Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[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?

[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.

[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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Torie]

What evidence is there that gay marriages are more unstable than hetero ones, and in particular that gays who are married or unioned who have adopted are more unstable? One would think it is intuitively obvious that a married or unioned gay relationship is more stable than one that is not for starters. But here we are focusing on kids, so what is relevant is gays with kids, isn't it?

Whether gays not in the kid business marry or not without kids seems wholly unrelated to any economic argument, unless you think legalizing gay marriage or unions leads to more folks going gay, which is yet another assertion that if made, needs to be empirical documented, because facially it seems ludicrous.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but it is not tied to economic performance. It is based on moral grounds, just like the Catholic Church. The one assertion is basically nutter, the second is just one of those a priori metaphysical things. There is a difference. The one I can respect, even if I disagree, and I will oppose that point of view at the ballot box. The other is just plain ass wrong, because it makes empirical assertions that have no substantiation, and seems ludicrous on its face to boot.  

[Torie]

Oh now we are on the track (yours, not Rick's) that if gays get married, less heteros will, and just breed more "bastard" children, or not breed at all. Is there any evidence of that?  When you are going to deny a class or persons equal rights, and degrade their relationship, you damn well better have good empirical evidence that they need to take a hit for the good of society as a whole. Otherwise, you deserve to lose the argument in the public square in my opinion.

Yes, out of wedlock births are rampant these days. That trend started long before the gay thing reared its "ugly" head. I am sure that you are aware of the actual reasons why that are typically listed, which have nothing to do with what gays do, which as you say, are just a blip on the radar screen in numbers vis a vis the gay marriage issue.

[Torie]

Just because two thing happen at the same time, does not mean there is a causal relationship, particularly if one of those things started happening far earlier, for rather obvious non gay related reasons. Such partial simultaneity in such a context is really no evidence at all, and if you wrote an academic paper with just that, and not more, it would be trashed in the ivory tower for precisely those reasons.

Any gays should not have the right to get married, because a relatively small percentage will avail themselves of that right?  Really?  It is down to a numbers game? The number involved is too small to give a damn about their equality in the public square?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now you're conceding that empirical evidence does in fact exist for Santorum's thesis. You're right that there can be and are other reasons for this, which is what Santorum's thesis argues.

He sees gay marriage as a symptom, not a cause.

No I am conceding that for a portion of the period involved both happened at the same time, although most of the decline in family stability occurred before gay marriage became an issue (for obvious non gay marriage related reasons). 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?

[Torie]

Don't dismiss this, guys. Sodom had an infamously weak economy.

But gay friendly Athens had a fantastic one, until those "gay" Spartan warriors spoiled it all. So yes, gays can be bad for the economy come to think of it, if their armies beat your ass up.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The one percent are being oppressed, and gays in general told that they have fewer options than other, demeaning and marginalizing the entire class. In any event, oppressing 1% is 1% too many. Just because a minority is small, does not make it more just to oppress them. In some ways, it makes it worse, because it has the ugly odor of bullying attending it. If the numbers were larger, they could better protect themselves. Instead, they have to rely on our good conscience to secure their rights. In a word, they are vulnerable. The vulnerable need an equal protection of the laws most of all.

[Torie]

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?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

[Torie]

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!

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

How are we coming with the empirical evidence?  What is the reader's digest version? I have a little question. Why are hetero families in the most disarray where the specter of gay marriage is the least visible and distracting, or whatever the theory is?  I mean, how many gays are running around Mississippi agitating for gay marriage?  And why are black families in the most disarray?  I mean how much do most of those folks think about gay marriage at all, or even gays, except to disdain them perhaps?  They should be the least susceptible to the family toxic gay influence no?  Sorry to butt in.

[Torie]

When you boys are done having fun, you might find some "real" explanations for the disheveled state of the family unit in this book. And you know what? I listened to Charles Murray in an hour interview with Charlie Rose, and he never mentioned the word "gay" once. Even odder, among the most gay friendly cohort, the upper middle class, family cohesion is almost as strong as it has even been.  Now among more down market whites, it is another story.
 
Well actually, Murray did mention gays, and said he came around to supporting gay marriage, because his gay married/unioned friends that he knew seemed to have very stable and loving relationships, and so, well, it was time to just acknowledge the "validity" of their unions, just like anyone else's. And Murray is a "conservative," who got a lot of heat back when over his Beyond the Bell Curve book. Personal experience counts, even with eggheads. Who knew?

Cheers.

[Torie]

While Alcon goes the philosophical/logical construct route at which he excels so wells, I am going to go the lawyer route, as to which I might excel but which I am more familiar.

Assuming arguendo that gay marriage is a mere "symptom" (I don't get why gay marriage would break out in the context of a heterosexual marriage decline but whatever), and one finds the symptom is not really be that "unpleasant" to society as a whole, why treat the symptom with some palliative, particularly if it has "negative" side effects (it denies gays their equal rights and presumably some degree of happiness for some)? Why don't you get about the business of trying to treat the "cause,"  and just leave gays alone to do their thing? I'm OK, you're OK.

What am I missing here?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's the first thing you do when someone you see has fallen down and hurt themselves and appears to need emergency first aid?

Married gays, or those who wish to marry, are not in need of your good Samaritan instincts. They are doing just fine. They are not "sick" or "wounded."  If you think they are, for reasons relating to them rather than society at large, that opens up another whole discussion, and yet another Pandora's Box.  Is that where you wish to go next?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you here to argue with me or yourself?

IF this is how it's going to be I'm outta here.

I thought I was trying to be responsive. If I offended you, that was unintentional.

[Torie]

I'll give you another chance here Torie.

Answer the question please.

What's the first thing you do when someone you see has fallen down and hurt themselves and appears to need emergency first aid?

Being a good Samaritan is estimable.

[Torie]

"Log sitting on divorce?"  I think I will leave this to Alcon. This is too difficult for me. Symptoms, causation, good Samaritan, and now logs. Things seem to be a moving target. I was never a sharpshooter of flying birds. That is not my bag.