Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 22, 2014, 03:40:38 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 Print
Author Topic: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy  (Read 7018 times)
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2673
United States


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: March 11, 2012, 08:25:51 pm »
Ignore

Twilight:

Quote
Countries that have encountered drops in the overall marriage rate after introducing gay marriage

Do you want me to check that out? I'm pretty sure the answer is a 1:1 correlation...
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2673
United States


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: March 11, 2012, 08:27:20 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Well, there goes about 20 million independents, swing voters, and crossover Democrats.

I'm not sure why people who support gay marriage to be the reason for their vote are voting for Santorum. 
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27549
United States


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: March 11, 2012, 08:27:20 pm »
Ignore

Quote
And you seem to be conceding that while gay marriage may be a "symptom" of something bad (I am still not sure what), banning it is not the cure. If banning it has no efficacy, then why should we ban it denying a class of persons equal rights in the public square?

Never said it would be the cure or moral decay, but banning it will treat the symptom so you can tackle the other problems. Doing nothing will simply let things get even worse then they are now.

We can't walk and chew gum at the same time?  We are so distracted by gay marriage, that we just can't focus on what to do about dysfunctional hetero relationships apparently.  And if only we ban gay marriage/unions, and cease chatting about it, then we can focus. We seem to be in a rather puerile state then it seems, attending by ADD.
Logged

IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2673
United States


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: March 11, 2012, 08:28:38 pm »
Ignore

Quote
We can't walk and chew gum at the same time?  We are so distracted by gay marriage, that we just can't focus on what to do about dysfunctional hetero relationships apparently.  And if only we ban gay marriage/unions, and cease chatting about it, then we can focus. We seem to be in a rather puerile state then it seems, attending by ADD.

As I said, you don't get from GA to NYC by way of Florida Keys.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Lowly Griff
Adam Griffin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6378
Greece


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: March 11, 2012, 08:29:33 pm »
Ignore

Quote from: Ben Kenobi
Again, you have to take into account the fact that most do not actually involve Canadians.

Perhaps initially; it appeared to be 60%. That was in 2003. There are now plenty of states that offer the same services closer to home, leading to a ultimate downtick in the number of Americans (who are the primary border-hopping gay marriers) crossing into Canada to get married.

Quote
If the idea cannot stand alone, then it does not deserve to be considered. You don't get to delay the rights of gays just because you can't get your own house in order.

If I'm in Georgia, I don't go to NYC by way of Florida Keys.

Flawed analogy. We are two separate people with two separate cars; you drive where you want and I'll do the same and whoever gets there first wins the race.

Here are some interesting numbers from the 2000 US Census outlining gay households and parenting:

  • Same-gender couples live in 99.3% of all US counties.
  • Same-gender couples are raising children in at least 96% of all US counties.
  • Nearly one quarter of all same-gender couples are raising children.
  • Nationwide, 34.3% of lesbian couples are raising children, and 22.3% of gay male couples are raising children (compared with 45.6% of married heterosexual and 43.1% of unmarried heterosexual couples raising children).
  • Vermont has the largest aggregation of same gender-couples (∼1% of all households) followed by California, Washington, Massachusetts, and Oregon.
  • Regionally, the South has the highest percentage of same-gender couples who are parents; 36.1% of lesbian couples and 23.9% of gay couples in the South are raising children.
  • The second highest percentage is seen in the Midwest, where 34.7% of lesbian couples and 22.9% of gay couples are parenting children.
  • In the West, 33.1% of lesbian couples and 21.1% of gay couples are parents.
  • In the Northeast, 32.6% of lesbian couples and 21.7% of gay couples are raising children.
  • The states with the highest percentages of lesbian couples raising children are Mississippi (43.8%), South Dakota and Utah (42.3% each), and Texas (40.9%).
  • The states with the highest percentages of gay male couples raising children are Alaska (36%), South Dakota (33%), Mississippi (31%), and Idaho and Utah (30% each).
  • Six percent of same-gender couples are raising children who have been adopted compared with 5.1% of heterosexual married couples and 2.6% of unmarried heterosexual couples.†
  • Eight percent of same-gender parents are raising children with special health care needs, compared with 8.3% of heterosexual unmarried parents and 5.8% of heterosexual married parents.
  • Of same-gender partners raising children, 41.1% have been together for 5 years or longer, whereas 19.9% of heterosexual unmarried couples have stayed together for that duration.

