Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Torie]

One can speculate about what gays will do 20 years hence, with gay marriage accepted, and considered the norm in the interim, but since I don't think it has any relevance to the moral arguments that I have made (I understanding that it is my morality rather than yours obviously, since we were raised, and have had life experiences, which result in a very different world view), what is the point really? It is indeed speculation.

I am not going to further respond to your other points, because we are going over the same thing, again and again. So consider that you have "won" all those points if you wish. Let the reader decide. I've written my brief, and you have written yours. It is time to submit to the ruling of the Atlasian square.

We are never going to agree, or even really agree, about what we disagree on, and precisely why - which is unfortunate. I think I know why, but to pound that out the keyboard, is not something that I wish to do - in part because I can't be sure, and in part, because my preference is to give posters, all posters, some personal space to have their own beliefs, without trying to nail them to the cross as it were. That is just my style.  Beliefs change incrementally over time anyway. Next to nobody has some personal epiphany that is caused and revealed, and witnessed, within one thread.

Hopefully I and others have given you some stuff to ponder privately, and over time. Be well. There is a great big and diverse world out there, which with luck and if you are adventurous, and brave, to which you will be exposed to over time. So says this particular old man.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What did I say earlier about making assumptions?

If you want to know about my background - ask.

They don't suit you Torie. I could say that you're living in a gay bathhouse in San Francisco, because of your CA avatar if that would make you feel better.

Gay bathhouses aren't suitable housing for me. I'm spoiled.

[Torie]

TJ, if it is all about the money (and marriage is not all about government subsidy - ever hear about the "marriage penalty" in the tax code?), just why are "civil unions" where you get the subsidy (at least on the state level) so much more accepted, than if you call it "marriage?"  There seems to be a lot of psychological energy riding on the mere moniker.