Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[asexual trans victimologist]

I'm just going to put this out there again:

A marriage rate in a population over the course of one year is NOT the same as overall proportion of that population which is married. That's like claiming that just because a country's death rate in a given year is, say, 3%, only 3% of that country's population throughout history has ever died.

Also, Ben, I do understand and appreciate your firmness and consistency on this matter, and I share your concerns about the fraying of the family, but when you get down to it no system can keep asserting itself and avoiding dealing with its structural problems by bearing down on the backs of people who it wants to exclude from its vaunted hallows, not least because that doesn't work. Whether or not gay marriage has done anything to fix any perceived problems with straight marriage, resisting gay marriage has accomplished nothing of use for anyone.

Also, I'm going to double down on the necessity of sending the atomized, discrete, two-generation 'nuclear family' right into the abyss. It's a cauldron for all sorts of perverse incentives and prurient obsessions.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I've come to the conclusion there is no point of reading anti-gay marriage arguments. They never make any sense. I'm simply going to remain steadfast in my support.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I'm glad to see you recognize that the heterosexual community is to blame for the heterosexual community's downfall in regards to marriage and the family unit.

I never said that. I said that everyone is responsible for themselves, and that those who have been married and done a poor job of that are responsible for the damage that they have done to their own families.  That doesn't absolve the victims who have suffered from this from the further decisions that they make on top of this.

However, the remedy of penalizing a separate group of people for those issues

You would be right, but society choosing to restrain people from harming themselves cannot be construed as punishment. You're assuming here that this is beneficial to those involved.

It's not going to fix the problems in the heterosexual community.

Quite the opposite, it's going to exacerbate them.

Gays do not cause families to fall apart, nor does their existence prevent the family unit from being revived as you desire.

Which is why gay people are insisting that family pictures being taken down, protesting rallies in support of traditional marriage, etc, etc, etc.

I cannot seek employment in my chosen field due to my religious and spiritual beliefs. Your comments here demonstrate that you are simply unaware of what is going on. No, it's not about simple tolerance, it's about the desire to undo society and remake it how you would prefer it to be. Even if that means destroying other people's lives, and the lives of those who have been on the other side.

Gays are not "contagious" nor can their form of love permeate outside their own domain.

Then why are they attacking those who say that they are sinning? If it's not about converting those who oppose them, why not simply leave them be?

This goes back to the two-path NY/FL analogy you were using earlier. It does not have to be one or the other in reality, but by and large it looks as if that will be how it unfolds.

Again, I have a goal, and that direction isn't helped by these actions.

Many traditional marriage proponents directly link the success of their marriages and families to the ability for gays to marry or not, and if they continue to look for their salvation in the form of hating and discriminating against others, they will ultimately fail.

So you sincerely believe that we are saved if we meet our gay-hating quota?

Are you willing to make the statement that I, do, in fact, hate gay people?

It's a much smarter idea for the proponents of traditional marriage to stop worrying about the gays and look inward, to figure out what is the issue within the heterosexual community at-large.

Which is why political compass has this question:

"When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things."

I strongly suspect your answer to this question is the same as mine.

Gays don't make men leave their wives and children. The fault lies exclusively within the heterosexual community and it is solely the heterosexual community's responsibility to fix that.

Ideas have consequences. Dissassociating marriage from having kids has negative consequences for society as a whole.

Why do you think gays fight for marriage equality?

Why?

For the same reason that a child who has no toy wants the toy of someone else. They want to be included and they feel that they are excluded by society which has certain rules. They want to participate in what they see as a fundamental part of society.

They believe that if they can force other people to treat them the same as everyone else, that they will achieve the goal that they seek.

Now, if I've misunderstood as a 'hater', please correct me, but I do not believe that I am incorrect in my understanding.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I'm saying that we can dispose of the argument that gay marriage would increase marriage rates overall. I agree with you that I don't think the argument has been sufficiently proven (wrt to other effects on society) to explain the marriage decline, if for anything else, that it's simply not been around long enough.

I don't think many proponents of gay marriage have made the argument that gay marriage itself would be enough to reverse trends that, all else being equal, originate from 90% of the overall marriageable population.

I don't understand the second sentence, sorry.

However, there's a big gap between, 'insufficiently proven' and between 'proven to be incorrect'. I think the evidence that we do have is supportive of the broken window hypothesis.

You really think the continued (although slightly slowed, overall, I think?) decline in heterosexual marriage rates is enough to prove this grand "broken window" hypothesis about gay marriage itself?  I'm putting aside the debate over whether gay marriage is alone enough to reverse long-standing trends in marriage, because I think that is a pretty fringe argument.  Are you really convinced that gay marriage is breaking the window further, considering the nature of the evidence at hand?