Source: Here
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 08:35:25 pm by Strange Things Are Happening to Me »Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27549
United States


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: March 11, 2012, 08:32:14 pm »
Ignore

Quote
We can't walk and chew gum at the same time?  We are so distracted by gay marriage, that we just can't focus on what to do about dysfunctional hetero relationships apparently.  And if only we ban gay marriage/unions, and cease chatting about it, then we can focus. We seem to be in a rather puerile state then it seems, attending by ADD.

As I said, you don't get from GA to NYC by way of Florida Keys.

Is that just restating your prior assertion gussied up with a geographic metaphor, or am I missing something?
Logged

Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52657


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: March 11, 2012, 08:35:24 pm »
Ignore

<3 not being involved in these troll/flame war threads. So glad that it was established on the first page that Santorum didn't actually say this.
Logged


Never any doubt.
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2673
United States


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: March 11, 2012, 08:37:05 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Perhaps initially; it appeared to be 60%. That was in 2003.

http://www.vs.gov.bc.ca/stats/annual/2007/pdf/marriages.pdf

2007 shows that the numbers haven't changed substantially.

I'm not cherry picking, just picked 2007 at random.

Quote
Flawed analogy. We are two separate people with two separate cars; you drive where you want and I'll do the same and whoever gets there first wins the race.

But if I have a goal in mind, I do not get to that goal by working towards the opposite. That is the point I'm trying to drive home. I don't reduce the divorce rate by approving Gay marriage, and if you seriously believe that divorce is more likely to be changed after gay marriage, than before, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

Quote
Here are some interesting numbers from the 2000 US Census outlining gay households and parenting.

Add two zeros and you see my point, hopefully.

Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29691
United States


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: March 11, 2012, 08:37:47 pm »
Ignore

Ok, then are you arguing that your sex is in fact relevant?

You can't have both of these. One or the other. Either things like procreation are relevant or they are not.

If you are arguing that they are both the same and should be treated the same, then you are saying that procreation is irrelevant to marriage.

Semantics only work if you know what you're talking about.

You can have two situations with different policy implications and considerations, and the same end policy in the same way 2+3=5 while 1+4=5, and the same way 1+2 and 1+1 can both =>1.  Either you're missing me that or you were defining "relevant" as "prompting a distinction between policies," which is an incoherent definition for "relevant."  After all, something can cause you to have the same two policies for two different situations, when you otherwise would not have; does the fact that it renders identical policies make it "irrelevant"?  Obviously not...in fact, it makes it relevant.

(That may not be the case here; I'm just pointing out that your argument is illogical.)

Then you don't see consummation as having any relevance to marriage?

Considering how confused I find your definition of "relevance," maybe you should just say your argument re: consummation to avoid a potential misunderstanding there.

Uh, yeah. Sorry. If a policy that's supposed to bring freedom to people is outright rejected, then that pretty much says it all? Maybe the policy stinks and/or doesn't meet the needs of gay people.

So, all else being equal, we should revert to a policy that provides even less utility?  Uh, no, sorry.

All I'm seeing are negative externalities associated with the policy. If you've got positive externalities, then I'd like to see them.

Because it's an empirical effect? You've asked for something that can be measured. This is one thing that can.

The measurements you've made are secondary correlations.  Your central claim is not empirically measurable.  You've observed a phenomenon (failure for marriage rates to rise), and hypothesized that it's on account of a "broken window" caused by homosexual relationships, or at least that homosexual relationships have failed to reverse the trend and are therefore ineffective policy.  Is that about right?

I also mentioned an (equally unfalsifiable) argument for a positive externality.  Is your sole justification for rejecting that, that marriage rates have not gone back up?

I'm stating that the evidence that we possess at present shows an insignificant increase in one type of marriage and a significant decrease in another type of marriage. Ergo, the policy is an outright failure at producing the desired result, increasing the marriage rate in Canada. In fact, it's been quite the opposite.

...

It would be, except this theory isn't working out this way. If gay marriage increased overall monogamy, we would not be seeing the things we do see. We're seeing precisely the opposite.

Have you controlled these numbers for (non-)presence of same-sex marriage?

Not sure where I've dismissed them altogether? I've argued they are substantially outweighed by the negative effects.

That's not how it came across, but fair enough.

What percentage of children overall are raised in these circumstances? By far the greatest correlation is the overall marriage rates.

What do you mean "the greatest correlation"?  To what?  With what?  Greatest in what sense?

Also, did you just ask what percentage of children are raised in childless marriages?

