Well thanks for your reasoned response. I will only say that you apparently decided to edit the word “if” out of my comments about Santorum. The word “if” is small, but powerful, in that it normally dramatically changes the statement that follow is. Just sayin....
Now, a couple responses to your points:
A: no, I don’t like him, primarily because I think he guarantees us four more of Obama, meaning the end of America. To me, that’s what Santorum represents. I know how he’s gonna be perceived outside the bubble of FR - and it ain’t good. We know how he was perceived in his last election in PA, and not all of it was the Iraq war either. Exit polls were full of the words “preachy” and “un likeable.” I’ll vote for him against Obama, but I agree with those two descriptions FWIW.
B; google this statement a bit harder. He addressed the issue and sort of took pride in that he was bold enough to talk about what most candidates won’t talk about.
B: I think the entire conversation is off limits for secular government - but Santorum had to niche his way to these tiny wins (and yes, he still trails Newt’s popular vote total BY A TON.) You can niche your way past crowded fields with a religious focus among a tiny caucus population. You cannot win a general election for anything that way.
C: The Catholic teaching on this are things I agree with around the margins. Kind of takes a lot of spontaneity out of the equation which is frankly not defensible and damaging to the “unity” thing - not to mention is going to be incredibly offensive to most Americans - meaning it was a huge mistake for RS to bring this up. Again, the fruit of having to niche your way along.
I don't need to google harder. I know what Santorum has said, and he has not said that sex is only for procreation. What he has said on the issue is unpalatable to a lot of ears, I'll grant you that. But saying that sex is only for procreation? I'm now confident in saying a big NO to that.
I do agree with you that Santorum shouldn't go out of his way to talk about people's private sexual behavior. That's no way to win a national election, and it's a topic that's none of a president's business in America. But he has said enough that now he can't avoid being questioned on it. So he has to be careful how he addresses it from now on. His views are unpopular, but what people seem to fail to understand is that a president is not a dictator, and he cannot foist his personal religious views on the nation the way Obama has with his liberation theology. And he's not interested in doing so. This is a a handicap, but I think he can overcome it if he addresses it correctly. Let's face it, it's not like the other three candidates don't have serious negatives themselves.