Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I'm honored that this site has reasoned discourse. Difficult to find and on both sides of the aisle these days.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm saying that we can dispose of the argument that gay marriage would increase marriage rates overall. I agree with you that I don't think the argument has been sufficiently proven (wrt to other effects on society) to explain the marriage decline, if for anything else, that it's simply not been around long enough.

However, there's a big gap between, 'insufficiently proven' and between 'proven to be incorrect'. I think the evidence that we do have is supportive of the broken window hypothesis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marriage rates increasing (irrespective of the cause) would falsify the theory outright. Ergo the thesis is falsifiable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because people smarter than me with many more letters after their name are coming to the same conclusions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then I've apparently lost the course. Please restate your question again. My apologies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Teddy? He's a friend for sure, and encouraged me to sign up. But I'm here mostly because I got zotted at FR for preaching the merits of Santorum.

Here I can be a Santorum fanboy and not be accused of working for him, thankfully.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said that. I said that everyone is responsible for themselves, and that those who have been married and done a poor job of that are responsible for the damage that they have done to their own families.  That doesn't absolve the victims who have suffered from this from the further decisions that they make on top of this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You would be right, but society choosing to restrain people from harming themselves cannot be construed as punishment. You're assuming here that this is beneficial to those involved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite the opposite, it's going to exacerbate them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why gay people are insisting that family pictures being taken down, protesting rallies in support of traditional marriage, etc, etc, etc.

I cannot seek employment in my chosen field due to my religious and spiritual beliefs. Your comments here demonstrate that you are simply unaware of what is going on. No, it's not about simple tolerance, it's about the desire to undo society and remake it how you would prefer it to be. Even if that means destroying other people's lives, and the lives of those who have been on the other side.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why are they attacking those who say that they are sinning? If it's not about converting those who oppose them, why not simply leave them be?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I have a goal, and that direction isn't helped by these actions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you sincerely believe that we are saved if we meet our gay-hating quota?

Are you willing to make the statement that I, do, in fact, hate gay people?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why political compass has this question:

"When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things."

I strongly suspect your answer to this question is the same as mine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ideas have consequences. Dissassociating marriage from having kids has negative consequences for society as a whole.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?

For the same reason that a child who has no toy wants the toy of someone else. They want to be included and they feel that they are excluded by society which has certain rules. They want to participate in what they see as a fundamental part of society.

They believe that if they can force other people to treat them the same as everyone else, that they will achieve the goal that they seek.

Now, if I've misunderstood as a 'hater', please correct me, but I do not believe that I am incorrect in my understanding.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then don't be surprised if your policy fails to reap the expected gains.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've seen the arguments since about 2000 or so, that people were consciously avoiding getting married out of solidarity with their gay brethren. Ergo, preventing gay marriage was a hindrance to marriage overall. Clearly it's been proven not to be the case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a difference between something that is statistically significant and something that is not. I don't believe sufficient time has passed to confirm the theory as true even if the evidence at present, on the surface, supports it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's been persistant for awhile now, and there has been some handwringing about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I were to compare birthrates between the folks who do believe in gay marriage and between those who don't, it's really stark. I know folks on both sides, and it's not even close. I think one of my conservative Catholic friends has more kids than all the folks on the other side combined.

So yeah, I do believe it's having a negative effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I would consider that as an argument in favor of the thesis. Make a prediction, get proven right - that makes me sit up and take notice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personally, as a historian I think we are missing the forest for the trees, but then I'm weird, so that doesn't surprise me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've been on your side, and not that long ago. It's a reasonable argument, if all the premises follow. However, I think that at least two of your premises are sufficiently flawed to render the rest of the argument moot.

I don't think we've even touched on either premise yet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My opinion, having read the literature, is that I am reading the holy scriptures of a religion that brooks no dissent. And then I read Kreeft.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would a conservative frame this question in this matter?  A conservative frames innovations as having to show that they bring substantial benefit to society as a whole.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would except these folks keep getting proven right, on the slope of these things. Overall divorce is down somewhat, but not the rates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks for not calling me a psychopath.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I bet Alcon knows the answer. Corren amendment ring any bells?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ooh, I bet there's a difference between the state issuing licenses to do stuff and people being free to do stuff to themselves.

