Advice to Rick Santorum: stick with talking to hicks. When you talk to college students, they’re going to make you look dumb every single time.
Think Progress referred to this video as Santorum’s attempt to engage in a “Socratic dialogue,” which does seem to be what he was doing. Unfortunately it came out really frothy.
I have to admit that I can imagine a situation where poly marriages are legal. Who am I to tell people they can’t have a poly marriage?!?! Maybe that is the right solution for some consenting adults – there’s certainly precedent in many cultures!
Ideally, the government wouldn’t be in the marrying business at all. But, if you are in the marrying business, it’s tough to draw a line. Am I a proponent of poly marriages? Not necessarily. Do I understand the rationale some may make for poly marriages? Sure. Do I completely agree with Santorum’s logical leap? Not at all.
Many contracts in our culture are exclusively between two entities, e.g. a business and an employee, a sale of real estate from one person / group to another person / group, and marriage between two people. I think a rational argument can be made that marriage should be between any two consenting adults.
I think the argument for poly marriage is entirely separate, though.
Santorum really needs to study the Bible more. Jesus was of the lineage of David. King David had multiple wives. Solomon, David’s son, had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Jesus never spoke negatively about multiple wives but he did say that divorce was not sanctioned by God. During those times women were the property of men. Women could not divorce because as property they had zero rights.
If our society should follow Biblical principles then we should follow all of the principles. One of those is that women found not to be virgins at the time of their marriage should be stoned to death. I want to see that one pass both the house and senate. And while were at it how about legislation requiring that everyone sell all their worldly possessions and give the money to the poor. Jesus proscribed that and he is certainly not known to have owned anything except maybe the tunic he wore. Heck, his mother didn’t even get to keep that since the Roman soldiers rolled dice for it after he was crucified. How’s that for an inheritance tax? Let’s see Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell introduce legislation to codify confiscation of all worldly goods at death.
No Rick, you can’t pick and choose which Biblical principles to follow. It is all or nothing.
I think Santorum has only a passing acquaintance with reason.
Excellent comment, Daniel.
Note to Santorum: If you believe in the Bible and don’t follow ALL of it precepts, then stop pretending to be a Christian. You can’t pick and choose only what suits you. Doing so makes you a fraud.
Jerry
Correction:
Excellent comment deena.
Jerry
Reason why 2 is okay and 3 is not….. marriage is a legal contract. If their are more than 2 in a marriage, are they all married to each other, or is one person married to 2 people?
Excellent answer, Rhonda, and I’m stealing it the first chance I get.
Rhonda– polygamy as it is practiced everywhere is serial marriage without divorce. The women are not married to each other, only to the man, though they are kin, I believe.
Anywaym, I don’ty think that heteroseuxals swohuld be allowed to marry. It has been demonstrated conclusively that heterosexual marriage leads to polygamy.
Yeah, I wish the student and more people in general would be prepared to answer the polygamy question. Number is clearly different than gender because adding a physical third person completely complicates how benefits run and who gets custody and visitation in divorce, just off the top of my head. Changing number actually changes the institution. Changing gender does not anymore than mixing races does.
You’re forgetting to mention he was speaking to a College Republican crowd.
What a vile little troglodite.
I find Dan Savage’s redefinition of his name pretty disgusting, but it is nothing compared to the disgust and revulsion that Santorum himself inspires in me.
He wants a ban on contraception, even for married couples? So he wants to dictate how and when people can have sex with their own spouses???
He wants to repeal the repeal of DADT and annull all gay marriages?
So if I were a gay US marine married to my stay-at-home husband who looks after our adopted kids, Santorum would have me forcibly removed from my Job (I can’t very well go back in the closet) for nothing I had done, thus removing my ability to support my family. He would also stop social security benefits, so I would most likely lose my home, and to top it all off he would have me effectively forcibly divorced from the love of my life, my kids would be put into care and I would be, for all intents and purposes, destitute, even though I had put my life on the line for my country.
In other words, this low-life scum would go out of his way to utterly RUIN MY LIFE!!!
I do not hate many people, but I REALLY HATE this man!!!
If you have studied the gospels you must know that there are incompatibilities in the genealogies of Joseph and (by proxy) Jesus. Of course, since Joseph is only the step-father of Jesus, who is engendered by the Holy Spirit, this genealogy is really rather pointless. But to the point of Jesus’s realtionship to David. If Mary wasn’t of the house of David neither was Jesus.
Typical politician’s smoke screen. Legally, only one spouse per person is recognized. One can have as many “husbands” or “wives” as one chooses. However, legally only two people can be recognized as a “married” couple. The Constitution says nothing about the gender of either person in a legally recognized married couple. Then, of course, he immediately veers into the “What if” horror, never answering the original question, of course. “What if” is a favorite ploy of someone who wants to redirect the question to other territory. Too bad no one in the audience forcefully called him on his bigotry.