I'd have to think on how to respond to this in detail, but that hard-set belief seems incredibly counterintuitive to me.

Marriage rates increasing (irrespective of the cause) would falsify the theory outright. Ergo the thesis is falsifiable.

Again, I don't think that's the thesis gay marriage proponents are arguing; nor do I think gay marriage opponents would accept that gay marriage is repairing windows if this trend reversed itself.  I think this fight is about effect on the margins, which is understandable considering it pertains to a rather small number of marriages.

Because people smarter than me with many more letters after their name are coming to the same conclusions.

Obviously most accredited folks who write on gay marriage support it, so I assume you've analyzed the arguments here enough to discern which accredited folks to give more due to.  Unless I am missing a body of evidence or theory after giving this thought and research, I think we're approaching the point at which the "certainty gap" between us and them, is no longer about their superior information.  (Academics and other experts obviously have non-evidentiary incentives to claim certainty, or publish disproportionately in areas where they believe they are certain.)

Based on the stuff we've talked about in this thread, do you really think this is a slam-dunk evidentary case for a positive aggregate or negative aggregate effect from gay marriage?  I'm unambivalent about gay marriage for other reasons, but I don't think it is.  This is just very hard to observe empirically.

I mean:  If there is no correlation between presence of gay marriage and accelerating divorce rates, doesn't that rather outshadow the evidence you've presented so far?

Then I've apparently lost the course. Please restate your question again. My apologies.

No worries.  It doesn't really fit the conversation, but I'll bring it back if it's relevant again.

Teddy? He's a friend for sure, and encouraged me to sign up. But I'm here mostly because I got zotted at FR for preaching the merits of Santorum.

Here I can be a Santorum fanboy and not be accused of working for him, thankfully.

Alexander Hamilton, actually, and I have no idea why.  I guess you share a similar Political Matrix score and both oppose gay marriage.  Hamilton's reasons for opposing gay marriage were psychopathy masked in high-level arguments like this...that's why I was too willing to assume you were dismissing marginal benefits to gays as a non-benefit.  Sorry again.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Gays are not "contagious" nor can their form of love permeate outside their own domain.

Then why are they attacking those who say that they are sinning? If it's not about converting those who oppose them, why not simply leave them be?

I'll field this one.

Because the preponderance of such opposition is prejudicing them in the conduct of their lives.

And what exactly is this field in which you can't seek employment due to your religion?

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

I do not support gay marriage, however, I do believe that these kinds of comments from Santorum do not help the Republican cause in November.

We will need independents, moderates, and cross over Democrats in order to win, and these kinds of comments, for the most part, scare these voters away.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I do not support gay marriage, however, I do believe that these kinds of comments from Santorum do not help the Republican cause in November.

I'd appreciate if you read something in this topic besides the title or abstained from posting.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Also, I'm going to double down on the necessity of sending the atomized, discrete, two-generation 'nuclear family' right into the abyss. It's a cauldron for all sorts of perverse incentives and prurient obsessions.

Then don't be surprised if your policy fails to reap the expected gains.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Then don't be surprised if your policy fails to reap the expected gains.

I promise not to if you won't be surprised if your policy fails to reap them either.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

I do not support gay marriage, however, I do believe that these kinds of comments from Santorum do not help the Republican cause in November.

I'd appreciate if you read something in this topic besides the title or abstained from posting.

I am as much entitled to my views as is anybody else.

Long live the cause of freedom of speech!

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I don't think many proponents of gay marriage have made the argument that gay marriage itself would be enough to reverse trends that, all else being equal, originate from 90% of the overall marriageable population.

I've seen the arguments since about 2000 or so, that people were consciously avoiding getting married out of solidarity with their gay brethren. Ergo, preventing gay marriage was a hindrance to marriage overall. Clearly it's been proven not to be the case.

I don't understand the second sentence, sorry.

There's a difference between something that is statistically significant and something that is not. I don't believe sufficient time has passed to confirm the theory as true even if the evidence at present, on the surface, supports it.

You really think the continued (although slightly slowed, overall, I think?) decline in heterosexual marriage rates is enough to prove this grand "broken window" hypothesis about gay marriage itself?

It's been persistant for awhile now, and there has been some handwringing about it.

Are you really convinced that gay marriage is breaking the window further, considering the nature of the evidence at hand?

If I were to compare birthrates between the folks who do believe in gay marriage and between those who don't, it's really stark. I know folks on both sides, and it's not even close. I think one of my conservative Catholic friends has more kids than all the folks on the other side combined.

