If you do a search on this, you will find most of the mainstream media talking about how the students booed Santorum. Apparently, neither the college students nor the media are capable of understanding that if you can marry anyone you want, then that means that there can be no prohibition of polygamy. And, of course, this is exactly what is happening in countries that have embraced same-sex marriage, like Canada.
Excerpt:
Canada’s decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance.
The case is the first to test Canada’s polygamy laws.
Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44, are each accused of being married to more than one woman at a time. The charges carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, British Columbia Attorney General Wally Oppal said.
But Blackmore’s lawyer, Blair Suffredine, said during a telephone interview that marriage standards in Canada have changed.
“If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can’t marry more than one person?” said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker. Canada’s Parliament extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2005.
Actually, law professors at Queen’s University are already demanding that polygamy be legalized.
Take a look at this post from the Vancouver Sun.
Excerpt:
A Queen’s University law professor says that polygamy should be legal in Canada.
Queen’s issued a news release on the day that a polygamy reference opened in British Columbia, where the government is seeking a legal opinion on whether Canada’s 128-year-old ban on multiple marriage violates the freedom of religion guarantees in the Charter of Rights.
Bev Baines, head of the Department of Gender Studies and a constitutional law expert, argues that Canada is a multicultural country and it is therefore unconstitutional to criminalize people for their marital relationships.
“The law achieves nothing,” Baines said in the release. “We’ve had the law on the books since 1892 and we had no prosecutions in the last 60 years aside from a failed attempt last January. We don’t stop polygamy by having a law.”
What I find disturbing is that the media and the college students are unable to follow the logic that legal scholars in Canada are now following. Are they not aware of what is happening in nations that have legalized gay marriage? Or can they only understand who is booing who? The journalists certainly think that booing a Presidential candidate is more appropriate than the use of reason to evaluate moral arguments. Sometimes I wonder if journalists learn anything at all in college except how to accuse conservatives of SIXHIRB – sexism, intolerance, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, bigotry.
Here’s a previous post I write making the secular case against gay marriage.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Journalists are taught to go after people. Look at their heroes: the two reporters that took down Nixon in the Watergate case. That means you always have to be going after someone. It’s not a matter of just reporting what happens, but going after those that you deem are unacceptable.
That being the case, Santorum getting booed helps play into that. Do anything and everything to take your opponent down. That is what drives the MSM.
LikeLike
Canadian lawyers are also moving toward polyamory — group marriages.
LikeLike
The more I listen to Santorum, the more I like him. What surprised me was that the students stopped disrupting him. Their natural reaction is just to blurt out bromides about rights and love. I’m glad that Santorum was able to start the thinking process.
LikeLike
Orwell was right, but it isn’t the government that has caused them to bleh “Four legs good, two legs bad’ but liberal teachers and their own logic limiting, wild emotion.
LikeLike
I sometimes wonder if Rick Santorum is familiar with STR and Greg Koukl’s “Tactics in Defending the Faith.” I appreciate how he challenges people to think through their beliefs by asking questions rather than making statements (the “Columbo Tactic”) and how he disarms vociferous disruptors by gently reminding them of the ground rules for civil (i.e., *tolerant*!) discourse.
How often do we see a politician (or any public figure for that matter) use the power of logic as calmly and carefully as Santorum? Alan Keys is phenomenal at it, and Newt Gingrich is proficient. But I can’t think of any other names outside the arenas of Christian Apologetics and Philosophy. (Lamentably, use of reason ought to be the norm in the public square, not the exception. Thank you, Postmodernism.)
In this video, he employs the method of reductio ad absurdum (or “Taking the Roof Off”) to help these liberal-minded New England college students see that the very arguments used to promote same-sex marriage can also be used to promote *any* form of marital union, no matter how bizarre or licentious the nature of the relationship(s). It’s a logical slippery slope, to be certain.
When the one girl (the original questioner, I think) stated that she believes all people should have the legal right to do “whatever makes them happy” and added the qualifier, “as long as they don’t harm other people,” that was an opportune moment for Rick to point out the obvious physical, emotional, and psychological harm inherent to homosexual–especially male-to-male–sexual activity. But that likely would have caused a chaotic uproar in the room, which might have then prevented him from making his rational case for the uniqueness and sanctity of natural/traditional marriage.
What was the most troubling part of this video for you guys? For me, I would have to say I was probably most disturbed by the wild applause that followed the comment “Marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.” Incredible.
P.S. In my opinion, no one makes a better case against same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general than Frank Turek. I pray that Santorum will read “Correct, Not Politically Correct” if he hasn’t already. In fact, I think I may mail him a copy!
LikeLike
I actually think he has room to improve there – he sometimes mentions the Bible, but I don’t think that’s necessary. Turek’s case is a good model for Santorum.
LikeLike
Do you mean that Santorum has room to improve? I believe so as well. That’s why I referred to Turek’s book. I think it, as well as the excellent training resources available at STR, would help Rick tighten his arguments.
LikeLike
I’m a liberal, and I really appreciate Santorum’s efforts in this instance to maintain a civil discussion. He didn’t resort to hyperbole, lying or name calling. Let’s honor both those on the left and the right when they adhere to these standards.
Long before the concept of gay marriage took root, the traditional institution of marriage and family with an authoritative husband/father at its center has been under threat. These threats are myriad and include:
– The transition from a farm economy to to an industrialized and office economy.
– Woman’s sufferage.
– Education
– Loss of stable communities/ widespread societal mobility.
– Loosening of sexual morals
– Women’s increasing financial and political independence
– Television/ the Internet
– Celebrity and popular culture
– No fault divorice
I have to ask, among this pantheon of challenges to traditional marriage and family, is gay marriage really much more a threat than any of the above?
Personally, I believe that gay and hetero promiscuity is harmful to both individuals and society, and that everyone, gay or straight, should be encouraged to engage in sexual relationships within loving, committed adult relationships. I also believe that gay marriage can play a role in helping ensure that happens.
Just my two cents. Thanks for the forum.
LikeLike