Megavest: Dave Mustaine Endorses Rick Santorum

[chaos]

I wonder what Santorum thinks of Dave Mustaine's endorsement.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/ ... torum.html

By David Weigel | Posted Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2012, at 11:49 AM ET

Earlier in the election, I was completely oblivious as to who Rick Santorum was, but when the dude went home to be with his daughter when she was sick, that was very commendable. Also, just watching how he hasn't gotten into doing these horrible, horrible attack ads like Mitt Romney's done against Newt Gingrich, and then the volume at which Newt has gone back at Romney… You know, I think Santorum has some presidential qualities, and I'm hoping that if it does come down to it, we'll see a Republican in the White House... and that it's Rick Santorum.

There is a piece the National Journal highlighting Santorum's stand on several issues. There are brief descriptions of each item in the article:

http://nationaljournal.com/2012-preside ... --20120215

1) Marriage is for making babies.

2) Put the brakes on divorce.

3) Same-sex marriage opens the door to polygamy.

“If consent is now the only standard to have your sexual behavior protected by the Constitution, then how can the court prohibit any consensual sexual behavior among two, three, or more people?” he writes. “The answer is logically, judicially, that you cannot—for other than arbitrary reasons.”

4) Abortion is like slavery.

5) Pro-abortion-rights conspiracy?

6) Liberal welfare policy hurt African Americans.

7) Darwin was wrong.

8) 'Radical feminists' are destroying the American family.

9) Religion is under assault.

10) A call to arms.

[creep]

i didn't know he went to visit his sick daughter. i'm definitely voting for him now. thanks dave.

[Truth23]

Mustaine issued a statement saying he didn't mean it as an endorsement but he said he liked all the Republican candidates and wanted one of them to win. He used to be a pretty liberal but I think he's become more conservative over the years since becoming a born-again, hopefully he endorses Ron Paul instead of Frothy.

[Hype]

1) Marriage is for making babies. No. Making babies is for making babies.

2) Put the brakes on divorce. No. Battered women should be able to get out of abusive relationships.

3) Same-sex marriage opens the door to polygamy. Sure but there's nothing wrong with that, save correlated misogyny and abuse of women.

4) Abortion is like slavery. No it isn't. Read Judith Jarvis Thompson's famous defense of abortion article with the violinist.

5) Pro-abortion-rights conspiracy? I'm pro abortion. More abortions for everyone.

6) Liberal welfare policy hurt African Americans. No it doesn't.

7) Darwin was wrong. No he wasn't.

8) 'Radical feminists' are destroying the American family. No they aren't.

9) Religion is under assault. Yes, but that's because religion is belligerent.

[chaos]

[Larry B.]

Aspirin.

[Hokahey]

Put the brakes on divorce.

Divorce shouldn't be so expensive, but marriage should be a contract and it should be hard to break. It shouldnt be something people are able to jump in to without understanding the consequences. People with children should find it more difficult to break the contract. Contract should stipulate abuse (emotional or physcial) render contract null and void if provable. Anyone adult of any gender should be able to enter this contract with one another.

Same-sex marriage opens the door to polygamy.

I agree with this. And absent the abuses traditionally associated with polygamy I have no issue with multiple people entering in to a marriage contract.

Abortion is like slavery

I'm not sure I see the connection, but it is a pretty terrible thing.

Liberal welfare policy hurt African Americans.

Agreed.

7) Darwin was wrong.

8) 'Radical feminists' are destroying the American family.

9) Religion is under assault.

10) A call to arms.

[/quote]

Neo-con nonsense.

[farrellgirl99]

Same-sex marriage opens the door to polygamy.

I agree with this. And absent the abuses traditionally associated with polygamy I have no issue with multiple people entering in to a marriage contract.

you honestly believe same sex marriage opens the door to polygamy? or are you joking

[Hype]

Same-sex marriage opens the door to polygamy.

I agree with this. And absent the abuses traditionally associated with polygamy I have no issue with multiple people entering in to a marriage contract.

you honestly believe same sex marriage opens the door to polygamy? or are you joking

They are, in fact, conceptually connected, but it's a very loose connection. It's not stupid to think that the malleability of a legal definition can show that it is possible to further extend it. The problem with the argument as it is often trotted out by religious conservatives is that they think this is a valid "slippery slope" (slippery slopes, by the way, are logically invalid... they are BAD arguments) because the two are slightly connected, and they think that both things are bad and shouldn't be allowed anyway. It's a rhetorical ploy they use that is just silly. But it's equally silly to try to deny that there is ANY connection whatsoever between changing the legal status of one kind of relationship and changing the legal status of another, even though the two things are not connected in any other way (that is, they are simply kinds of loving relatioships).

[farrellgirl99]

Same-sex marriage opens the door to polygamy.

I agree with this. And absent the abuses traditionally associated with polygamy I have no issue with multiple people entering in to a marriage contract.

you honestly believe same sex marriage opens the door to polygamy? or are you joking

They are, in fact, conceptually connected, but it's a very loose connection. It's not stupid to think that the malleability of a legal definition can show that it is possible to further extend it. The problem with the argument as it is often trotted out by religious conservatives is that they think this is a valid "slippery slope" (slippery slopes, by the way, are logically invalid... they are BAD arguments) because the two are slightly connected, and they think that both things are bad and shouldn't be allowed anyway. It's a rhetorical ploy they use that is just silly. But it's equally silly to try to deny that there is ANY connection whatsoever between changing the legal status of one kind of relationship and changing the legal status of another, even though the two things are not connected in any other way (that is, they are simply kinds of loving relatioships).