So yeah, I do believe it's having a negative effect.

Again, I don't think that's the thesis gay marriage proponents are arguing; nor do I think gay marriage opponents would accept that gay marriage is repairing windows if this trend reversed itself.

Well, I would consider that as an argument in favor of the thesis. Make a prediction, get proven right - that makes me sit up and take notice.

I think this fight is about effect on the margins, which is understandable considering it pertains to a rather small number of marriages.

Personally, as a historian I think we are missing the forest for the trees, but then I'm weird, so that doesn't surprise me.

Obviously most accredited folks who write on gay marriage support it, so I assume you've analyzed the arguments here enough to discern which accredited folks to give more due to.

I've been on your side, and not that long ago. It's a reasonable argument, if all the premises follow. However, I think that at least two of your premises are sufficiently flawed to render the rest of the argument moot.

I don't think we've even touched on either premise yet.

(Academics and other experts obviously have non-evidentiary incentives to claim certainty, or publish disproportionately in areas where they believe they are certain.)

My opinion, having read the literature, is that I am reading the holy scriptures of a religion that brooks no dissent. And then I read Kreeft.

Based on the stuff we've talked about in this thread, do you really think this is a slam-dunk evidentary case for a positive aggregate or negative aggregate effect from gay marriage?

Would a conservative frame this question in this matter?  A conservative frames innovations as having to show that they bring substantial benefit to society as a whole.

I mean:  If there is no correlation between presence of gay marriage and accelerating divorce rates, doesn't that rather outshadow the evidence you've presented so far?

It would except these folks keep getting proven right, on the slope of these things. Overall divorce is down somewhat, but not the rates.

Alexander Hamilton, actually, and I have no idea why.  I guess you share a similar Political Matrix score and both oppose gay marriage.  Hamilton's reasons for opposing gay marriage were psychopathy masked in high-level arguments like this...that's why I was too willing to assume you were dismissing marginal benefits to gays as a non-benefit.  Sorry again.

Thanks for not calling me a psychopath.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

And what exactly is this field in which you can't seek employment due to your religion?

I bet Alcon knows the answer. Corren amendment ring any bells?

[GM Griffin]

You would be right, but society choosing to restrain people from harming themselves cannot be construed as punishment. You're assuming here that this is beneficial to those involved.

Then I'll be expecting your support for government regulation on a strict, harm-free diet consisting of fruits, vegetables and grains? Also, since firearm-related injuries and deaths occur ten times more often in homes that own guns than those that do not, will you also be supporting the removal of these harmful factors from the home and family life?

Quite the opposite, it's going to exacerbate them.

I'm not sure you read that right. Go back and read it again, because it appears you took the wrong  connotation from what I said.

Which is why gay people are insisting that family pictures being taken down, protesting rallies in support of traditional marriage, etc, etc, etc.

This is malarkey and it appears the right-wing e-mail forwards are starting to manifest in your speech. Taking down family pictures? Really? Give me *multiple* examples of the gay plot to do this, not just one random isolated article in a publication. As far as protesting rallies goes, and? I didn't realize gays didn't have the right to protest. You're protesting against their rights and as such, they can protest against you and even your right to protest them (since you are doing the exact same thing).

I cannot seek employment in my chosen field due to my religious and spiritual beliefs. Your comments here demonstrate that you are simply unaware of what is going on. No, it's not about simple tolerance, it's about the desire to undo society and remake it how you would prefer it to be. Even if that means destroying other people's lives, and the lives of those who have been on the other side.

That's your choice. Both sides change society. Both sides "destroy" individuals' lives in the name of their own ideals. The difference between yours and mine is one that embraces diversity versus one that embraces a monochromatic identity on all fronts. America has NEVER been monochromatic, but its legal system and allocation of human rights has. That is what is ending, and that's why all the wealthy, old, white, Christian men in this country are freaking out. You're losing your advantage and you cannot stand it. The sad news for you is that the left always wins on the social front, because you are nothing but a pebble in a river that forces the waters of change to roll around you. Social progress never stops. Its rate may be slowed down but cannot be halted, and this argument, too - just like every other social argument - will be lost by the conservatives.

Then why are they attacking those who say that they are sinning? If it's not about converting those who oppose them, why not simply leave them be?

Try leaving gays be and see what happens. I can assure you that gays do not give a flying flip about what straight people do; their involvement in the political process is for themselves and their fight against people like you who want to meddle in what the government allows them to do based on your religious doctrine.

Again, I have a goal, and that direction isn't helped by these actions.

May I ask what productive steps you have taken to pursue that goal and how you will convince the majority of Americans that gay marriage is in fact 'not OK'?

