Santorum says electing Cruz will lead to "Polygamy"

[Badger]

Santorum and Huckabee springing to the aid of Trump. Interesting.

More like they're desperate and realize that their only hope is Cruz imploding with evangelicals in Iowa.

yep

[Badger]

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?

you really need to stop posting until college is over and you reuinite with the real world, dude.