Rick Santorum’s notion of “rational, reasoned thought”

Yesterday Rick Santorum spoke to a group of high school and college students at “College Convention 2012” in Concord, New Hampshire and engaged them in what he apparently sees as some kind of Socratic dialogue about same-sex marriage. Here’s the video.

ABC News summarized and quoted from the exchange. Here’s a bit of it:

As Santorum addressed a group of college students, one asked him how same-sex marriage affects him personally and why not have legal same-sex marriage as long as it’s not religious in nature.

Santorum answered that for “230 years marriage has been between one man and woman. So if you want to change the law … you have to make the positive argument about why.” ….

He called on a woman who asked, “How about the idea that all men are created equal, rights to happiness and liberty?

Santorum responded, “Are we saying that everyone should have the right to marry?”

Several members of the crowd loudly yelled, “Yes!” ….

“So anyone can marry can marry anybody else? So if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people … so you can be married to five people. Is that OK?” Santorum asked.

It seems to me that Santorum is oddly obsessed with fantasies of group sex. He has made this comparison of same-sex marriage to polygamy repeatedly in the past. In this instance, when students told him his questions about fantasized group marriages were “irrelevant,” he actually lectured them:

“You know it’s important if we’re going to have a discussion based on rational, reasoned thought, that we employ reason, okay? Reason says that if you think it’s okay for two then you have to differentiate with me why it’s not okay for three, right?

That’s Santorum’s notion of reason and rationality? He sets up a bizarre straw man argument and refuses to deal with the question he’s being asked about how two people of the same sex marrying could hurt him. There are already laws against polygamy for heterosexuals in this country, and laws could also be passed against group same-sex marriage if groups of people begin agitating for the right to marry. But as far as I know that isn’t happening.

A little later in the discussion, Santorum explains why he believes marriage must only be between one man and one woman.

“I believe we’re made that way. God made men and woman to keep civilization and provide the best environment to raise children,” Santorum said. “I have no problem if people want to have relationships, but marriage provides a good to society. It’s unique because it is the union that causes children to be raised.”

Santorum added that “every child in America deserves” to know their mother and father.

“We deny children that birthright, then I think we are harming kids and society and not promoting what’s best,” Santorum added, before moving on to the next question.

That’s his idea of logic? Americans should behave according to Santorum’s personal beliefs? So if every child must know his or her mother and father, does that mean that Santorum opposes adoption? Well, he opposes gay couples adopting, but I haven’t been able to find his position on heterosexual adoptions.

After Santorum moved on to other questions, he displayed more of his “reasoned, rational thinking.”

…when a crowd member asked if he would adhere to the conservative pillar of state’s rights in cases when a state legalizes gay marriage and medical marijuana.

“I think there are some things that are essential elements of society to which a society rests that we have to have a consensus on,” Santorum said. “That’s why I believe on things as essential as ‘what is life’ and what life is protected under the Constitution should be a federal charge, not a state by state.”

He then admitted he was not familiar with medical marijuana laws, which led the crowd to press him on how he came to developing his views on issues he was unfamiliar with.

“Well I form that opinion from my own life experiences and having experienced that,” he said. “I went to college too.”

So no states’ rights if the issue is one that involves Santorum’s “beliefs,” apparently. After the town hall with the students ended, Santorum told a reporter his goal in the exchange was “to engage them to get them thinking about why they’re thinking the way you’re thinking.”

Huh? WTF does that mean? All I can say is that this man’s thinking processes seem to me to be not only illogical but also deeply disordered. This, combined with his obvious hypocrisy and corrupt behavior should disqualify him–even from becoming the nominee of the Republican Party, much less President of the U.S. Thank goodness most Americans probably won’t be as receptive to Santorum’s “reasoning” as Iowa Republican caucus voters were.

29 Comments on “Rick Santorum’s notion of “rational, reasoned thought””

  1. bostonboomer says:

    More examples of Santorum’s “rational, reasoned thinking” here.


  2. dakinikat says:

    How does he keep making the jump between marriage between two people and polygamy? I don’t get this at all and neither do these students. We’re talking about assuring that two people are treated equally by the law … regardless of sexual orientation, race or creed. If you’ve got two people married and one is a woman and one is a man–under his argument– this would seem to lead to polygamy between men and women. He’s saying if you open up a 2 person marriage to 2 men, then you open it up to polygamy, but why does that only happen when it’s two same sex people? SHouldn’t it happen with two different sex people as long as the polygamous relationship is between opposite sex people? I don’t track that argument at all. Why doesn’t opening a two person marriage up to people of different national origin, race, creed, or any other attribute not led automatically to polygamy? Why is it only sex?