So you sincerely believe that we are saved if we meet our gay-hating quota?

Are you willing to make the statement that I, do, in fact, hate gay people?

Well, considering that there is no other place that you would draw your negative conclusions about gay people than from religious doctrine (and society that has been programmed to base its principle off of religious doctrine), and that religious doctrine clearly says what should be done to gay people, it would not be a far-off conclusion. Hate is such a strong word, though. I would say that you seriously dislike gay people and that you find them to be an abomination, just like your scripture tells you.

Ideas have consequences. Dissassociating marriage from having kids has negative consequences for society as a whole.

It's already been disassociated and it's never coming back. Deal with it. People don't want to have ten kids and farm all day, every day anymore. Marriage is not about having kids. There are no references to children in wedding vows, are there?

Why?

For the same reason that a child who has no toy wants the toy of someone else. They want to be included and they feel that they are excluded by society which has certain rules. They want to participate in what they see as a fundamental part of society.

They believe that if they can force other people to treat them the same as everyone else, that they will achieve the goal that they seek.

Marriage is done by the state. There is no secular reason to deny gay people the right to marry. Let the churches do what they will, the secular society has no "rules" that can be effectively applied to why gays should not be allowed to marry. Why do heterosexuals fight against marriage? For the same reason that an adolescent girl gets all pissy when she sees someone else with the same shirt.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

It would except these folks keep getting proven right, on the slope of these things. Overall divorce is down somewhat, but not the rates.

I don't understand your response, so I'll ask again:  If there's no correlation between legalizing gay marriage and worse trends in divorce rates, don't you feel more uncertain?  Remember you were essentially arguing that the best we had was the simple "macro-level" correlation.  Here's a way to try to control for the variable you're trying to isolate it, and suddenly you seem kinda dismissive of the possibility.

I've seen the arguments since about 2000 or so, that people were consciously avoiding getting married out of solidarity with their gay brethren. Ergo, preventing gay marriage was a hindrance to marriage overall. Clearly it's been proven not to be the case.

...

It's been persistant for awhile now, and there has been some handwringing about it.

...

Personally, as a historian I think we are missing the forest for the trees, but then I'm weird, so that doesn't surprise me.

It's hard for me to imagine that any non-idiots ever thought those people would be enough to reverse the trend toward lower marriage rates, if it continued.  I've been involved in gay rights issues for a few years now, and I've literally never heard this argument once in my life...and I've heard some odd ones.

If you'd like to continue against a weak argument that seems rare and nonsensical to me, that's fine, but I don't see the point of shadowboxing the weakest possible argument unless you're arguing to your conclusions.

There's a difference between something that is statistically significant and something that is not. I don't believe sufficient time has passed to confirm the theory as true even if the evidence at present, on the surface, supports it.

"The theory" being what?  And what are you performing a statistical significance test on?  Confused.

If I were to compare birthrates between the folks who do believe in gay marriage and between those who don't, it's really stark. I know folks on both sides, and it's not even close. I think one of my conservative Catholic friends has more kids than all the folks on the other side combined.

So yeah, I do believe it's having a negative effect.

You think gay marriage is having a negative effect on society because gay marriage proponents tend to have fewer kids?

I've been on your side, and not that long ago. It's a reasonable argument, if all the premises follow. However, I think that at least two of your premises are sufficiently flawed to render the rest of the argument moot.

I don't think we've even touched on either premise yet.

I'm guessing this had more to do with your conversion to Catholicism, if we're going to equivocate correlation and causation.    But go ahead, I'd like to hear the flawed premises.  I haven't really presented my argument, though, just because this thread is already complicated enough.  Caveat emptor...

Would a conservative frame this question in this matter?  A conservative frames innovations as having to show that they bring substantial benefit to society as a whole.

Traditions get some latitude on hurting people that innovation doesn't, eh?

Thanks for not calling me a psychopath.

I don't know if you're being facetious...nothing about your argument or conduct seems anything but well-intentioned.  I was just being honest about why I was inappropriately kind of unsympathetic at first. :S

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I do not support gay marriage, however, I do believe that these kinds of comments from Santorum do not help the Republican cause in November.

I'd appreciate if you read something in this topic besides the title or abstained from posting.

I am as much entitled to my views as is anybody else.

Long live the cause of freedom of speech!

Freedom of speech doesn't apply to a private web forum, and it certainly doesn't prohibit me from asking you to stop doing something

And what exactly is this field in which you can't seek employment due to your religion?

I bet Alcon knows the answer. Corren amendment ring any bells?

