man formulates the world. Where are we going to find people who would be willing to accept this restriction? How does he propose to enforce it? Would he change the military code to make sex between a husband and a wife -- who were married prior to joining -- illegal or cause for being kicked out of the military?
Or does he think, somehow, that the okay sex isn't "sexual activity"? Which is pretty damn weird all by itself.
Does he think this applies to reserves? Does he distinguish between active reserves and others?
"I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military and the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we're going to recognize a group of people uh and give them a special privilege and uh and removing don't ask don't tell tries to inject social policy into the military and the military's job is to do one thing and that is to defend our country. We need to give our military which is all volunteer the ability to do so in a way which is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform and I believe this undermines that ability."
He doesn't come out and actually say, people in the military having sex undermines the ability of the military to protect our country. He does, however, come kind of close. He _does_ however say quite clearly that "any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military" -- which would presumably include his one kind of okay sexual activity (heterosexual activity within a marriage between a man and a woman, and without using any form of contraception barring the timing or, possibly, coitus interruptus). It would seem that Santorum views the men and women who are in the military as having taken a vow of chastity for the duration of their service, which is utterly amazing: does he think the men and women who stay in for decades should just _sacrifice_ any possibility of reproduction? Does he believe that men and women in the military who are married to each other _should abstain from sex_ while they are in the military?
What an outrageously unsettling insight into how this man formulates the world. Where are we going to find people who would be willing to accept this restriction? How does he propose to enforce it? Would he change the military code to make sex between a husband and a wife -- who were married prior to joining -- illegal or cause for being kicked out of the military?
Or does he think, somehow, that the okay sex isn't "sexual activity"? Which is pretty damn weird all by itself.
Does he think this applies to reserves? Does he distinguish between active reserves and others?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-09-24 03:15 am (UTC)special privilege doesn't make sense if he meant "homosexual"
Date: 2011-09-25 01:43 am (UTC)Altho to be fair, the "special privilege" argument never makes much sense anyway, unless you can wrap your brain around the idea that (a) there is no such thing as heterocentrism and/or (b) it is not on display in the military. (If you haven't encountered the special privilege argument, it goes like this: gay people want to be able to flaunt their gaydom so they can recruit new people to being gay, harass people who don't like the gay and/or whine when they are picked on in a way that gets Moral People into unjustified trouble -- that's the argument, I don't agree with it. Here is a sample of the argument: http://www.redstate.com/nikitas3/2011/09/21/reinstate-dont-ask-dont-tell/)
I am reasonably certain that Santorum responded to that question with a dip into Right Wing Political Bingo: he pulled several cards out of a hat ("special privilege", "any kind of sexual activity", "they defend us", "ending DADT is a distraction") and strung them together without regard to things like semantics or syntax.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-25 04:16 am (UTC)