Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[Adam 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.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

The idea of "terrible parents" is very much based on your views of parenting. Both examples - for conservatives and liberals - are "terrible" when viewed through the eyes of the opposing force. My argument is that if conservatives want the ability to run their families, children and opportunities in the way they see fit, even if it is viewed as detrimental by others, then those individuals must also be prepared to accept a similar circumstance when it comes to other families that do not fit within their worldview.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, I think you were going for the 'terrible' parenting with the ones who chug mountain dew.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but you're comparing "good parents" your first example, to "bad parents" in your second example.

Or have I misunderstood you?

Obviously, I'm biased, but the argument in general is not. All you have to do is flip the paradigm to understand it, but that does require some form of empathy. The seeming debate (at least the title of the post) is on how gay marriage is detrimental to the economy. Based on that argument, conservatives view the other spectrum (the ones who don't chug Mountain Dew) as "terrible". My argument flips that perspective and creates an equal yet opposite position, which is the point I'm trying to make.

If gay couples are "terrible" parents and cause undue harm to the economy by filling their childrens' heads with the homosexual agenda and liberal ideas, then the same can be said for conservatives who defend the right to fill their children with unhealthy substances and religious indoctrination, which often restricts intellectual capacity and overall physical well-being, which in turn causes economic damage (or at least, the lack of economic prosperity).

The argument can easily be summarized as this: if you want the right to run your own life and those of your family, then you cannot expect to dictate to others how they are in the wrong for doing the same thing.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, as it's been shown in the US, something like 2 percent of kids are homeschooled. Which means that homeschooling is pointless. Why bother? There's no demand for it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Legitimizing something is not the same as rewarding it. It also doesn't necessarily encourage that behavior; I don't think we'll see all that many heterosexual couples converting their traditional marriage into a gay one.  

[Adam Griffin]

This argument is absurd. Just because gay people are not marrying in droves does not mean there is no support for gay marriage. Engaging in the act and desiring the right to be able to engage in the act are two different things. Only 11% of Americans own a firearm, but I guarantee you more than 11% of the country supports the right to bear arms.

Gay couples that do get married have been shown in numerous studies to have far more stable home lives, higher incomes and children that are better prepared to do well in school. Gay people don't procreate by accident. Your argument, Ben Kenobi, is correct in the sense that a strong family unit increases the likelihood of a child succeeding, but it is not correct within the narrow definition that you wish to enforce it.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This speculation steps away from the argument and diverges into a different policy question. While I realize I mentioned homeschool initially, I did so to give a reference point to a conservative talking point that emphasizes the rights of individuals to do as they choose in the hopes of demonstrating how people of all ideologies do things that may not be in the best interests of their children, families or themselves but should still be allowed to do so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A reward is an offering that comes with no strings attached. The contract of marriage comes with real-life benefits AND responsibilities, in all forms (financially, emotionally, spiritually, etc). You also cannot label it as a "reward" when the vast majority of the country is already capable of taking advantage of these benefits (which I'm assuming you mean things like tax benefits). What are you thinking, "Well I guess those filthy gays can get married but it's a reward and a privilege, not a right"?

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely. I think it's in the interest of society to discourage divorce.

In that case, given that changes in divorce law have been around for a long time, and have demonstrably contributed to the failure of millions of marriages, while same-sex marriage is still illegal and constitutionally prohibited in most states, shouldn't conservatives who care about preserving the traditional family place a higher priority on changing divorce laws, rather than on fighting gay marriage? Aren't conservatives in fact endangering the family themselves, by not pushing back against divorce laws?

It could also be argued that conservatives should have more interest in making sure that any family unit is as strong as possible, with a two-parent household being the desired result. Now tell me, with hetero marriages ending in divorce in unprecedented numbers and with fewer and fewer younger individuals marrying in the first place, shouldn't conservatives want as many two-parent households as possible regardless of sexual orientation, seeing as how the major economic and social issues that relate from the dynamic of the family are caused by the lack of presence of one parent?

[Adam Griffin]

Ben, do you maybe mean that it was 1% of the marriages in Canada that were gay, rather than 1% of the gays who were married? The statistics that I'm looking at give us 12,438 same-sex marriages in Canada between June 2003 and October 2006 (with same-sex marriage still not being legal in much of Canada for a lot of this time span), and 147,391 marriages of any kind in 2003, a rate which at that time (the website that I'm looking at for this particular number is from 2007) was said to be more or less stable. So if there are ~140,000-150,000 marriages a year, and 3,731.4 of those were gay on an average between a little over three years during all of which gay marriage wasn't legal throughout Canada...uh, that doesn't gel with what you were saying.

Here, links.

Same-sex marriage rate
General marriage rate

So given all that verbiage, what in Canada is the gay marriage rate among gays of "marrying" age? Again however, it is totally irrelevant from an ethical standpoint whether it is 1%, 10%, 50%, or 100% - totally irrelevant - isn't it?

It is irrelevant, and also hard to calculate. First, you have to pin down what percentage of the population is "eligible" to engage in a same-sex marriage. If we low-ball it and say 1%, that's roughly 150,000 Canadians. If we take the numbers from 2006-2007, with there being roughly 12,000 gay marriages, then that means that 24,000 gays are married in Canada.

24,000/150,000 = 0.16 = 16% of the homosexual population in Canada is married.