I'm actually from Tacoma, Washington; I'm just staying in Vancouver.  Google tells me you're probably talking about this but it's new to me.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Then I'll be expecting your support for government regulation on a strict, harm-free diet consisting of fruits, vegetables and grains? Also, since firearm-related injuries and deaths occur ten times more often in homes that own guns than those that do not, will you also be supporting the removal of these harmful factors from the home and family life?

Ooh, I bet there's a difference between the state issuing licenses to do stuff and people being free to do stuff to themselves.

Gosh, let's go see what Justic Thomas has to say about this.

Taking down family pictures?

ENDA? If an employee is aggrieved, he can file a grievance for politicies that he/she/it/whatever, feels oppresses he/she/it/whatever.

As far as protesting rallies goes, and? I didn't realize gays didn't have the right to protest.

Oh they do, but I do think publishing the locations of those who opposed the bill in CA went a bit far. 

The difference between yours and mine is one that embraces diversity

But it doesn't, not really. You aren't embracing diversity. You've merely shifted it from folks you don't like to folks you do.

wealthy, old, white, Christian men in this country are freaking out.

True, we think that the nation is determined to destroy itself and we kinda like this whole USA thingy.

The sad news for you is that the left always wins on the social front, because you are nothing but a pebble in a river that forces the waters of change to roll around you.

Funny thing about pebbles. How's it working against that Catholic church?

Try leaving gays be and see what happens.

If they are attempting to change marriage, then they aren't exactly 'leaving us be', are they?

I can assure you that gays do not give a flying flip about what straight people do

Then why do they want marriage?

who want to meddle in what the government allows them to do based on your religious doctrine.

How is defending what the law says meddling? Wouldn't an attempt to change the law be construed as meddling?

May I ask what productive steps you have taken to pursue that goal

Educate people as to what is at stake here.

and how you will convince the majority of Americans that gay marriage is in fact 'not OK'?

By telling them that they are right?

Well, considering that there is no other place that you would draw your negative conclusions about gay people than from religious doctrine (and society that has been programmed to base its principle off of religious doctrine), and that religious doctrine clearly says what should be done to gay people, it would not be a far-off conclusion.

You might want to check out Scripture. Start with John 3:14.

I would say that you seriously dislike gay people and that you find them to be an abomination, just like your scripture tells you.

Well, show me a scripture that says so and I'll concede the point.

It's already been disassociated and it's never coming back. Deal with it. People don't want to have ten kids and farm all day, every day anymore. Marriage is not about having kids. There are no references to children in wedding vows, are there?

Are there any references to teh buttsecks?

This isn't really a good argument, you do know that, right?

Marriage is done by the state.

Ooh. That's an interesting argument. Since when has marriage been done by the state? Who came up with that?

There is no secular reason to deny gay people the right to marry.

Then it's just sorta random that the marriage laws worked out that way? Or did people like suddenly read the bible in 1950 and decided that teh buttsecks was not ok?

Let the churches do what they will, the secular society has no "rules" that can be effectively applied to why gays should not be allowed to marry. Why do heterosexuals fight against marriage? For the same reason that an adolescent girl gets all pissy when she sees someone else with the same shirt.

Apparently my previous assessment was spot on. Who came up with this idea of making marriage as it is - between one man and one woman, and made it enforced by the state?

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Alcon:

That should fill in some of the gaps, yes, you're spot on sir.

I don't know if you're being facetious...nothing about your argument or conduct seems anything but well-intentioned.  I was just being honest about why I was inappropriately kind of unsympathetic at first. :S

I was hoping for a chuckle.

I'll reply to the rest in a bit.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

haha, sounds good.   I just wouldn't be surprised if someone took exception to "psychopath" appearing in the same sentence as their name, for whatever reason.  Just making sure...

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I don't understand your response, so I'll ask again:  If there's no correlation between legalizing gay marriage and worse trends in divorce rates, don't you feel more uncertain?  Remember you were essentially arguing that the best we had was the simple "macro-level" correlation.  Here's a way to try to control for the variable you're trying to isolate it, and suddenly you seem kinda dismissive of the possibility.

If thing A and thing B are headed kinda sorta in the right direction - what's the likelihood that the argument is correct? What if thingy A, B and C are all headed kinda sorta in the right direction?
What it A, B, C and D are all headed in kinda sorta the right direction. It increases with the square..

I hope this is a bit clearer...

It's hard for me to imagine that any non-idiots ever thought those people would be enough to reverse the trend toward lower marriage rates, if it continued.  I've been involved in gay rights issues for a few years now, and I've literally never heard this argument once in my life...and I've heard some odd ones.

