Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Ben,

I'm replying to your posts in loud, public areas.  I'm sincerely not feeling that I'm missing substantive parts of your argument.  Trust me, dude, if I'm willing to sift through detailed analyses and run statistical tests, I'm willing to actually listen to what you're saying.  Tell you what: I'm going to go back in this topic and try to map out your arguments and figure out what you're saying.  I'm going to admit that this may be subject to error -- even in retrospect, I have no idea how you expected me to not think you were arguing gay marriage contributes to the "broken window" effect...absolutely no idea.

But!  At this point, any progress will have to entail some legwork on someone's part.  I don't think either of us are being intentionally spiteful here It will come soon, but tomorrow night is St. Patrick's, so yeah don't expect it that soon.

P.S. "Asking you to stop dating someone of the same race" does not imply government coercion in any way.  This is the sort of imprecise inference we need to avoid if we make this work.  Just saying!

[pbrower2a]

My original material in navy.

Responding to Pbrower2A here.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Actually, no, not the case here. I'm arguing that gay marriage does nothing to improve the already deteriorating situation. So the fallacy does not apply.

But does it make things worse?

The only threat of homosexuality to a "straight" family is if the marriage is already shaky.

Again, I am not arguing this. I am arguing that granting benefits to marriage alternatives encourages more people to choose these alternatives. We see this with common law. Elevating common law to the same legal status and recognition of marriage, encourages more people to go that route. Why?

Basic common sense. Water flows through the easiest path.

Some states recognize common-law marriages and some don't.

Some people are capable only of homosexual love.

How do you know this to be true?

Why should I contradict people whose lives so demonstrate the fact?

Prohibitions on consanguinity supposedly stop the accumulation of genetic faults -- and. worse, prevent some exploitative relationships.

So it is in the interest of the state to promote relationships that provide procreation?

As for exploitative relationships, that applies to all types of relationships, and can be used to ban any of them.

Efficient procreation is not the purpose of marriage. There's much heterosexual sex that can never result in a child... because the woman is past menopause!

[Badger]

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?

Should that hypoithetical situation ever arise, I'll let you know. So far, in reality, reading what he says confirms he's a crazy narrow-minded intolerant theocrat.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I'm replying to your posts in loud, public areas.

You've done the work come to the conclusions, found evidence to support a position, and then immediately backtracked. That's what's frustrating me. There's simply no point to doing the research if it has no bearing...

Tell you what: I'm going to go back in this topic and try to map out your arguments and figure out what you're saying.

Don't bother. Just stick to what you were saying before. That's all I ask. You did have it right, then you backtracked. I have a problem with the backtracking not the work you did earlier.

P.S. "Asking you to stop dating someone of the same race" does not imply government coercion in any way.  This is the sort of imprecise inference we need to avoid if we make this work.  Just saying!

Different arguments here - and I already explained why the state does have a role in marriage.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

But does it make things worse?

Oh, this is fun.

You concede the point that there is no public benefit to gay marriage?

Some states recognize common-law marriages and some don't.

And... Exactly how does that address my point?

Why should I contradict people whose lives so demonstrate the fact?

So, you have zero evidence to support your claim. Good to know.

Efficient procreation is not the purpose of marriage.

Ok, so what is the purpose of marriage?

There's much heterosexual sex that can never result in a child... because the woman is past menopause!

With all due respect, do you believe that this is an effective argument?

Let's see.

One, there's a difference between choosing to be infertile and being unable to conceive.

[pbrower2a]

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?

Should that hypothetical situation ever arise, I'll let you know. So far, in reality, reading what he says confirms he's a crazy narrow-minded intolerant theocrat.

Moral failings did cause the economic collapse of 2008... but those were the failings in executive suites and high places in government on issues of economic and political integrity that had no connection to homosexuality.

[nkpatel1279]

Gay Couples who want to get married must first enlist in the military(booty camp).

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I'm replying to your posts in loud, public areas.

You've done the work come to the conclusions, found evidence to support a position, and then immediately backtracked. That's what's frustrating me. There's simply no point to doing the research if it has no bearing...

Tell you what: I'm going to go back in this topic and try to map out your arguments and figure out what you're saying.

Don't bother. Just stick to what you were saying before. That's all I ask. You did have it right, then you backtracked. I have a problem with the backtracking not the work you did earlier.

P.S. "Asking you to stop dating someone of the same race" does not imply government coercion in any way.  This is the sort of imprecise inference we need to avoid if we make this work.  Just saying!

Different arguments here - and I already explained why the state does have a role in marriage.

Considering that I didn't even arrive at a different position after I did the empirical research, I think you may underestimate for how long we've been talking past each other...so I'd much prefer to bother, if you don't have a substantive objection.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Sorry, forgot to charge my computer for the car ride home from B.C. and then hit a rough spot in life obligations.  Still interested in this, Ben?