Santorum says electing Cruz will lead to "Polygamy"

[Badger]

Why is it trolling to post support for what Santorum said?  I think a lot of people here agree with it.
Cruz and Santorum have both given EXCELLENT interviews on this subject.  Santorum talked about it with Rachel Maddow some months back.  It's about tradition and the definition and purpose of marriage.

So tradition and religion supersede people's rights?

I'm not here to comment on gay issues or whatever, but yes, tradition and religion do supersede people's rights. We've known this for some time. Next, you'll be asking if the government can also trample people's rights. The answer, again, will be yes.

What exactly do you mean by "people's rights" here? Surrounding the precise definition of that term, follows almost everything. Of is this merely an observation that the government almost inherently has the power potentially to trample over matters, in a way that is disturbing to the good conscience. If so, who knew?

I wasn't the one who originally deployed the term "people's rights". In any case, in the practical sense, obviously government has the ability to do what it likes. In the philosophical sense, obviously, rights would have to be defined, but I've stopped prioritizing individual rights as such a necessary foundation of government, especially when it's obvious that the state's natural role is the maintenance and strengthening of the state. My comment doesn't have anything to deal specifically with gay rights, but the obsession with the individual is an obvious threat to state superiority. Furthermore, I find rights obsession from a secular point of view slightly humorous. Were he to rephrase it as, say, "it is conducive to the running of a free and well-ordered state that religion be kept outside of the realm of the government", I'd be more accepting of his argument, though I'd have disputes with it. On another point, I've come to believe that well-integrated, tight-knit communities are preferable to the atomized, impersonal, and materialistic nature of the society "libertarians" would carve out for us--from a security and public policy perspective. As such, while individual rights might be--in theory--a good foundation for government, it's brought nations like the United States to the brink of disaster.

Also, if we wanna talk about "tradition and religion" superseding people's rights, wouldn't it be incumbent on us, as an allegedly free country, to topple those governments and even those social frameworks, that undermine human rights? While that might sound appealing, we've seen what trying to do that to even one government can do to this country. Moreover, supplanting a people's tradition and religion can lead to something akin to social collapse. For a semi-relevant, though not the best, example, the collapse of the Soviet Union has, in ways, led to the spread of alcoholism and empty consumerism in Russia.

I wasn't advocating we supplant a person's religion or tradition all I am saying don't use that to tell me  or anyone else how we can live our lives if it harms none or violates a natural law.

Example: My faith says drinking is forbidden I would never tell anyone you can't drink because my faith says you can't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you get past the basics, "natural law" becomes a bit murky. I mean, maybe there's a list of natural laws out there I'm unaware of, but once you've covered the basics of property (controversial per the socialists), life (controversial per capital punishment and abortion), and worship (which runs into its own difficulties due to the intersection between religion and a host of other fields), it's up to policy makers' creativity to find a basis for legislation within "natural law". Logical requirements of the state--war-making, education, the issue of promoting one's nation above others or at least making it equal to others--surely fall outside the bounds of moral/legal code developed (at least) hundreds of years ago. In fact, the most expedient ways to address those and other issues will likely involve, to at least a small extent, violating the basics of free living, trade, and worship. Fact is, government is going to make a number of arbitrary, if not outright immoral (again, a shaky term outside the bounds of an organized and absolutist belief system) actions. And yes, this will involve trampling people's alleged rights.

Example: U.S. Interstate Highways. In urban areas such as Detroit, highways ended up intersecting "ghetto" and heavily African-American areas since those areas would always be cheapest. What ended up happening was subjecting a number of people to be at points continually on the move. How do you fix that? Have the government choose the more expensive areas to build in, pissing away taxpayer money? Implement government regulations to control (I guess even more than already happens?) property prices so things are less unfair? Wrench the system from top to bottom to correct for racism entirely?

you really need to stop posting until college is over and you reuinite with the real world, dude.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

That's quite the blow, bro. Would you prefer I'd remained in my "generic middle school conservative" or "high school libertarian" phases?

[SteveRogers]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

It's "wonderful" when gay people are forced to remain in the closet and enter into loveless sham marriages???

[This account no longer in use.]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

It's "wonderful" when gay people are forced to remain in the closet and enter into loveless sham marriages???

It's because TEH GAYS are the scum of America.

Never mind the fact that the New Testament's "Love your neighbor as yourself" overrules the entire Old Testament. Anti-gay marriage crusaders are not real Christians; they use religion to justify their hate.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

It's "wonderful" when gay people are forced to remain in the closet and enter into loveless sham marriages???

