Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[Oakvale]

What Fritz said. Sure, celibacy's possible, but it's (to use a slightly ironic word given the context) unnatural.

[Wisconsin+17]

I would argue that celibacy is undesirable, for straights and gays alike. 

According to whom? You? This is entirely a matter of choice.

Everyone wants to have sex

Evidence for this?

But when you start to argue that homosexuality itself is something that is chosen

It is something that is chosen. People choose to engage in sexual activity.

gays are not entitled to equal protection under the law because of that

Nonsense. Everyone is entitled to the equal protection of the law.

Everyone's choices are not entitled to equal protection. There's a difference. Again. Who you are as a person is not what you do.

[Torie]

Why does the state have to "benefit" from gay marriage?  Perhaps a "focus on the family" (ha ha), in this case the gay ones, might be more appropriate. The "state" (or its defenders) needs to document some rather grievous harm to itself, for there to be any case for putting a group of citizens into a second class status to even begin to fashion any even colorably persuasive argument here. The rest is noise.

I wonder what percentage of those opposed to gay marriage are almost entirely animated by "the fact" that gay sex disgusts them, makes them feel uncomfortable, and is personally emotionally threatening, and that all of these little arguments are just window dressing, to wit, putting lip stick on the pig. I suspect it's north of 80%, maybe even higher.

What does celibacy have to do with gay marriage? Men are not into celibacy - period - and never will be. They are not designed that way. You could make gay sex a felony, and it won't reduce its incidence much. Or is this some no sex outside of marriage thing, which at this juncture is almost universally ignored - and ridiculed - as it should be. Some of this sounds like a recipe for just a lot of hypocrisy. Humans don't change their actual behavior here much based on a bunch of societal conventions to the extent they exist - they just do it behind closed doors.

[Wisconsin+17]

What Fritz said. Sure, celibacy's possible, but it's (to use a slightly ironic word given the context) unnatural.

And it's always a good thing to indulge in our natural impulses? What is natural is not always good.

[Free Palestine]

It is something that is chosen. People choose to engage in sexual activity.

Which isn't the same as being straight or gay.  Derp.

[Wisconsin+17]

Why does the state have to "benefit" from gay marriage?

This gets back to the earlier part of the discussion. What is the purpose of state recognition of marriage? If there is no public benefit, then there is no rationale for state involvement.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And different from disability.

Equal protection doesn't apply to individual choices and decisions.

[Oakvale]

What Fritz said. Sure, celibacy's possible, but it's (to use a slightly ironic word given the context) unnatural.

And it's always a good thing to indulge in our natural impulses? What is natural is not always good.

If it doesn't do anyone any harm, sure.

[Modernity has failed us]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And different from disability.

Equal protection doesn't apply to individual choices and decisions.

[Alcon]

Ben,

Have to make this fast, but here's a few responses:

Again, going back to the point in question - is marriage about recognizing all relationships or just some. No one is saying that you have to leave the person that you love, far from it.

But I am asking - should we recognize this particular relationship as marriage?

Yes.

Please just answer directly about interracial marriage.  "Race is not a choice" is invalid because marrying someone of a different race is a choice, certainly moreso than sexual orientation.

Given the lack of participation of the gay community into marriage - I don't see how one can argue that gay marriage increases monogamy among them.

Well, then gay marriage is a failure due to lack of participation. 

That doesn't follow.  Not to be a dick, but I've already said why:  you're equivocating marginal differences with non-differences.  It's irritating when I've pointed this out directly three times (at least) and you just repeat it instead of addressing the critique.

Again, as you've so beautifully argued early - gay marriage has no effect on the overall divorce rate because there isn't enough of them.

What does "no effect on the overall divorce rate" mean?  Having "no effect" is different than dominating the trends in divorce rate.  It's irritating when I've pointed this out directly three times (at least) and you just repeat it instead of addressing the critique.

Which has the larger effect - 10 percent of the population choosing not to get married at all, or 1 percent of the population choosing to adopt?

You are accepting this hypothesis based on intuition and not empircal evidence, and then refusing to consider other hypotheses based on the same reason.  You have double standards in your analysis that are designed to reach your conclusions.  It's irritating when I've pointed this out directly three times (at least) and you just repeat it instead of addressing the critique.

You've said that we should not expect overall marriage rates to go up because there's not enough gay people, and at the same time, you're arguing now that they are going to have a net, positive effect.

Yes, because those aren't mutually exclusive!  (Assuming "net" refers to the net of the policy.)

Which is it? If they are going to have a net positive effect here, shouldn't we also be seeing a net positive effect on the marriage rate too?

False dichotomy, as I've already explained.  It's irritating when I've pointed this out directly three times (at least) and you just repeat it instead of addressing the critique.

And we get another argument pulled out of the bin.

