Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Continued declines indicate that gay marriage does nothing to help the situation.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. The only threat of homosexuality to a "straight" family is if the marriage is already shaky. Heterosexual challenges like the desire to have someone resembling the Playmate of the Month as one's wife begins to show her age is more of a threat to a heterosexual marriage.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, we've dealt with this argument before. Why permit it? What benefit does it bring?[/quote]

Some people are capable only of homosexual love. I don't understand it myself, but I don't need to understand homosexuality any more than I need to understand why people get excited about NASCAR racing.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So would removing restrictions on consanguinity.
[/quote]

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

[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!

[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.