Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[State Comptroller Atkins]

This guy is a serious candidate for the Republican nomination people.

[BushKenya]

This guy is a serious candidate for the Republican nomination people.

Hint:  He's in the Republican Party, not in the Democratic Party.  He could win the Republican nomination with the hardcore base of the party and the tea party.  He would undoubtedly have a more difficult time in the general election when you throw in Democrats and, especially, Independents who are disgruntled with the current administration.  Anyway, this is all pretty much a moot point because it's looking like Mitt Romney will win the nomination.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

This guy is a serious candidate for the Republican nomination people.

Hint:  He's in the Republican Party, not in the Democratic Party.  He could win the Republican nomination with the hardcore base of the party and the tea party.  He would undoubtedly have a more difficult time in the general election when you throw in Democrats and, especially, Independents who are disgruntled with the current administration.  Anyway, this is all pretty much a moot point because it's looking like Mitt Romney will win the nomination.

Of course, the GOP 'establishment' should take a stand against those people and abolish primaries altogether. That way, the Republicans would be more likely to have decent candidates in a similar mould to Eisenhower, Nixon, Rockefeller, Goldwater etc.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I love, incidentally, how far enough gone we are that Goldwater is named along with Eisenhower, Nixon, and Rockefeller in the list of sane, easily-worked-with Republican presidentabili past.

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

Wait a minute: Nixon is sane!?!

[ajb]

Guess it wasn't gas prices after all.

[Swedish Cheese]

Guess it wasn't gas prices after all.

Well current gas prices were obviously caused by condoms. 

[asexual trans victimologist]

Wait a minute: Nixon is sane!?!

Good point.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

Wait a minute: Nixon is sane!?!

Relatively speaking....

[So the Heroes Fall]

Wasn't there a study done once that proves that gay marriage is an economic boost for states where it was legalized?

[BushKenya]

Wait a minute: Nixon is sane!?!

He misspoke.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Silly people. Don't you know that traditional values are the only solution for all problems?

[Lief]

It really says something about Mitt Romney's weakness that this guy is consistently running neck in neck with him, instead of being destroyed in a landslide as he would be against any half-competent politician.

[realisticidealist]

Did anyone check the *cough*Stranger*cough* article that he linked to? Santorum said that moral failings were the cause of the recession, not gay marriage in particular.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Santorum said that moral failings were the cause of the recession, not gay marriage in particular.

Oh yes. Now, after you specified, his point is suddenly coherent.

[Torie]

Gay marriage = erosion of the nuclear family = poorer educational performance and discipline of the offspring = economic sub-performance of said offspring.  

Is there any error in the application of the transitive principle here?  What am I missing?   Can someone "help" me here?

By the way, just to get past the nomenclature game, as to which so many seem so obsessed, does Rick also oppose gay civil unions?  If not, just why do civil unions not lead to the break up of the nuclear family (among heteros presumably, who are the "breeders"), while when you change the name to "marriage," everything goes to hell and a hand basket? If not (Rick also opposes civil unions), then there in my opinion is a bit more robustness to Rick's transitive principle application, at last for those who don't think monikers are worth a warm bucket of spit in changing anything in this context (the exacerbation of the "collapse" of the family).  Phil?

Oh, Rick said this last August. Maybe he has tacked a bit since then. I mean, maybe Mittens is not the only one who tacks. Is that possible?

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

It really says something about Mitt Romney's weakness that this guy is consistently running neck in neck with him, instead of being destroyed in a landslide as he would be against any half-competent politician.

As far as I can tell, the policies that Romney is running on are in no meaningful way to the left of those of Santorum. And for every time that Santorum mentions sex, Romney obnoxiously reminds us of his wealth.

[Torie]

It really says something about Mitt Romney's weakness that this guy is consistently running neck in neck with him, instead of being destroyed in a landslide as he would be against any half-competent politician.

As far as I can tell, the policies that Romney is running on are in no meaningful way to the left of those of Santorum. And for every time that Santorum mentions sex, Romney obnoxiously reminds us of his wealth.

Has Mittens said that gay unions/marriage leads to economic sub-performance over time?  Is so, I would be interested in seeing that in text. Because that would suggest disingenuousness  - or idiocy.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

It really says something about Mitt Romney's weakness that this guy is consistently running neck in neck with him, instead of being destroyed in a landslide as he would be against any half-competent politician.

As far as I can tell, the policies that Romney is running on are in no meaningful way to the left of those of Santorum. And for every time that Santorum mentions sex, Romney obnoxiously reminds us of his wealth.

Has Mittens said that gay unions/marriage leads to economic sub-performance over time?  Is so, I would be interested in seeing that in text. Because that would suggest disingenuousness  - or idiocy.

Not directly - but then again, what does Mittens say directly when he's campaigning? There is this, though, from the Saint Anselm debate:

But it’s instead a recognition that, for society as a whole, that the nation presumably will -- would be better off if -- if children are raised in a setting where there’s a male and a female. And there are many cases where there’s not possible: divorce, death, single parents, gay parents, and so forth.

