Santorum says electing Cruz will lead to "Polygamy"

[TJ in Oregon]

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.

[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.

[TJ in Oregon]

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?

From this post, I think you misunderstand what natural law is. Natural law is based on the idea that humans have natures (certain rights and virtues intrinsic to their humanity) and that morality is based on perfecting these virtues. Like most moral systems, data can be used to guide decision making. However, what varies from system to system is the questions one asks when looking at data and the response made from the data. Adjudicating a proposed idea according to natural law is different from consequentialism in that we care not only about the outcome but also the means and intentions for the process along the way.*

For example, if a study came out that said children who were spanked are less likely to use drugs when they grow up, both adherents of natural law and consequentialism would then conclude we should spank children. However, if instead a study came out saying (hypothetically) that children that were selectively bred  and inserted into their surrogate mothers via IV fertilization are less likely to use drugs when they grow up, consequentialists may be ok with that approach, but those who hold natural law would say that the proposal is wrong, not because of the end outcome but because selective breeding of humans is against natural law.

I suppose one might say that natural law is making a lot of "extra" assumptions about what human virtue should look like. But when you try to decide what a "good" or "bad" outcome is you're already making assumptions about what human virtue should look like. Essentially, the disagreement if argued effectively, is not about what data says will happen if we do X and instead about what is good, be it an ends or a means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It depends what you mean by "against natural law" and "good public policy". If by "good public policy" you mean lead to outcomes you deem favorable, then yes of course it can (see above). There's also another important scenario to consider and that's when the government isn't actively doing anything against natural law, but is instead choosing not to act against a violation of natural law. Here there is much more latitude for prudence. While in some abstract utopian world it may be better if some violation of natural law is illegal, it does not follow that there is a good law that can actually be written in ours outlawing it, or that such a law wouldn't have other effects that cannot be ignored.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. See above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This something of a debate between different people who subscribe to natural law. I would argue the answer is no, however, since natural law is based on human nature and I don't think human nature changes over time. It is possible that we don't fully understand some aspect of it, though, and will come to understand it better later.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In theory it should be mostly neutral to the use of data in decision making. In practice, it's only mentioned when discussing gay marriage and most of the people using the argument don't understand what natural law even means.

*The version of natural law I describe here is in accordance with virtue ethics. There are somewhat different constructions that others have described for deontological ethical systems.