Okay, that makes sense in that I can now see the slight logic at work. If you could even say logic, cause I still think it's pretty ridiculous to believe that gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamy. It reminds me of people who say gay marriage will lead to man-animal marriage next. I just think it's an entirely demeaning way to look at the situation.

[Hype]

Okay, that makes sense in that I can now see the slight logic at work. If you could even say logic, cause I still think it's pretty ridiculous to believe that gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamy. It reminds me of people who say gay marriage will lead to man-animal marriage next. I just think it's an entirely demeaning way to look at the situation.

You're absolutely right that it doesn't LEAD to it. They're confusing the idea that two things can be connected in some way with one following necessarily from the other in a causal sequence. Good clear thinking on your part. (I'd give you an A in my intro philosophy class for sure!)

[Hokahey]

Same-sex marriage opens the door to polygamy.

I agree with this. And absent the abuses traditionally associated with polygamy I have no issue with multiple people entering in to a marriage contract.

you honestly believe same sex marriage opens the door to polygamy? or are you joking

They are, in fact, conceptually connected, but it's a very loose connection. It's not stupid to think that the malleability of a legal definition can show that it is possible to further extend it. The problem with the argument as it is often trotted out by religious conservatives is that they think this is a valid "slippery slope" (slippery slopes, by the way, are logically invalid... they are BAD arguments) because the two are slightly connected, and they think that both things are bad and shouldn't be allowed anyway. It's a rhetorical ploy they use that is just silly. But it's equally silly to try to deny that there is ANY connection whatsoever between changing the legal status of one kind of relationship and changing the legal status of another, even though the two things are not connected in any other way (that is, they are simply kinds of loving relatioships).

Thank you for summarizing exactly what I would have attempted to say both for and against the argument.

From a standpoint of fairness and consistency, if we are to allow any two consenting adults to enter in to the contract of marriage, why not allow three adults? My point is I'm all for it. Marriage should not be viewed religiously by the state but contractually. It's a very Libertarian viewpont for those that maintain consistency in their ideals.

[chaos]

Put the brakes on divorce.

Divorce shouldn't be so expensive, but marriage should be a contract and it should be hard to break. It shouldnt be something people are able to jump in to without understanding the consequences. People with children should find it more difficult to break the contract. Contract should stipulate abuse (emotional or physcial) render contract null and void if provable. Anyone adult of any gender should be able to enter this contract with one another.

I agree that people should not jump into marriage, and the contractual rights that marriage affords is an important thing. I am not clear, however, on what type of "consequences" should result in a divorce? I don't think you mean financial since you state that divorce shouldn't be so expensive. I think children suffer more when parents stay together in a bad marriage because of them.

As far as making it null and void as a result of physical and/or emotional abuse, this is not as easy as it sounds. What constitutes emotional abuse? Does chronic philandering, chronic drug use, chronic gambling (to name a few things) fall under the realm of emotional abuse? What if one party partakes in any of these things for years, but wants to stay in the marriage? Should his/her spouse be forced to stay in the marriage because the philander/drug user/gambler wants to keep trying? Should there be a timeline with regard to trying to work things out?

The bottom line is if one person does not want stay in the marriage, for whatever reason, forcing the person to remain with another person because he/she is bound by a contract does not benefit anyone. It could make things worse financially. For example, when people legally separate as a prelude to a divorce, new debts are no longer shared by both parties. If people could not legally separate, a person could just take off and continue to accrue debt. This would not benefit the children.

Perhaps making divorce more difficult would get people to take marriage more seriously, but the homicide rate would probably go up. (I say this half-jokingly.) The days of you made your bed now lie in it are gone, and I do not see this as a bad thing. Maybe making it harder to get married in the first place (even for heterosexuals ) would be a better solution.

[Hokahey]

Put the brakes on divorce.

Divorce shouldn't be so expensive, but marriage should be a contract and it should be hard to break. It shouldnt be something people are able to jump in to without understanding the consequences. People with children should find it more difficult to break the contract. Contract should stipulate abuse (emotional or physcial) render contract null and void if provable. Anyone adult of any gender should be able to enter this contract with one another.

I agree that people should not jump into marriage, and the contractual rights that marriage affords is an important thing. I am not clear, however, on what type of "consequences" should result in a divorce? I don't think you mean financial since you state that divorce shouldn't be so expensive. I think children suffer more when parents stay together in a bad marriage because of them.

As far as making it null and void as a result of physical and/or emotional abuse, this is not as easy as it sounds. What constitutes emotional abuse? Does chronic philandering, chronic drug use, chronic gambling (to name a few things) fall under the realm of emotional abuse? What if one party partakes in any of these things for years, but wants to stay in the marriage? Should his/her spouse be forced to stay in the marriage because the philander/drug user/gambler wants to keep trying? Should there be a timeline with regard to trying to work things out?

The bottom line is if one person does not want stay in the marriage, for whatever reason, forcing the person to remain with another person because he/she is bound by a contract does not benefit anyone. It could make things worse financially. For example, when people legally separate as a prelude to a divorce, new debts are no longer shared by both parties. If people could not legally separate, a person could just take off and continue to accrue debt. This would not benefit the children.

Perhaps making divorce more difficult would get people to take marriage more seriously, but the homicide rate would probably go up. (I say this half-jokingly.) The days of you made your bed now lie in it are gone, and I do not see this as a bad thing. Maybe making it harder to get married in the first place (even for heterosexuals ) would be a better solution.

Good points all around.