Santorum says electing Cruz will lead to "Polygamy"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:48:13 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Santorum says electing Cruz will lead to "Polygamy"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Santorum says electing Cruz will lead to "Polygamy"  (Read 4490 times)
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2016, 03:24:43 PM »

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.
Logged
#TheShadowyAbyss
TheShadowyAbyss
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,027
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -3.64

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2016, 03:25:53 PM »
« Edited: January 02, 2016, 03:28:13 PM by #TheShadowyAbyss »

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.

Lol ok, once again neocons and theocrats think that their version of theology or what can dictate to certain groups of people what they can and can't do....keep your religion in your house of worship and in privacy thanks.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2016, 03:31:57 PM »

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.

Mike Huckabee must have joined this forum.
Logged
This account no longer in use.
cxs018
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,282


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2016, 04:54:09 PM »

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. 

> natural law

The USA is not a theocracy. Forcing every American citizen to follow Christianity would make America just as bad as the Middle Eastern countries under Sharia Law.
Logged
#TheShadowyAbyss
TheShadowyAbyss
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,027
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -3.64

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2016, 04:56:05 PM »

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. 

> natural law

The USA is not a theocracy. Forcing every American citizen to follow Christianity would make America just as bad as the Middle Eastern countries under Sharia Law.

Especially when 3/10 Americans have no connection to Christianity at all and half of American Christians aren't religious at all lol.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 02, 2016, 04:56:28 PM »

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.

Mike Huckabee must have joined this forum.

I'm confused as to why A) you seem to think I joined the forum after you, but moreso that B) you seem to assume that one must be homophobic or evangelical to acknowledge that the needs of the state come before those of the individual.
Logged
Cruzcrew
Paleocon
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 568
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 02, 2016, 04:57:37 PM »

I'm pro traditional marriage but this is just retarded. Santorum gives no s about the constitution which the president is supposed to swear to uphold. Ted cruz is being a constitutionalist here. Doesn't mean electing cruz=polygamy.
Logged
This account no longer in use.
cxs018
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,282


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 02, 2016, 04:57:52 PM »

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.

Mike Huckabee must have joined this forum.

I'm confused as to why A) you seem to think I joined the forum after you, but moreso that B) you seem to assume that one must be homophobic or evangelical to acknowledge that the needs of the state come before those of the individual.

You don't have to be homophobic or evangelical to feel that the state comes before the individual. You could also be pro-government surveillance.
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 02, 2016, 04:59:58 PM »

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.

Lol ok, once again neocons and theocrats think that their version of theology or what can dictate to certain groups of people what they can and can't do....keep your religion in your house of worship and in privacy thanks.

Whereas, you know, your conception of 'rights' is ultimately derived from the scribblings of a bunch of 18th century philosophers, many of whom were probably off their faces on the various illicit substances of the day. Which is obviously a great basis for law.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 02, 2016, 05:00:27 PM »

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.

Mike Huckabee must have joined this forum.

I'm confused as to why A) you seem to think I joined the forum after you, but moreso that B) you seem to assume that one must be homophobic or evangelical to acknowledge that the needs of the state come before those of the individual.
Sounds dangerously close to fascism...
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 02, 2016, 05:07:48 PM »

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.

Mike Huckabee must have joined this forum.

I'm confused as to why A) you seem to think I joined the forum after you, but moreso that B) you seem to assume that one must be homophobic or evangelical to acknowledge that the needs of the state come before those of the individual.
Sounds dangerously close to fascism...

Tell that to your tax collector.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 02, 2016, 05:09:58 PM »

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.

Lol ok, once again neocons and theocrats think that their version of theology or what can dictate to certain groups of people what they can and can't do....keep your religion in your house of worship and in privacy thanks.

"Can"!? Have you ever heard of eminent domain? And I assume your foundation for people's rights are entirely secular and perfect!
Logged
#TheShadowyAbyss
TheShadowyAbyss
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,027
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -3.64

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 02, 2016, 05:17:16 PM »

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.

Lol ok, once again neocons and theocrats think that their version of theology or what can dictate to certain groups of people what they can and can't do....keep your religion in your house of worship and in privacy thanks.

"Can"!? Have you ever heard of eminent domain? And I assume your foundation for people's rights are entirely secular and perfect!

Did I ever say they were perfect? At least I can separate my religious views from my political views, they should NEVER interfere with each other.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 02, 2016, 05:18:26 PM »

As we all know, Ted Cruz is one of them filthy liberals who want to make it legal for us to marry animals, to marry objects, to marry multiple people...

Well, he has my full support then. Smiley
Logged
#TheShadowyAbyss
TheShadowyAbyss
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,027
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -3.64

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: January 02, 2016, 05:19:13 PM »

As we all know, Ted Cruz is one of them filthy liberals who want to make it legal for us to marry animals, to marry objects, to marry multiple people...

Well, he has my full support then. Smiley

Let's have the most lulzy weddings ever!
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: January 02, 2016, 05:25:05 PM »

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.

Lol ok, once again neocons and theocrats think that their version of theology or what can dictate to certain groups of people what they can and can't do....keep your religion in your house of worship and in privacy thanks.

"Can"!? Have you ever heard of eminent domain? And I assume your foundation for people's rights are entirely secular and perfect!

Did I ever say they were perfect? At least I can separate my religious views from my political views, they should NEVER interfere with each other.

Thanks for making normative statement in a secular context!
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: January 02, 2016, 05:41:15 PM »

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. 

> natural law

The USA is not a theocracy. Forcing every American citizen to follow Christianity would make America just as bad as the Middle Eastern countries under Sharia Law.

Especially when 3/10 Americans have no connection to Christianity at all and half of American Christians aren't religious at all lol.

Not being a Bible thumper =/= "not being religious at all."  At all.

Otherwise, I agree with what you've been saying.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: January 02, 2016, 06:07:34 PM »

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?
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 02, 2016, 07:21:04 PM »

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?

It is indeed the phrase "people's rights" that no one in the thread has defined an almost certainly cannot do so in a way that isn't completely arbitrary except by invoking some broader philosophical framework. Traditionally natural rights were derived from natural law (ie. since stealing is against natural law there much be a natural right to property etc.). However, these rights are not necessarily understood to be absolute. For example, the government can licitly tax people even though they have property. It can also illicitly trample upon them too, though it is unclear to me which Cathcon was referring to.
Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,367


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 02, 2016, 07:27:14 PM »

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.

Lol ok, once again neocons and theocrats think that their version of theology or what can dictate to certain groups of people what they can and can't do....keep your religion in your house of worship and in privacy thanks.

But, but, but... if they can't use their religion to justify abusing and exploiting others for their own pleasure and/or profit, what good is it? 
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: January 02, 2016, 07:28:13 PM »

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.
Logged
#TheShadowyAbyss
TheShadowyAbyss
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,027
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -3.64

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: January 02, 2016, 07:43:41 PM »

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.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: January 02, 2016, 07:52:36 PM »

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.
Logged
#TheShadowyAbyss
TheShadowyAbyss
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,027
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -3.64

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: January 02, 2016, 07:58:01 PM »

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.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: January 02, 2016, 08:06:41 PM »

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?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.081 seconds with 13 queries.