I'm starting to wonder if you're even trying to do anything but reply as quickly as possible...
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 08:42:50 pm by Alcon »Logged

n/c
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27549
United States


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: March 11, 2012, 08:38:50 pm »
Ignore

<3 not being involved in these troll/flame war threads. So glad that it was established on the first page that Santorum didn't actually say this.

Yes, absolutely. He didn't say that at all, or did he?

"this whole redefinition of marriage debate, and not supporting strong nuclear families and not supporting and standing up for the dignity of human life. Those lead to a society that’s broken...."

Texts are stubborn things, because you can just copy and paste them!
Logged

Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52657


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: March 11, 2012, 08:40:07 pm »
Ignore

Yes, a "society that is broken," Torie. He didn't say, "The economy tanked because of gay marriage."

Find something else to foam-at-the-mouth over.
Logged


Never any doubt.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27549
United States


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: March 11, 2012, 08:44:15 pm »
Ignore

Yes, a "society that is broken," Torie. He didn't say, "The economy tanked because of gay marriage."

Find something else to foam-at-the-mouth over.

He moved right on next to how that hurts our economy (and yes, if it "broke" our society, trashing the functionality of families with kids, it indeed would hurt our economy, if). I could copy and paste that again too, but enough is enough. Have a good evening, Phil.

Oh, and thank you for bring this thread back on topic to focus on Rick. The way this was going, the thread would be headed to the US Discussion Thread, rather than here. You did a good deed there. Kudos.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 08:46:36 pm by Torie »Logged

Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52657


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: March 11, 2012, 08:46:22 pm »
Ignore

"I'll get my arguments in, take a shot or two at you then act like I'm the bigger person and 'walk away.'"

Yeah, good night, Torie.
Logged


Never any doubt.
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2673
United States


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: March 11, 2012, 08:50:35 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Semantics only work if you know what you're talking about.

Hey, I'm willing to argue facts with facts, principles with principles.

If you believe that gay marriage is ok, then I fail to see how you can say that procreation has a connection to marriage. That seems incoherent to me. The argument that procreation is irrelevant to marriage makes sense- because that position is consistant.

Quote
Considering how confused I find your definition of "relevance," maybe you should just say your argument re: consummation to avoid a potential misunderstanding there.

Gosh. How about you first.

Quote
So, all else being equal, we should revert to a policy that provides even less utility?  Uh, no, sorry.

As a utilitarian, isn't this where Mr. Spock steps in and says that the needs of the many...

Quote
The measurements you've made are secondary correlations.  Your central claim is not empirically measurable.  You've observed a phenomenon (failure for marriage rates to rise)

No, I've observed a decline in marriage rates, consistant with the broken window thesis. The thesis matches the observations, and attempts to explain why.

You're articulating a thesis that does not actually matched the expected observations. Which leads me to wonder, do you believe that this will change in the future?

Quote
I also mentioned an (equally unfalsifiable) argument for a positive externality.  Is your sole justification for rejecting that, that marriage rates have not gone back up?

It was predicted that there would be no effect. That has been shown to be false. The folks that predicted (prior to the change of the law), that marriage rates would decline, has been shown to be correct.

What happens to theories that make wrong predictions? It leads credence to the folks who predicted that marriage rates would decline that they were able to correctly predict what was to come.

Even if they are right for the wrong reasons. See what I'm saying?

Quote
Have you controlled these numbers for (non-)presence of same-sex marriage?

That would take time. I can do it but it would take a bit.  

Quote
What do you mean "the greatest correlation"?  To what?  With what?  Greatest in what sense?

Marriage rates have the biggest effect on the total children born out of wedlock. Even if it goes up with a small segment of the population, an overall decline will have a much greater effect on this number. More children born out of wedlock on average means greater poverty.

Quote
I'm starting to wonder if you're even trying to do anything but reply as quickly as possible...

One of me, about 10 of you folks... Bear with me.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52657


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: March 11, 2012, 08:52:26 pm »
Ignore

Oh, and thank you for bring this thread back on topic to focus on Rick. The way this was going, the thread would be headed to the US Discussion Thread, rather than here. You did a good deed there. Kudos.

There's that sarcastic jab! But let's all talk about how nice and respectful Torie is!
Logged


Never any doubt.
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2673
United States


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: March 11, 2012, 08:53:05 pm »
Ignore

Yay! I caught up. Cheesy
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Lowly Griff
Adam Griffin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6378
Greece


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: March 11, 2012, 08:54:35 pm »
Ignore

Quote from: Ben Kenobi
2007 shows that the numbers haven't changed substantially.

I'm not cherry picking, just picked 2007 at random.