I don't even know what criticism I'm levying here.  This thread started out as an empirical challenge because you quoted Santorum's claim that gay marriage contributed to the "broken window" effect and called it reasonable.  Now you're denying you meant to argue that, and not explaining why.  So, I started by challenging that claim.  You are now complaining that I did not bring in every argument I have re: gay marriage at the beginning?  I was addressing one specific claim.  You're being absurd.

Equal protection doesn't apply here. Equal protection only applies to things like race, and disability, things which are not choices. We don't apply equal protection to things that can change over time.

Would you feel that there is an argument for equal protection applying to interracial marriage, or no?  (Note that the analogue here is not race, but the act of marrying someone of the other race.)

[Alcon]

Being gay is not a "choice."  One cannot "choose" to be gay, any more than one can "choose" to be straight.  You could argue that gays can choose not to act upon their homosexuality, to which I would say, straights can also choose not to act upon their heterosexuality.

One, alcon already conceded this point quite awhile back. He can't use this argument anymore.

I never used that argument, so I didn't "concede it."

It's weird how you can QUOTE AN ARGUMENT, call it "reasonable," and yet you now insist it was unreasonable to assume you were arguing that (gay marriage contributing to "broken window.")

And, yet, I never said "sexual orientation [expression] isn't at all a choice!" and now I "conceded" that argument.

I've been striving to be as precise as possible with your argument, and I'm starting to feel you're not doing the same to me in kind...

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And different from disability.

Equal protection doesn't apply to individual choices and decisions.

I sent that one into the Forum Community mash pit. It was just too good to pass up.

[Torie]

Why does the state have to "benefit" from gay marriage?

This gets back to the earlier part of the discussion. What is the purpose of state recognition of marriage? If there is no public benefit, then there is no rationale for state involvement.

The public benefit is contributing to the happiness and equality of a cohort of citizens. To offset that, one needs some pretty solid empirical evidence of the concomitant damage to society as a whole. I am not sure why this is such a confusing issue.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Already have. I said, very specifically that I support interracial marriage.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, and? You've made this argument many times now. Race is not relevant to marriage. Sex is. Marriage is about sex, no?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It does follow. If only 10 percent of all gay couples are getting married, then the policy is an outright failure at promoting monogamy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You said that 'we should not expect to see gay marriage have any effect on the overall divorce rate', because it's overshadowed by simple numbers.

You said it so yourself. Now you claim that it is going to have an effect, even though the same principle applies.

Answer the question please, if 10 percent of couples choose not to get married, isn't that going to overshadow a 1 percent increase in adoption rates?

Simple yes or no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same effect applies equally to both. You can't have it both ways, alcon. You've used it as a rationale as to why we shouldn't expect to see gay marriage have positive effects on the overall rate. Now you say that we should.

So either your former explanation is wrong, or your new explanation is wrong. I'm going to go with your new explanation being wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, sorry. The same overweighting effect applies to both of them. This is your own argument that you used to dismiss the argument that we should see improvements in the overall marriage rates.

I agreed with you that the overweighting effect was going on, now you're getting defensive when confronted with the consequences of this conclusion. Same train rolling down both.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just said that equal protection applies to race, because race is something that you do not choose.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying you did. FFS.

Read the post.

I said just the opposite, that you said that it IS a choice. Therefore you don't have access to the arguments that Fitzy was bringing forth (which assume just the opposite).

I'm arguing with you and Fitzy, both of whom make different arguments, come from different assumptions at the same time. Arguments I address to Fitzy are not addressed to you and vice-versa.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, and? You've made this argument many times now. Race is not relevant to marriage. Sex is. Marriage is about sex, no?

...no. At least, not always.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

90 percent of whom reject the option when offered. If equality were the issue here, would you not expect to see different numbers?

The fact of the matter is that equality, isn't the issue here. Gay people do not feel significantly discriminated against by society in this matter. They simply have no interest in marriage at all.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nathan - what to you is the purpose of marriage?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying you did. FFS.

Read the post.

I said just the opposite, that you said that it IS a choice. Therefore you don't have access to the arguments that Fitzy was bringing forth (which assume just the opposite).

I'm arguing with you and Fitzy, both of whom make different arguments, come from different assumptions at the same time. Arguments I address to Fitzy are not addressed to you and vice-versa.

Alcon said sexual preference is a combo of nature and nurture, and a continuum, with some swingable. That is clearly true in my experience. And all sex acts are a matter of choice, although men who are just not sexually satisfied with women, and not particularly attracted to them, and to do what you want them to do,  making a choice to be celibate, for most is the road to misery and often worse (closeted gays, and in particular, closed celibate gays,  tend to be very sad cases indeed often). So while it is a "choice" (heck choosing to eat is a choice; the alternative being to starve yourself to death) to foist that choice on them, through social pressure or otherwise, is profoundly immoral, and dare I say it "un-Christian," absent some compelling reason supported by solid empirical evidence, to just view gays as collateral damage, who "need " to take a hit for the team.