Well, I recall it quite clearly back then and it was considered a substantive argument back then. I'll see if I can dig it up.

If you'd like to continue against a weak argument that seems rare and nonsensical to me, that's fine, but I don't see the point of shadowboxing the weakest possible argument unless you're arguing to your conclusions.

Not at all. I don't have much interest in arguing against that position.

"The theory" being what?

Santorum's theory here about broken windows wrt gay marriage and morals overall?

You think gay marriage is having a negative effect on society because gay marriage proponents tend to have fewer kids?

Yeah. I like kids and Santorum likes kids too. Kids are good. Need more of em cause of demographics.

But go ahead, I'd like to hear the flawed premises.

Well, the ones I consider flawed are the permanency of sexual preferences and role of marriage within society. I don't think the premise that homosexuality is fixed or that marriage is an individual right make any sense.

Traditions get some latitude on hurting people that innovation doesn't, eh?

A conservative would say that changes propagate through the system. It's not enough to say that things may be bad now, a change could make things worse than they are present. Alleviating something bad has to be weighed against unintended consequences. In short, they look at the second and third orders of the equation, not just the first.

[cope1989]

What I've realized is that almost every viewpoint in conservative idology stems from the desire to preserve a traditional and stable society. I don't think every conservative would be willing to get out there and protest with the Westboro Baptist church, for the record. I can think of many people I know who are opposed to gay marriage who have gay relatives and friends, and they wish them the best in life- but their opposition comes from a fear of what legalized gay marriage will bring.

A good analogy would be civil rights. Many opposed to integration were terrified that an integrated society would lead to race wars, and a collapse of civil society. Obviously, once the turmoil of the civil rights movement faded away, this collapse didn't happen.

It's no different today. Gay marriage will not lead to the destruction of the American family, family values or a civil society. Same sex couples want the same for themselves and their children that the rest of us want, something people tend to forget. And during the civil rights movement, black Americans wanted the same rights afforded to them and their families that whites were offered. It's as simple as that.

Many decades down the road, I predict that those who were once firmly opposed to gay marriage will see that none of their fears were realized, and I pray this happens sooner rather than later. Because we have bigger issues to face that are more important than whether gay couples get to sign the same slip of paper that straight couples do on their wedding day.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

If thing A and thing B are headed kinda sorta in the right direction - what's the likelihood that the argument is correct? What if thingy A, B and C are all headed kinda sorta in the right direction?
What it A, B, C and D are all headed in kinda sorta the right direction. It increases with the square..

I hope this is a bit clearer...

No...straight over my head.  More concreteness/directness would help.  I'm good with abstraction, but not if I don't know the components/variables involved.

Well, I recall it quite clearly back then and it was considered a substantive argument back then. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Man, what a stupid argument.  I'm not just saying that with the benefit of hindsight.  Politically passionate people tend to get hackish, but heterosexuals outnumber gays at least 9:1.  It's just a numerically stupid argument.

Santorum's theory here about broken windows wrt gay marriage and morals overall?

OK, you confused me because I thought you meant "statistically significant" in the mathematical sense.

Yeah. I like kids and Santorum likes kids too. Kids are good. Need more of em cause of demographics.

I like kids too, although I'm not sure society's biggest problem is the absence of kids among those dispassionate about having them.  But...anyway, I don't think gay marriage support is a causal agent in reducing individual fertility rates, but I think this may be an unnecessary side argument.  (You tell me if I'm wrong, of course)

Well, the ones I consider flawed are the permanency of sexual preferences and role of marriage within society. I don't think the premise that homosexuality is fixed or that marriage is an individual right make any sense.

I don't believe either of those in any absolute sense either.  I definitely don't think marriage itself is an individual right.  Although I think sexuality is somewhat more fluid than dynamic, I think it's a bit of both (overall - not necessarily on the individual level.)

A conservative would say that changes propagate through the system. It's not enough to say that things may be bad now, a change could make things worse than they are present. Alleviating something bad has to be weighed against unintended consequences. In short, they look at the second and third orders of the equation, not just the first.

I would prefer to preference such things in relationship to demonstrable reality, not some sort of vague ideological heuristic.

[GM Griffin]

Ooh, I bet there's a difference between the state issuing licenses to do stuff and people being free to do stuff to themselves.

And I would bet that there are plenty of circumstances in which the government already issues licenses that allow individuals to cause harm (which was your original concern) to themselves and others under the aforementioned issues. CCLs? Liquor licenses? By that logic then, it seems OK for the government to "outsource" gay marriage and allow third-parties to authenticate the contract while simultaneously receiving government endorsement.

