Santorum says electing Cruz will lead to "Polygamy"

[Torie]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Torie]

Thanks TJ. That was very helpful. Your post belongs in the good post gallery on FC. This is Atlas at its best. I very much appreciate the time that you took to respond.

I am still not going to let natural law get in the way of data based decision making. Obviously there is some sort of moral construct involved about what the ends should be, and the means to get there. But I don't think thinking about what is "natural" about humans is very helpful in fashioning such constructs, although it certainly is not irrelevant. What makes humans happy, and productive, and gives their lives meaning, has something to do with their nature. But that too is somewhat data based. We are still learning about human nature, and how we tick. We have learned a lot about drug addiction for example, from a biological perspective. Psychosis too, although we have a long, long way to go on that one.

[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.

That's not the question at all.  The decline in heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with homosexuals, period.  

For the record, and as a Christian, my opposition to SSM has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage", or what it might do to my marriage, etc.  That stuff is all nonsense.  I oppose it because of what Scripture says about sexual activity.  I consider SSM to be an affront to God.  If folks disagree with that, I understand, but I base my position on Scripture, and while there may be a humanistic argument against my position, there is not a Scriptural argument that holds water.  I have respect for folks who wish to argue that the Bible is a bunch of horse manure and Christians believe in fairy tales.  I don't have much respect for folks who quote Scripture as authoritative when it supports them and avoid it when it doesn't.  The Bible either is the inspired Word of God, or it's just another self-help book that can be easily blown off.

I understand, and given your leap of faith, the discussion comes to an end. It is sort of like the abortion issue. If you think from the moment of conception that the zygote is a human being, with all of the rights associated with that, the discussion is at an end. It is not that one is right objectively and the other wrong. It is just that the assumptions made, based upon subjectivity, result in there being no way to bridge the gap based on reason.