Santorum says electing Cruz will lead to "Polygamy"

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

The underlined is very true.  I don't consider that a bad thing, btw.  I do believe, on Faith, things that others here may not.

There are many areas where folks like me could come to agreement with secular liberals, even as we would disagree on many social issues that, from my point of view, are Biblically driven.  I would like it if both sides could recognize this a bit more.  Such cooperation might require a change of heart on the part of some religious folks, who tend toward political rants about liberals, rather than spreading the Gospel, but it would also require some liberals to consider what folks like me believe Christ requires of them. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

When did marriage become a prerequisite for procreation?

The day God ordained the family.  That's when.

That many folks blow this off is . . . well . . . on them.