ENDA? If an employee is aggrieved, he can file a grievance for politicies that he/she/it/whatever, feels oppresses he/she/it/whatever.

Universal law. Not applicable to the gays and the gay agenda.

Oh they do, but I do think publishing the locations of those who opposed the bill in CA went a bit far.

Public records, FOIA. Representatives in most instances have their contact information - including addresses - posted on their legislative websites and portals.

But it doesn't, not really. You aren't embracing diversity. You've merely shifted it from folks you don't like to folks you do.

I'll give you the majority of this one. While I'm fine with anyone doing or saying anything and have never felt the need to persecute based solely on this, the moral perspective for me changes when those people decide that they want to be antithetical to what I consider necessary, and unfortunately I have to become a hypocrite in pursuit of my original ideas and values. Then we all get pulled down into the maelstrom and to the victor go the spoils.

True, we think that the nation is determined to destroy itself and we kinda like this whole USA thingy.

But most of you won't be around much longer. The country can't stay the same forever, nor will it. Most people do not fit into the worldview of that demographic and therefore have no allegiance to it. That is the number one problem facing the long-term sustainability of the modern Republican Party and conservative movement. Demographically speaking, nobody born today wants to be a part of it because they have no place in that vision.

Funny thing about pebbles. How's it working against that Catholic church?

Um, pretty good, considering 98% of Catholics take birth control, wear rubbers and eat meat on Fridays.

If they are attempting to change marriage, then they aren't exactly 'leaving us be', are they?

Because from a secular point of view, it's not yours to define. The institution recognized by the government is called 'marriage', but is a de facto civil union and not controlled by any church. You go to the church to have your ceremony and you go to the courthouse to get your license.

Then why do they want marriage?

Hmm, I guess for the same reason that heterosexuals decided a few thousand years back that they wanted to buy a woman and own her for life. As Marcus Bachmann said, "Barbarians need to be educated".

How is defending what the law says meddling? Wouldn't an attempt to change the law be construed as meddling?

Only if you consider the job of the executive, legislative and judicial branches to be meddling. Laws change, it's natural.

Educate people as to what is at stake here.

Much more must be done if you are to succeed. I can simply run my mouth, seeing as how the flow of progress marches with my ideology. You, on the other hand, have to march against the grain in this country, which brings me to the next point...

By telling them that they are right?

It's not 2004 anymore. A majority of Americans support gay marriage in 2012.

You might want to check out Scripture. Start with John 3:14.

"Barbarians need to be educated."

Well, show me a scripture that says so and I'll concede the point.

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states to view homosexuals as abominations. Leviticus 20:13 says that they should be put to death. That's a pretty strong sentence for someone who isn't disliked.

Are there any references to teh buttsecks?

This isn't really a good argument, you do know that, right?

Meh, it doesn't have to be. The reality of the social situation is the best argument for my point.

Ooh. That's an interesting argument. Since when has marriage been done by the state? Who came up with that?

The part of marriage that I was referring to and that I care about is done by the state. As mentioned earlier, 'marriage' is done by the state in the aspect of how it is called 'marriage', even though it's a civil union. I could care less about the ceremonial pomp and circumstance.

Then it's just sorta random that the marriage laws worked out that way? Or did people like suddenly read the bible in 1950 and decided that teh buttsecks was not ok?

You're directly advocating theocracy in 2012. You don't think the sentiment was stronger in eras past?

Apparently my previous assessment was spot on. Who came up with this idea of making marriage as it is - between one man and one woman, and made it enforced by the state?

-Refer two statements above.

[realisticidealist]

Um, pretty good, considering 98% of Catholics take birth control, wear rubbers and eat meat on Fridays.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I can't stop laughing at Davy Mitt.

And I would bet that there are plenty of circumstances in which the government already issues licenses that allow individuals to cause harm

CCLs?

Protected under the 2nd.

Liquor licenses?

Protected under the 21st.

The government does this only very specific circumstances. Marriage, is not one of them. There are actually laws against marriage deemed harmful, ie consanguinity laws, bigamy laws, etc.

By that logic then, it seems OK for the government to "outsource" gay marriage and allow third-parties to authenticate the contract while simultaneously receiving government endorsement.

See above as to why not.

Universal law. Not applicable to the gays and the gay agenda.

But entirely applicable. That's the point. ENDA could legitimately be used in this fashion.

Public records, FOIA. Representatives in most instances have their contact information - including addresses - posted on their legislative websites and portals.

Most jurisdictions would consider forming mobs and coordinating them to these locations to be harrassment. I have no problem with peaceful protest, but going after people in their homes not ok.