Obviously not the same thing - but that wasn't really my point. What I'm getting at is that Romney, while less likely to put his foot in his mouth over the issue, isn't campaigning based on a position any different from Santorum's. We could choose not to take his remarks at face value - but is there any good reason to do that?

[GM Griffin]

By the own admission of conservatives, you cannot blame nor force anything on the gay community that would take away their "freedom".

If conservative heterosexuals can form a "holy union" after having a bastard child out of wedlock and are allowed to enter and break those vows at will (because it is a state institution and not a religious one), then homosexuals can do the same without fear nor need of conservative opinion or concern of the effects on the economy.

If conservatives can raise their children without government involvement by giving them a sh**tty religious home-schooled education and by filling them full of Mountain Dew, Cheetos and the Holy Spirit, then two homosexuals can freely agree to conceive a child in whatever capacity and raise he or she in the image that they see fit.

[Torie]

It really says something about Mitt Romney's weakness that this guy is consistently running neck in neck with him, instead of being destroyed in a landslide as he would be against any half-competent politician.

As far as I can tell, the policies that Romney is running on are in no meaningful way to the left of those of Santorum. And for every time that Santorum mentions sex, Romney obnoxiously reminds us of his wealth.

Has Mittens said that gay unions/marriage leads to economic sub-performance over time?  Is so, I would be interested in seeing that in text. Because that would suggest disingenuousness  - or idiocy.

Not directly - but then again, what does Mittens say directly when he's campaigning? There is this, though, from the Saint Anselm debate:

But it’s instead a recognition that, for society as a whole, that the nation presumably will -- would be better off if -- if children are raised in a setting where there’s a male and a female. And there are many cases where there’s not possible: divorce, death, single parents, gay parents, and so forth.

Obviously not the same thing - but that wasn't really my point. What I'm getting at is that Romney, while less likely to put his foot in his mouth over the issue, isn't campaigning based on a position any different from Santorum's. We could choose not to take his remarks at face value - but is there any good reason to do that?

Not the same at all actually. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. It might have something to do with gay adoption.  And I am not sure Mittens would oppose gay adoption, if the alternative, is leaving some kid without any parents at all.  Obviously I disagree with the concept that gays make inferior parents. I know gay parents who have adopted, and all of them have been fantastic, and doting, parents, and don't think they should be at the back of the line to adopt (and in CA they are not thankfully). It is total bullsh**t really.

You know what would be an interesting question to ask Mittens?  If the choice were a single parent family (which Mittens abhors), or a two gay parent family, which on balance would in general be preferable?  I wonder what his answer would be. I think I might make "arrangements" to ask him. I have my little channels.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Santorum said that moral failings were the cause of the recession, not gay marriage in particular.

Isn't it odd how Santorum is supposed to be wild and crazy, but when you actually read what he says, he's sensible?

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

If conservative heterosexuals can form a "holy union" after having a bastard child out of wedlock and are allowed to enter and break those vows at will (because it is a state institution and not a religious one), then homosexuals can do the same without fear nor need of conservative opinion or concern of the effects on the economy.

If conservatives can raise their children without government involvement by giving them a sh**tty religious home-schooled education and by filling them full of Mountain Dew, Cheetos and the Holy Spirit, then two homosexuals can freely agree to conceive a child in whatever capacity and raise he or she in the image that they see fit.

So comparing good parents to terrible ones is supposed to be a compelling argument in favor?

[Torie]

Santorum said that moral failings were the cause of the recession, not gay marriage in particular.

Isn't it odd how Santorum is supposed to be wild and crazy, but when you actually read what he says, he's sensible?

You think this is "sensible" as opposed to nutter?:

"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...."

One of the horrible "those" (along with not supporting nuclear families and abortion) is gay marriage, in Rick's world. That is what the text means. Period. Maybe although Rick has a law degree, he is a poor lawyer, and is sloppy about what he says. I guess that is another explanation, except he has said this sort of thing about how gay marriage is societally toxic - again and again.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Torie:

Letting the family break down and in fact encouraging it and inciting more breakdown through 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.... If you think that we can be a society that [that] disregards the family and the important role it plays, and doesn’t teach moral values and the important role of faith in the public square, and then expect people to be good, decent and moral when they behave economically, if you look at the root cause of the economic problems that we’re dealing with on Wall Street and Main Street I might add, from 2008, they were huge moral failings."

It's actually a really simple argument.

You've heard of the 'broken window' approach to crime? What it argues is that neglect, in the form of broken windows encourages crime, and can be more effective then policing after the fact. If people see that the small things are taken care of, then there will be fewer break-ins.

Whereas if it's left as it is, it encourages crime, because people believe that there will be no repercussions.

Santorum's arguing that the same thing works for marriage.

We know that families that are married make more money than families that are not married. This is something that's been shown for quite some time.

Gay marriage weakens the natural family, because you're arguing that 'sex doesn't matter', and that there is no such thing as 'men' or 'women' that would actually be relevant to marriage.

If gay marriage is more likely to lead to relationships outside of marriage, then gay marriage is going to hurt the economy as it forms unstable unions that are more likely to break up as well as discouraging marriage altogether.

That's what Santorum is getting at. It makes sense, but you have to have some of the background to understand the premisses.