    • pulled it out of his santorum

    • bostonboomer says:

      The only way I can explain it is that Santorum is fascinated by the idea of groups of men having sex with each other. It’s another example of reaction formation. He is so drawn to this idea/fantasy that he must repeatedly and publicly denounce it in order to protect his sense of self, even bringing it into discussions where it has no relevance.

      • dakinikat says:

        It must be. No one is talking about marriage between more than two people, all they’re talking about is making sure marriage between two people isn’t defined based on discriminating against any one attribute. He argues that just changing the sexual orientation attribute means the institution can’t be between only two people any more. There’s no internal logic to that at all.

      • Delphyne says:

        I keep thinking that Santorum was probably molested by Catholic priests and, rather than placing blame where it is due – on the pedophile priests – he lashes out at gay marriage while continuing to obsess about it and men having sex with each other.

        And I can see down thread that you already touched on this! Late to the post as usual!

    • Minkoff Minx says:

      Could it be some kind of jab at the Mormons? (Romney)

      I don’t get the association either…like Wonk said, he pulled it out of his santorum…

  3. Gregory says:

    That is a very good post. Santorum is not unique in my opinion. All of the so called conservative Republicans are hypocrites concerning the issue of states rights. They are only for it so long as their views are the ones being implemented by the states. Otherwise, they are 100% for federal intervention.

  4. Fannie says:

    This is the most disgusting article……………People need to wake up to just WHO HE IS.


    • bostonboomer says:

      Thanks for that link. That is one of the horrible things I’ve read–it’s almost on a par with the Marianas Islands stuff. My god!

    • peggysue22 says:

      Pat posted that link this morning. You’re right, Fannie, the whole thing is disgusting. Any defense or claim that the senior management and/or board members had no knowledge of the clear negligence and abuse just isn’t good enough.

      It means they weren’t doing their jobs, just collecting a paycheck on the suffering of disabled children and young men.


  5. peggysue22 says:

    Santorum is already wriggling around on his comments about contraception, saying that it, too, is a states’ right matter, not that he would support it [in direct contradiction to what he’s said before]. It goes the same with the fetus that he and his wife lost [actually had aborted by inducing labor]. Santorum’s wife had a raging infection and could have easily died without the therapeutic abortion. Their decision was perfectly sensible. What isn’t sensible is trying to contort yourself and call it something else, simply because it doesn’t fit into your world view, the one you wish to impose on others.

    Liars, all of them. Santorum is just taking it up a notch because he’s running for POTUS and can feel that tingle in his spine.

    Btw, it often seems that men who whine and cry the loudest against the gay community have sexual anxieties of their own. Just saying.

  6. ralphb says:

    Rick Santorum matches Dan Savage’s definition perfectly.

  7. northwestrain says:

    Santorum as a Senator was completely obsessed with all things gynecological.


    • Pilgrim says:

      Ya haft wonder if he is some sorta latent homosexual and just doesn’t realize it, or sorta does realize it and therefore must protest so very loudly about “all things gynaecological” and brag about his many offspring. Actually, I think he, like most people, can be parts of different strains of being. People are mixed. Most people are dominantly one or something else. I think I read about this long years ago in a book by Simone….hmmm, forget her name, she was lover of Jean-Paul Sartre…..

      His yap-session in New Hampshire shows him unwilling to respond to those attempting to be his interlocutors, just yammering along about his own obsessions. Very boring, he won’t make the grade at all.

      • bostonboomer says:

        Simone de Bouvoir, The Second Sex?

        Yes, as I suggested in the post I think Santorum probably has unconscious fantasies about gay sex, specifically group sex with other men. So he has to protest loudly that he feels the opposite. Freud called it “reaction formation.” It’s a defense mechanism.


      • Pilgrim says:

        Yeh, that’s the author/book. Thanks Boomer. Yes, I think the reaction-formation concept probably does get at what’s going on in the little mind of Mr. Santorum. All unconscious, of course. They have to keep it unconscious even to themselves. I once observed two men who were married with families, and they were good friends but they got all hot and bothered about the topic of homosexuality and that was when I started wondering about them. I felt then how sad that they could not just be happy about being good friends and not feel so worried and threatened. They were good men, with good families, and they had this good friendship, but the thought of homosexuality frightened them.

        This is where women differ somewhat. They seem to be able to form friendships with each other, which they value greatly, but not get so threatened about thoughts of being something illicit, or thought to be so.

      • Minkoff Minx says:

        It certainly would explain Santorum’s seemingly acceptance of catholic priest molesting young boys…something that he has never touched on during his rants of man on dog polygamy loving homos…

  8. peggysue22 says:

    Anybody get a load of this? Ron Paul is running this anti-Santorum ad in SC. Not pulling any punches.


    This is going to get hot, hot, hot.