It's because TEH GAYS are the scum of America.

Never mind the fact that the New Testament's "Love your neighbor as yourself" overrules the entire Old Testament. Anti-gay marriage crusaders are not real Christians; they use religion to justify their hate.

[wolfsblood07]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

It's "wonderful" when gay people are forced to remain in the closet and enter into loveless sham marriages???

Those marriages may not be loveless.  A guy gets married and realizes how great it is to have a sweet, adoring, perky goddess of a wife to cuddle with and take her shopping for dresses and shoes!  These guys are cured!  That's why traditional marriage is sacred.

[Kingpoleon]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

The majority of people say differently.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says.  

It's "wonderful" when gay people are forced to remain in the closet and enter into loveless sham marriages???

Those marriages may not be loveless.  A guy gets married and realizes how great it is to have a sweet, adoring, perky goddess of a wife to cuddle with and take her shopping for dresses and shoes!  These guys are cured!  That's why traditional marriage is sacred.

err, if you consider an ideal marriage to be a man treating your spouse like a fabulous new fashion project, I think you're revealing something rather peculiar about your own sexuality.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

It's "wonderful" when gay people are forced to remain in the closet and enter into loveless sham marriages???

Those marriages may not be loveless.  A guy gets married and realizes how great it is to have a sweet, adoring, perky goddess of a wife to cuddle with and take her shopping for dresses and shoes!  These guys are cured!  That's why traditional marriage is sacred.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

It's "wonderful" when gay people are forced to remain in the closet and enter into loveless sham marriages???

Those marriages may not be loveless.  A guy gets married and realizes how great it is to have a sweet, adoring, perky goddess of a wife to cuddle with and take her shopping for dresses and shoes!  These guys are cured!  That's why traditional marriage is sacred.

Sexuality is not a choice. Deal with it. And keep in mind that I only support civil unions, I'm not some liberal here. And yet I acknowledge that inner sexual desires cannot be changed.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Santorum and Huckabee are desperate.  They're playing the "I feel it more than he does!" card.Cruz is at least being honest.  I am no gay marriage advocate, but it is simply not going to be overturned by a Constitutional Amendment.  There is not a 2/3 vote in either house of Congress, and there are AT LEAST 13 state legislatures that would not vote to ratify such an amendment.  By the time there was a change in law on this, there would be so many gay married couples to where

there would be a major issue with the Full Faith and Credit clause.

Also you are in the minority who actually thinks it's a bad thing, most people are tolerant and open these days.

When God, Himself, changes his mind on the subject, so will I.  

I don't want government jackboots kicking down doors and arresting consenting adult sinners of all kinds.  Just because Scripture says something is a sin does not mean that it needs to be codified in secular law as a crime.  But marriage has always been a framework for family, and that presumed the biological family that grew from the marital union.  What the Supreme Court did was redefine marriage in law to mean something other than what it has meant for millennia.  Tolerance for folks to live their own lives does not mean actively condoning everything they do. Unfortunately, tolerance has been redefined as well.

That being said, the SSM ship has sailed.  For a President to expend political capital trying to repeal the recent SCOTUS decision on this matter would be a misuse of resources.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

The majority of people say differently.

No, only a majority of the SCOTUS Justices say differently.  The rest of us haven't been polled lately.  Although I do believe that a majority of Americans are at least OK with SSM now that it is a fait accompli, that wasn't the results of the majority of referenda that had been held prior to that.

[wolfsblood07]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

The majority of people say differently.

No, only a majority of the SCOTUS Justices say differently.  The rest of us haven't been polled lately.  Although I do believe that a majority of Americans are at least OK with SSM now that it is a fait accompli, that wasn't the results of the majority of referenda that had been held prior to that.

Fuzzy Bear makes good points.

[TJ in Oregon]

I wasn't advocating we supplant a person's religion or tradition all I am saying don't use that to tell me  or anyone else how we can live our lives if it harms none or violates a natural law.

Example: My faith says drinking is forbidden I would never tell anyone you can't drink because my faith says you can't.

Does your religion have a distinction between natural law and practices such as abstinence from alcohol? Or do its adherents believe drinking alcohol is always wrong for anyone to do? Do you believe drinking alcohol is against natural law?