You picked it because it's the most recent data-set that can be looked at definitively. I understand that.

Quote from: Ben Kenobi
But if I have a goal in mind, I do not get to that goal by working towards the opposite. That is the point I'm trying to drive home. I don't reduce the divorce rate by approving Gay marriage, and if you seriously believe that divorce is more likely to be changed after gay marriage, than before, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

The problem with your argument is that the concept of marriage has degraded itself within the realm of heterosexuals. Heterosexuals have freely chosen to redefine it in their own terms as something that doesn't mean much more than a contract that can be revoked or cancelled at any time. There's also implications within the younger generations because society is slowly viewing it as anachronistic in the terms that you support. Why is that? Because people like you are fighting against the times, and if the institution cannot modernize, then it will be forgotten like any and every other thing in the entire history of mankind that went the same route. People still want to show their love in a form like marriage and want to receive the legal and secular benefits that come with it, but the religious right has ruined the "sanctity" of marriage in itself by ignoring the core principle of what it is about and by taking their lead from the Talmud.

Quote from: Ben Kenobi
Add two zeros and you see my point, hopefully.

Not exactly. What? That 3000% of heterosexual couples are raising children? It's evidently clear that unmarried homosexual couples are raising children in two-parent households at double the rate of unmarried heterosexual couples, so perhaps you should re-frame this bigoted argument by advocating that homosexual couples are more stable (especially considering current circumstances of discrimination and denial of basic rights) and therefore need the institution of marriage less than heterosexual couples.
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27549
United States


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: March 11, 2012, 08:56:32 pm »
Ignore

I kind of admire your lonely fight Ben. And you are handling it graciously, and with sang-froid, and I admire that even more. That matters more to me than that you have your head up your ass on this one, in my of course quite arrogant opinion. Smiley
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27549
United States


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: March 11, 2012, 09:01:35 pm »
Ignore

Oh, and thank you for bring this thread back on topic to focus on Rick. The way this was going, the thread would be headed to the US Discussion Thread, rather than here. You did a good deed there. Kudos.

There's that sarcastic jab! But let's all talk about how nice and respectful Torie is!

No, it was meant as a genuine complement actually, hard as that may be for you to believe.
Logged

IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2673
United States


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: March 11, 2012, 09:05:02 pm »
Ignore

Quote
The problem with your argument is that the concept of marriage has degraded itself within the realm of heterosexuals.

I'm pretty sure that's one of my premisses...

Quote
Heterosexuals have freely chosen to redefine it in their own terms as something that doesn't mean much more than a contract that can be revoked or cancelled at any time.

No argument here.

Quote
There's also implications within the younger generations because society is slowly viewing it as anachronistic in the terms that you support. Why is that?

I would argue they see it as anachronistic because it no longer has any relevance to their lives. If you've grown up in a broken family, without really any positive role models in marriage, then yes, it's going to lose most of it's relevancy to you. Then the cycle repeats. This is why that statistic with children born out of wedlock has continued to increase every year.

Quote
Because people like you are fighting against the times

True, but take a look around you. Does it do much good to win the battle but lose the war? You are fighting a battle that you perceive as good and noble, while at the same time, the rest of us are taking some hard looks at the big picture.

I'm fighting against the times, because I know that the times are not moving in a productive, but rather a destructive fashion. Some people see this, some do not.

Quote
and if the institution cannot modernize, then it will be forgotten like any and every other thing in the entire history of mankind that went the same route

I don't believe you will like to live in such a society. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but a society without marriage isn't going to be a particularly nice one.

Quote
People still want to show their love in a form like marriage and want to receive the legal and secular benefits that come with it, but the religious right has ruined the "sanctity" of marriage in itself by ignoring the core principle of what it is about and by taking their lead from the Talmud.

Most of us could care little about what the state chooses to do but it means withdrawing from the state and leaving to your own or fighting the state as best we can.

For now, we've chosen to fight for a society that seems to hate itself and what it stood for more than anything, which rather perplexes me, that the only thing that seems to stick up for it is a Church that wasn't built in America, was considered an enemy of America all it's existence. I supposed that's Irony for you.

Quote
Not exactly. What? That 3000% of heterosexual couples are raising children?

Are you more concerned with upholding the 1 percent that is working or the 40 percent that isn't?
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29691
United States


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: March 11, 2012, 09:08:11 pm »
Ignore

No, I've observed a decline in marriage rates, consistant with the broken window thesis. The thesis matches the observations, and attempts to explain why.