Gosh, let's go see what Justic Thomas has to say about this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ENDA? If an employee is aggrieved, he can file a grievance for politicies that he/she/it/whatever, feels oppresses he/she/it/whatever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh they do, but I do think publishing the locations of those who opposed the bill in CA went a bit far. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it doesn't, not really. You aren't embracing diversity. You've merely shifted it from folks you don't like to folks you do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, we think that the nation is determined to destroy itself and we kinda like this whole USA thingy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Funny thing about pebbles. How's it working against that Catholic church?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If they are attempting to change marriage, then they aren't exactly 'leaving us be', are they?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why do they want marriage?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is defending what the law says meddling? Wouldn't an attempt to change the law be construed as meddling?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Educate people as to what is at stake here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By telling them that they are right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You might want to check out Scripture. Start with John 3:14.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, show me a scripture that says so and I'll concede the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are there any references to teh buttsecks?

This isn't really a good argument, you do know that, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ooh. That's an interesting argument. Since when has marriage been done by the state? Who came up with that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then it's just sorta random that the marriage laws worked out that way? Or did people like suddenly read the bible in 1950 and decided that teh buttsecks was not ok?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Apparently my previous assessment was spot on. Who came up with this idea of making marriage as it is - between one man and one woman, and made it enforced by the state?

[Wisconsin+17]

Alcon:

That should fill in some of the gaps, yes, you're spot on sir.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was hoping for a chuckle.

I'll reply to the rest in a bit.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If thing A and thing B are headed kinda sorta in the right direction - what's the likelihood that the argument is correct? What if thingy A, B and C are all headed kinda sorta in the right direction?
What it A, B, C and D are all headed in kinda sorta the right direction. It increases with the square..

I hope this is a bit clearer...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I recall it quite clearly back then and it was considered a substantive argument back then. I'll see if I can dig it up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all. I don't have much interest in arguing against that position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Santorum's theory here about broken windows wrt gay marriage and morals overall?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah. I like kids and Santorum likes kids too. Kids are good. Need more of em cause of demographics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, the ones I consider flawed are the permanency of sexual preferences and role of marriage within society. I don't think the premise that homosexuality is fixed or that marriage is an individual right make any sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A conservative would say that changes propagate through the system. It's not enough to say that things may be bad now, a change could make things worse than they are present. Alleviating something bad has to be weighed against unintended consequences. In short, they look at the second and third orders of the equation, not just the first.

[Wisconsin+17]

I can't stop laughing at Davy Mitt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Protected under the 2nd.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Protected under the 21st.

The government does this only very specific circumstances. Marriage, is not one of them. There are actually laws against marriage deemed harmful, ie consanguinity laws, bigamy laws, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above as to why not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But entirely applicable. That's the point. ENDA could legitimately be used in this fashion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most jurisdictions would consider forming mobs and coordinating them to these locations to be harrassment. I have no problem with peaceful protest, but going after people in their homes not ok.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not necessary, and it harms your cause. You end up taking people who might be interested in supporting you and driving them to the opposition. You may see it as a crusade for human rights - but what they see is how you treat the people right in front of you.

If your opposition is the one coming off as rational and respectful, then you lose. And I'm sure that's not in your best interest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's that saying? Reap the whirlwind?

I see the long term too. I see an ideology that looks about 2 inches in front of itself and misses the other things going on. Sure, suppose you get what you want and your vision is correct. What then? There are major structural problems that the democrats are oblivious to (and tbh, many republicans as well). This has nothing to do with ideology or pointing fingers.

Everything I see in the liberal democracy program is unsustainable. The way we see thing is that we're your best alternative. It doesn't have to be us. And perhaps it won't, but I suspect you won't like the other if it isn't us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We'll be here when they've forgotten there ever existed a democrat party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then who's is it? If it's not ours? I'm not arguing against your point, but it raises the question of who does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it was not invented by the state. Where does it come from?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And why can't we simply go and get one from the Church without involving the state?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So let's dispense with that argument that gay people don't care. They are engaged in the political process, and so are we.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but stopping them from changing is unnatural. What's that law again? An object at rest...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, yes, inorexable progress, onwards and upwards. Third star to the right, and straight on until morning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why does it lose in California?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Leviticus says that the act is an abomination, not the person.