Most of the issues that are tossed around in the American political/religious debates are fundamentally disputes over natural law topics, such as abortion and gay marriage. The opponents (myself included) often think those things are contrary to natural law (though some have other reasons for opposing them) and the supporters either think they're not, or, more commonly, don't think natural law is a thing to begin with. There are occasional disputes that pop up that are completely unrelated to natural law, like teaching evolution in schools, but for the most part our arguments are over whether or not something is against natural law, and subsequently whether or not the government can/should outlaw it.*

*That's not to say everything against natural law can be outlawed by the government. For example, a law against lying would be a total disaster for a multitude of reasons.

[SteveRogers]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

It's "wonderful" when gay people are forced to remain in the closet and enter into loveless sham marriages???

Those marriages may not be loveless.  A guy gets married and realizes how great it is to have a sweet, adoring, perky goddess of a wife to cuddle with and take her shopping for dresses and shoes!  These guys are cured!  That's why traditional marriage is sacred.

Oh okay, you're just a troll. Got it.

[Classic Conservative]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

It's "wonderful" when gay people are forced to remain in the closet and enter into loveless sham marriages???

It's because TEH GAYS are the scum of America.

Never mind the fact that the New Testament's "Love your neighbor as yourself" overrules the entire Old Testament. Anti-gay marriage crusaders are not real Christians; they use religion to justify their hate.

Actually Christianity speaks of in the Book of Matthew Chapter 19 Verse 5 says that marriage is between a man and a women. So you an atheist are saying that a large amount of Christians including all of the saints and all of the popes as well as people like MLK, Billy Graham and others aren't real Christians. Now give me a break

[Torie]

Is it possible for something to be against "natural law" but nevertheless is good public policy? Could SSM be against natural law, even if empirically based on the data it did no harm to anyone, or to society, while making gays happier and more productive citizens? Suppose the data showed that gays getting marriage, caused heterosexual marriages to become more successful? Is what the contents of natural law is, ever subject to change based on anything, ever? Is the invocation of natural law when it comes to public policy, anything more than merely a vehicle to legitimatize non data based decision making?

Sure, I suppose one might argue, that in the absence of data, the default position is to fall back on natural law. That would be unfortunate if the result, were that it interfered with trying something out on a limited, experimental basis to try to collect some data. It would effectively foreclose exploring options in a prudent manner that might make human society better, and the planet a better place in which to live.

Am I making any sense here?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The natural order of sex is a funny thing to pin down. What does it mean? Sex as practiced by hunter-gatherer communities? Sex in antiquity? The medieval period? The Enlightened figures? The 1950's? Because all of them have entirely separate views about the morality or immorality of various, erm, practices surrounding sex, matrimony and the genders.

[Asian Nazi]

The natural order of sex is a funny thing to pin down. What does it mean? Sex as practiced by hunter-gatherer communities? Sex in antiquity? The medieval period? The Enlightened figures? The 1950's? Because all of them have entirely separate views about the morality or immorality of various, erm, practices surrounding sex, matrimony and the genders.

Like most things in American political discourse they're referring to a fictional Leave it to Beaver version of the 1950's.

[Torie]

The natural order of sex is a funny thing to pin down. What does it mean? Sex as practiced by hunter-gatherer communities? Sex in antiquity? The medieval period? The Enlightened figures? The 1950's? Because all of them have entirely separate views about the morality or immorality of various, erm, practices surrounding sex, matrimony and the genders.

Folks in earlier times got the contents of natural law wrong. Now, we have it all right, although what is right still varies person by person, or religion by religion, or whatever. So one gets to shop around for what appeals, which is good, because then one can find a version of natural law that comports with one's own beliefs/prejudices/pre-conceptoins/leaps of faith/whatever, and then use it as a weapon in the public square to circumvent any inconveniences associated with data based decision making. Any more questions?

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

It's "wonderful" when gay people are forced to remain in the closet and enter into loveless sham marriages???

Those marriages may not be loveless.  A guy gets married and realizes how great it is to have a sweet, adoring, perky goddess of a wife to cuddle with and take her shopping for dresses and shoes!  These guys are cured!  That's why traditional marriage is sacred.

This may be a shock to you, but there are actually plenty of gay men that don't fall into the "Gay Best Friend" stereotype.

[Torie]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

It's "wonderful" when gay people are forced to remain in the closet and enter into loveless sham marriages???

Those marriages may not be loveless.  A guy gets married and realizes how great it is to have a sweet, adoring, perky goddess of a wife to cuddle with and take her shopping for dresses and shoes!  These guys are cured!  That's why traditional marriage is sacred.