You're articulating a thesis that does not actually matched the expected observations. Which leads me to wonder, do you believe that this will change in the future?

It was predicted that there would be no effect. That has been shown to be false. The folks that predicted (prior to the change of the law), that marriage rates would decline, has been shown to be correct.

What happens to theories that make wrong predictions? It leads credence to the folks who predicted that marriage rates would decline that they were able to correctly predict what was to come.

Even if they are right for the wrong reasons. See what I'm saying?

So, you're essentially arguing that -- even if gay marriage does not affect the marriage rates, or even slows down losses -- because we cannot separate out correlation and causation, we should presume it has a negative effect on causation if a negative correlation exists?  I just want to clarify your argument before we continue.

Also, my hypothesis does not fail to match empirical evidence because my hypothesis does not necessarily claim that the effect of gay marriage will be enough to reverse larger trends.  You cannot ascribe an empirical claim to an argument simply because that empirical claim could be made about an argument.  I can present a version of the pro-gay marriage hypothesis that is equally as unfalsifiable and matches the evidence as approximately well as the argument you're presenting.  Does that make it compelling?  Absolutely not.  So why do you believe yours with such apparent certainty?

I think the claims made about gay marriage (also unfalsifiable, granted) was that gay marriage would not have a negative effect on marriage rates, not that marriage rates would not continue falling.  (So, more akin to the contrasting hypothesis I'm describing.)

Marriage rates have the biggest effect on the total children born out of wedlock. Even if it goes up with a small segment of the population, an overall decline will have a much greater effect on this number. More children born out of wedlock on average means greater poverty.

I agree, but that doesn't answer my question.

One of me, about 10 of you folks... Bear with me.

Sorry to be impatient.  It's always easier to see communication issues as being the other person's fault.  I appreciate your efforts.

(Edit: Also, for some reason, my subconscious was originally convinced that you were a particular returned banned poster who I had a strong distaste for.  You're obviously not, but my subconscious is still getting purged of the association...it's probably affecting my ability to be nice to you still, a little.)
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 09:16:26 pm by Alcon »Logged

n/c
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2673
United States


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: March 11, 2012, 09:13:47 pm »
Ignore

Quote
I kind of admire your lonely fight Ben. And you are handling it graciously, and with sang-froid, and I admire that even more. That matters more to me than that you have your head up your ass on this one, in my of course quite arrogant opinion

Well I'm honored that this site has reasoned discourse. Difficult to find and on both sides of the aisle these days.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Lowly Griff
Adam Griffin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6378
Greece


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: March 11, 2012, 09:19:53 pm »
Ignore

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. However, the remedy of penalizing a separate group of people for those issues does not make any sense in the realm of society. It's not going to fix the problems in the heterosexual community. Gays do not cause families to fall apart, nor does their existence prevent the family unit from being revived as you desire. Gays are not "contagious" nor can their form of love permeate outside their own domain. 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. 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.

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. 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.

Why do you think gays fight for marriage equality? It's to better the community and make stronger bonds within their own family units. Not immediately, but over the long-term. When you live in a society where your existence - let along the ability to get married - is frowned upon, you tend to find no reason or hope to start a family, get "married" or any of that. Gays are fighting for the same thing you are fighting for on your end, and as much as you may not believe it, they are separate issues with hopefully, a similar outcome of a society with stronger (and more) families.
Logged

IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2673
United States


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: March 11, 2012, 09:21:42 pm »
Ignore

Quote
So, you're essentially arguing that -- even if gay marriage does not affect the marriage rates, or even slows down losses -- because we cannot separate out correlation and causation, we should presume it has a negative effect on causation if a negative correlation exists?  I just want to clarify your argument before we continue.

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.

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.

Quote
I can present a version of the pro-gay marriage hypothesis that is equally as unfalsifiable

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

Quote
So why do you believe yours with such apparent certainty?

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

Quote
I agree, but that doesn't answer my question.

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

Quote
(Edit: Also, for some reason, my subconscious was originally convinced that you were a particular returned banned poster who I had a strong distaste for.  You're obviously not, but my subconscious is still getting purged of the association...it's probably affecting my ability to be fair to you still, a little

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.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Lowly Griff
Adam Griffin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6378
Greece


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: March 11, 2012, 09:31:20 pm »
Ignore

And I didn't mean to ignore your points, as some are very fair and valid (with regards to the unraveling of the family structure and some of the instances that propagate it). I just tend to disagree that in order for you to achieve your goals, you must jeopardize the goals of others.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines