Santorum says electing Cruz will lead to "Polygamy"

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/12/30/why-rick-santorum-says-electing-ted-cruz-could-lead-polygamy

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Reminds me when Santorum attacked the Duggars and called them sick and attacked Huckabee for defending them

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Wow!  I did not think there was a smidgen of room to get to the right of Ted Cruz on a social issue!  I am impressed, and hope that this marks a real push toward banning SSM.  
When I heard Cruz discuss this as a states rights issue, I felt that was as good as it would ever get and I supported it.  Now I say, go Santorum!  

Hope this is sarcasm...

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Since when did people take Santorum seriously? His time was years ago, he's not a relevant figurehead.

His 1% of die hard supporters I guess.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Wow!  I did not think there was a smidgen of room to get to the right of Ted Cruz on a social issue!  I am impressed, and hope that this marks a real push toward banning SSM.  
When I heard Cruz discuss this as a states rights issue, I felt that was as good as it would ever get and I supported it.  Now I say, go Santorum!  

Hope this is sarcasm...

Not sarcasm!
Reading the article has pumped me up!  After seeing so many gay flag rainbows all over social media last summer, this is a hopeful sign.  I am glad I sent Santorum a contribution, even though it was small every bit helps.

Please, tell us your reasons why you believe same-sex marriage should be banned.

He's obviously trolling here but MUH GAY PRIDE PARADES AND MUH SEXUALITY TRUMPS ALL

[#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?

[#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.

[#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. 

> 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.

[#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.

"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.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

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.

Let's have the most lulzy weddings ever!

[#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.

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.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

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.

[#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.