I'll give you the majority of this one. While I'm fine with anyone doing or saying anything and have never felt the need to persecute based solely on this, the moral perspective for me changes when those people decide that they want to be antithetical to what I consider necessary, and unfortunately I have to become a hypocrite in pursuit of my original ideas and values. Then we all get pulled down into the maelstrom and to the victor go the spoils.

It's not necessary, and it harms your cause. You end up taking people who might be interested in supporting you and driving them to the opposition. You may see it as a crusade for human rights - but what they see is how you treat the people right in front of you.

If your opposition is the one coming off as rational and respectful, then you lose. And I'm sure that's not in your best interest.

But most of you won't be around much longer. The country can't stay the same forever, nor will it. Most people do not fit into the worldview of that demographic and therefore have no allegiance to it. That is the number one problem facing the long-term sustainability of the modern Republican Party and conservative movement. Demographically speaking, nobody born today wants to be a part of it because they have no place in that vision.

What's that saying? Reap the whirlwind?

I see the long term too. I see an ideology that looks about 2 inches in front of itself and misses the other things going on. Sure, suppose you get what you want and your vision is correct. What then? There are major structural problems that the democrats are oblivious to (and tbh, many republicans as well). This has nothing to do with ideology or pointing fingers.

Everything I see in the liberal democracy program is unsustainable. The way we see thing is that we're your best alternative. It doesn't have to be us. And perhaps it won't, but I suspect you won't like the other if it isn't us.

Um, pretty good, considering 98% of Catholics take birth control and wear rubbers.

We'll be here when they've forgotten there ever existed a democrat party.

Because from a secular point of view, it's not yours to define.

Then who's is it? If it's not ours? I'm not arguing against your point, but it raises the question of who does.

The institution recognized by the government is called 'marriage'

But it was not invented by the state. Where does it come from?

You go to the church to have your ceremony and you go to the courthouse to get your license.

And why can't we simply go and get one from the Church without involving the state?

Hmm, I guess for the same reason that heterosexuals decided a few thousand years back that they wanted to buy a woman and own her for life. As Marcus Bachmann said, "Barbarians need to be educated".

So let's dispense with that argument that gay people don't care. They are engaged in the political process, and so are we.

Only if you consider the job of the executive, legislative and judicial branches to be meddling. Laws change, it's natural.

Ah, but stopping them from changing is unnatural. What's that law again? An object at rest...

Much more must be done if you are to succeed. I can simply run my mouth, seeing as how the flow of progress marches with my ideology. You, on the other hand, have to march against the grain in this country, which brings me to the next point...

Ah, yes, inorexable progress, onwards and upwards. Third star to the right, and straight on until morning.

It's not 2004 anymore. A majority of Americans support gay marriage in 2012.

Then why does it lose in California?

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

Leviticus says that the act is an abomination, not the person.

Leviticus 20:13 says that they should be put to death. That's a pretty strong sentence for someone who isn't disliked.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

they have committed an abomination, not, they are an abomination. You are incorrect here. Scripture teaches that the act is different from the person - for as Christ himself says, "Love the Sinner, hate the Sin".

Anyone can be redeemed from their sins. Anyone, but the sin itself is an abomination.

Meh, it doesn't have to be. The reality of the social situation is the best argument for my point.

And when the zeitgeist blew the other way, did you say that this was so?

The part of marriage that I was referring to and that I care about is done by the state.

Who started doing it this way? Where does this arrangement originate?

You're directly advocating theocracy in 2012. You don't think the sentiment was stronger in eras past?

I'm more interested as to how this marriage law came about in America. Did they hold a consitutional amendment? What did they do?

[GM Griffin]

Um, pretty good, considering 98% of Catholics take birth control, wear rubbers and eat meat on Fridays.

Oh come on. This is how polls work. You don't poll segments that are not relevant to the measurement; the women omitted either are too young or too old (and would most likely follow similar levels of usage when looking back at their earlier days) at the time it was taken. Are you going to make the argument that since only a few thousand women were actually polled, that only 0.000001% of Catholic women use it? Or maybe we should add Catholic men to the disenfranchised since you can't spell 'Catholic Women' without 'Catholic Men'?

I'm not sure that 60 year-old women have to worry about using contraception. 15-44 is the vast, vast majority of fertile women, therefore there is no statistical reason to poll pre-pubescent and post-menopausal women.

I'm also not sure that women who are not currently engaging in sexual intercourse would use birth control as a means of contraception (perhaps they may use it for hormonal balances or another reason), but again, not a relevant demographic for the question.

Also, the same study found that only 2% of all Catholic women (faithful adherents and looseys alike) use "natural family planning".