Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[pbrower2a]

My original material in navy.

Responding to Pbrower2A here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.[/quote]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you know this to be true?[/quote]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
[/quote]

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]

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?

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, this is fun.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, so what is the purpose of marriage?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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]

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?

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).

[Alcon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Alcon]

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?