Even if gays made up 5% of the population, that would still place the number of married homosexuals at roughly 3%, as of 2007.

Five years later, it's safe to assume that there are a lot more than 24,000 married gays in Canada.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is divorce an issue more or less likely to be tackled before or after gay marriage is legalized?

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.

[Adam Griffin]

He is correct that a lot of those marriages were probably non-residents.  He just seems to be a little eager to set low values as zero; and for all of his abstract arguments about the negative externalities on heteros, he doesn't seem to be giving any due to the arguments about why it might take gays a while to come around to the whole marriage thing.  His argument is complicated and has some fair points, but he seems to be going out of his way to ignore some factors and highlight others.

Valid points all. There are definite flaws in how low the projections were made by Ben. Even at a projection of 1% of the Canadian population being gay and with 80% of all marriages being from out-of-country, it still amounts of 2.5-3% of native Canadian gays being married.

There's also huge validity in the long-term trends that will have to take place for gay marriage rates to be on par with hetero marriage. People don't change their behaviors, stigmas or actions overnight.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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'?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Refer two statements above.

[Adam 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".

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It could also be used by you to counter the situation, given the appropriate context, or could be used by you in a position of "offense" if you are facing discrimination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The initial statement was in regards to the posting and accessibility of the information and that's to what I was referring. Perhaps it's not nice to do such a thing, but I highly doubt these people were scaling the walls of the house. Protests in front of any house on public property - depending on needed permits and being in accordance with local regulations - is legal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tell me, would you be interested in supporting my position? This is one of those issues where there's very little grey area between varying points. Do you genuinely believe that gays are discriminating against you due to their quest for recognition by their government? I feel that the levels of discrimination applied by each side are not even.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More like embracing the changing fabric of the country. I cannot think of a permanently sustainable country or society that determines its course based on the opinions of a small or shrinking sect of individuals.  The only major issues that shape this country's destiny are the economic ones. I typically don't argue social issues like this because by and large, they sort themselves out and generally do so in my favor over time. The truth is that the two parties are not exact in their polarity, and the vision of the modern Democratic Party is very similar economically to the platform of the Republican Party in years past. We have one far-right party and one centrist party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a good question. I wish to further clarify my position by postulating, "Who decides how marriages/civil unions that are conducted by the state are defined?" I have no desire to force churches or religious institutions to recognize gay marriage. I want the license that the state issues to be issued to any two individuals who wish to engage in that civil contract.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From two sources, depending on where you were located in the world:

1) From the desire for human clans and families to combine their resources in a fashion that would work in their favor
2) From the construct of religion, which in effect served as a primitive form of government that held people together by common belief before concepts of modern society and democracy arose.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because then it wouldn't be recognized by or affiliated with the state and therefore would not be an issue of debate in this discussion. Again, I'm not arguing against the church being able to perform a ceremony as it sees fit. There's absolutely no reason, however, for the government to hand over its form of an institution - that in the modern day has connotations and implications that are not related to religion - back to an entity that is supposed to be separate from this government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which cannot be applied in a transient, temporary sense to complex human entities and the dynamic societies that they have created. We are objects in motion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps in your situation it would be labeled "regress", but the general sentiment that you outlined is correct. I think many conservatives have realized this. When you only stand to keep things the same, the tides of progress wash it away. The only way to counter it is to go backwards and drag the median rate of movement in the other direction. That's why the country is talking about contraception in 2012. Smart move on behalf of conservatives; even if it kills their poll numbers and chances of taking back the Senate and keeping the House, it does pull the national dialog back to a more conservative point.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was four years ago, and as silly as it may sound to contrast between 2008 and 2012, public opinion is shifting faster on gay rights than on any other social issue. There will most likely be a ballot initiative this year and public polls show solid support.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Based on my upbringing and exposure to an environment that is about as religious as it gets, I don't buy this. I realize that is the talking point and expected this response, but I don't believe the average religious individual separates the sin from the sinner. Although maybe you do, since I'm guessing you consider homosexuality to be a choice rather than a fact of life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously it wouldn't be to my liking, but it would still be the reality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mercedes built the first modern automobile engine, but it didn't give them say over the entire auto industry for the past 130 years. Government thanks religion for its contribution and inspiration, but does not require it to provide its own alternative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you referring to DOMA or another specific law, or are you simply referring to how law surrounding marriage developed over time in America?

[Adam Griffin]

*facepalm*

It's not saying that because they used sampling the statistic is invalid. It's saying that the number that people have been flinging around is based upon an unrepresentative sample, and therefore is only valid for the subsample of Catholic women that they were studying and can't be extended to the distinct populations they didn't measure.

I understand what you initially meant, I was just being facetious. I don't agree that it is an unrepresentative sample (at least in broad terms) as much as I think the phrasing of the results were altered through the media. Virtually all polls have variables in them that can be viewed in similar regards (polls that count unregistered voters, polls with a margin of error larger than the difference between candidates/opinions, oversampling, etc).

Contraception hasn't been controversial in a long time, even among Catholics at-large. It's something that perhaps 80+ year-old Catholic women might have found unacceptable, but other than that, it's something that's been used by virtually all women at one point or another who were sexually active for long periods of time. We're talking about the question "Have you ever used any form of contraception?". Even taking into account the variables that were mentioned, I doubt that less than 90% of Catholic women have used BC/contraception at one point or another.