Assuming that you are not trolling, you really know nothing about gay people do you? Do you have the slightest interest in learning anything about them?  And somebody alluded to the slippery slope argument somewhere. SSM of humans will lead to legalizing polygamous same sex marriages between dogs. Some find that kind of argument quite offensive. Gays generally don't like being put into the same category as non humans. We really are human actually. This is the end of lesson one about gays. Gays are human. Thank you.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

It's "wonderful" when gay people are forced to remain in the closet and enter into loveless sham marriages???

Those marriages may not be loveless.  A guy gets married and realizes how great it is to have a sweet, adoring, perky goddess of a wife to cuddle with and take her shopping for dresses and shoes!  These guys are cured!  That's why traditional marriage is sacred.

Assuming that you are not trolling, you really know nothing about gay people do you? Do you have the slightest interest in learning anything about them?  And somebody alluded to the slippery slope argument somewhere. SSM of humans will lead to legalizing polygamous same sex marriages between dogs. Some find that kind of argument quite offensive. Gays generally don't like being put into the same category as non humans. We really are human actually. This is the end of lesson one about gays. Gays are human. Thank you.

I'm not trolling.  But the fact is that the recent SCOTUS decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on SSM opens the door for a similar ruling on the issue of polygamy.

I'll quote from Obergefell:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why, then, is this not applicable to polygamists?  Why must the children of "sister wives" whose "marriages" are not codified in law suffer "the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser"?  Passages like this one, and like the many references as to how marriage has "evolved" over time open the door for this; how do they NOT do so?  Polygamy, as an institution, has been a feature of far more cultures throughout the World and throughout history than SSM.  Legalizing polygamy would, in fact, be less of a redefinition of marriage, from a historical point of view, than what was done in Obergefell.

If Santorum, Cruz, or whomever wishes to step up to the pump on this issue, wants to make a coherent argument that might be useful, they could talk about the line, "Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser." and ask why, if this is the liberal rationale to redefine marriage to include SSM, that the same liberals aren't encouraging the growing number of unmarried cohabiting heterosexual couples to "tie the knot".  The declining number of MARITAL families with children and the increasing number of non-marital families with children is a very real issue of societal stability with real public policy implications.  We have gone a long way down the road where sex outside of marriage (let alone childbearing) was sternly discouraged.  People nowadays consider this topic to be largely a matter of personal choice, but personal choices do have societal impact and public policy implications, and those matters SHOULD be part of the 2016 campaign.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Logical requirements of the state--war-making, education, the issue of promoting one's nation above others or at least making it equal to others--surely fall outside the bounds of moral/legal code developed (at least) hundreds of years ago. In fact, the most expedient ways to address those and other issues will likely involve, to at least a small extent, violating the basics of free living, trade, and worship. Fact is, government is going to make a number of arbitrary, if not outright immoral (again, a shaky term outside the bounds of an organized and absolutist belief system) actions. And yes, this will involve trampling people's alleged rights.

That's why we have a constitution. The government exists on behalf of the people, not the other way around. The government has the power to do things which might otherwise violate natural liberty because the people have allowed it under the constitution. We own ourselves, we are not slaves to the government, BUT we have decided that for a functional government there must be some taxation, so we give the government the power to tax. You mentioned eminent domain which violates property rights. We have decided that sometimes the government may need to take land, BUT it is only allowed to do so for a public use (although SCOTUS flubbed this) and also MUST provide just compensation. See what happens if they government ever just starts taking land under the guise of eminent domain without offering any payment. The government power to violate these principles of natural liberty comes from the people, they allow it; the government may not literally do whatever it wants because many trumps few. There are constraints on its power, and they come from us. And when government acts outside of these constraints, it is without power.

Those marriages may not be loveless.  A guy gets married and realizes how great it is to have a sweet, adoring, perky goddess of a wife to cuddle with and take her shopping for dresses and shoes!  These guys are cured!  That's why traditional marriage is sacred.

hahahahaha ... can I have some of what you are smoking?

[Torie]

Ah, a data based argument, or at least susceptible to data based testing! Very good! The claim is that hetero marriages are going down the tubes now that gays can do it. Now all we need is the data, to see if there is any time line connection between the two (that does not necessarily mean causation, but hey it's a start). And voila, I found something! Fancy that. Hard to image that heteros are not changing their life decisions based on what gays are doing, other than sometimes taking cues from them in fashion or whatever, but this planet is just full of surprises. Now the question is whether gay marriages are causing heteros to be more interested in marriage maintenance. Probably not, because as I said, time line correlations do not necessarily imply casual connections.