In short, where is the compassion, asks this particular Godless Pub poster?  Does that matter at all?

One thing I do know. Those who are actually "exposed" to un-closeted gays, and work with them, and interact with them, in most instances, if not totally hard wired on this, change their opinions. That is one reason, and a good reason, why it is rather important, that the closet be jettisoned to make room for a larger kitchen as it were. Folks tend to respond well to folks who are just themselves - and authentic - and just decent human beings. What you see is what you get.

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nathan - what to you is the purpose of marriage?

I won't speak for Nathan, but I believe such novel ideas like "love" and "connection with someone who shares your values/goals (or is at least supportive of them), etc." are quite popular these days.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Love as in? Love doesn't tell me much here.

I have a good connection with my friends. Is this the type of relationship that you believe marriage is about?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

90 percent of whom reject the option when offered. If equality were the issue here, would you not expect to see different numbers?

The fact of the matter is that equality, isn't the issue here. Gay people do not feel significantly discriminated against by society in this matter. They simply have no interest in marriage at all.

How many gay people have you spoken to, because that assertion strikes me as ludicrous. Folks like to have options. Do you have a poll?  What I do know, is that gay neighborhoods in LA, etc., voted almost unanimously against Prop 8 - yes almost unanimously. Let's wait until gay marriage has been around for a generation, and been in place and accepted as gays hit marriageable age, and see what happens OK, as to how many embrace it. Not that it matters. If only 10% embrace it, you still need to make your empirical case. We don't F folks because they are a small minority, so just let's just screw them. That is immoral too. It's just wrong - period. Small minorities need the most protection of all. If gays were 20% of the population, rather than 5%, this issue would have been "resolved" long, long ago.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which happens to be my opinion also. I believe that people have predispositions, but that they can overcome said predispositions. This is the important part. Everyone chooses whether they wish to be engaged in sex or not. This is different from race, substantially different. You can't 'opt out' of race, but you can opt out of sex.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Legally, there is nothing barring them from seeking and enjoying these relationships. That is the proper role of the state which argues through freedom of association that they are free to associate as they wish.

What I desire, I don't believe I've stated here in the thread. What the Church teaches, and what I believe - is that those engaged in these relationships should refrain from doing so. There's a difference between what the Church teaches on this issue, and the proper role of the state - and I recognize this.

However, that's not the issue wrt gay marriage. Gay marriage is a completely different argument. You are now arguing that it is in the benefit of the state to recognize these relationships (and exclude other ones) as marriage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Evidence for said assertion would be nice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you saying you would die without sex? This is not true. Your analogy fails.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you believe Christ teaches on this matter?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So your assertion is that I've had no contact with gay people? Are you really willing to make this argument? This is a terrible argument.

Just because someone is exposed to an opinion doesn't say anything about what they will come to believe as a result of said exposure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you believe that someone who refrains from engaging in sex is 'inauthentic'? Do you believe that said person is indecent? I'm curious here.

[Torie]

I have no idea what you do in your personal life. I said "most" who interact with gays, and have some heart, do respond. At least in my world.



I said "some" and you seem to infer that "some" means most all. To get more precise, my intuition, is that some, means something like 10%-20% of the gay population that is bisexual enough, that if the constraints and sanctions are enough, could be coerced, if vulnerable enough, economically and/or psychologically,  into the path that you think is "Biblical,"  or whatever, without being made considerably more miserable and to use that term which has fallen out of favor, but which I still like, un-self actualized.

I could get more detailed here, but this is "supposed" to be a family friendly site as it were, so I won't.

The bottom line: some does not equal all here - at all.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not quite sure how that's relevant. Either the argument is true or false. Attacking me will not change this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that what marriage is about? Increasing your options?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again the argument is this.

1, people who want things, when given the opportunity to do so, do them.
2, 90 percent of gay people choose not to marry.

3, ergo, I conclude that for most gay people, they do not want to marry.
  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As they did in British Columbia. However, those same people who clamored to change the law, 90 percent have chosen not to participate.

How would you explain this? I'm curious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there is pent up demand, we would expect to see a spike and then a slow decline over time. This isn't what has happened. From what I can see, marriage is relevant to a very tiny minority of gay people, and that's all.

Do you believe that in 20 years that this is going to change substantially from 10 percent? Is that really your argument? I don't see it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you need to explain why 90 percent of gay people are choosing against equality if the issue is really equality. We've done as you asked, and the numbers are not what you predicted would be the case. Ergo, I can only conclude that your premises are in fact flawed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why are so few gay people choosing to get married, if the change in marriage laws 'protects them'? Why are so few gay people choosing to get married if they are 'screwed' without it? I surmise, that they are happy enough without marriage which is why they choose not to get married.

Feel free to submit evidence contrary.