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.

they have committed an abomination, not, they are an abomination. You are incorrect here. Scripture teaches that the act is different from the person - for as Christ himself says, "Love the Sinner, hate the Sin".

Anyone can be redeemed from their sins. Anyone, but the sin itself is an abomination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And when the zeitgeist blew the other way, did you say that this was so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who started doing it this way? Where does this arrangement originate?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm more interested as to how this marriage law came about in America. Did they hold a consitutional amendment? What did they do?

[Wisconsin+17]

Realistic Idealist - you're a Catholic right?

[Wisconsin+17]

Wow, 100 percent of posters on Atlas forum are Catholic.

Cool.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why the papal encyclicals then and now condemn it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't even necessarily mean that the women were Catholic when they used it.

Why didn't they simply ask: "Do you agree with Humanae Vitae in what it teaches about contraception?

Yes/No. Simple. Gets the job done and answers the question. We wouldn't accept PP's 'poll', if it were entered in the database, on the grounds of sample issues. You can't cherry pick your sample.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the law is so poorly written as to permit this, it's a real concern, is it not?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, and going to people's houses is ok when your side does it? I hardly think so. I would wager that had the attention gone the other way, you would have argued that privacy would protect them. Odd that. Privacy protects some but not others, eh?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have been in the past.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I believe that. Given my experiences, gay people have a giant blind spot that permits them to run roughshod over everyone else in the pursuit of their goal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is unlikely that a proponent of gay marriage would admit otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meanwhile, record deficits are piling up. Who's going to pay them? Is a society that rejects what America is based upon going to care about forcing a default on the people? Are they going to care about things like the constitution, if it means stripping away private people's property in order to prevent a default?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, we're all you've got. So if society is determined to turn away from us, then they are going to bear the consequences...

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hence my statement that they are completely blind to the devastation that's just down the road, I'm not even talking socially, I'm talking fiscally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn't answer the question. Who does have the ability to re-define marriage, and how it works?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok. Now fast forward. What is the legal source for laws in America? Where does America get their laws from?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But why is this illegal, and who made this so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I'm not even arguing that they ought to be responsible for it, I'm just asking the question - as to why this is illegal, and who was responsible for this change, since as you've said, it was the Church that used to be responsible for it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But who's argument is this? How far does this go back?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Naturally, an object at rest will continue to be at rest. Ergo, the law that is settled should remain so. Stare Decesis. If you want to argue against Stare Decesis, go ahead. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's all tied together. I think there is significant desire to return to things as they were - if you had asked me that Rick Santorum would be running for president in America and would be a serious candidate, oh in December of this year, I would have said you were crazy.

His poll numbers were what, 2 percent nationally or something like that? Less?

Santorum's caught fire because he's spoken for a great many of us and reflects our concerns and our issues with America today. People are really tired with the chaos of the past 4 years. They are concerned that the America that they know and love is going away.

When you speak of your desire to remake all of it, that's not exactly going to encourage people who are already concerned with things.

As for 'social things' always winning - there's a pendulum, and when it finally swings back you're going to be wondering what on earth is going on. People want stability. They want to be able to get up in the morning and not have to worry about what nutjob policy that Barack Obama has dreamed up. They want to get up and know that a 5 dollar bill will get them to work and back, they want to be able to set aside 100 dollars for their bills and have that cover it.

Then they see Barack Obama pushing money to his friends and what are they supposed to think, when their basics of life skyrocket up? When the money that they make doesn't quite stretch far enough? When the state defaults and gets downgraded?

Like I said, I'm one of the more reasonable folks. You might not like the other more unreasonable folks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You said that back in 08. Didn't happen.

BTW - no Canadian province voted on gay marriage either, just as none have voted on it in the US. Ballot initiatives are 0 for quite a long list, which is why gay marriage proponents don't do ballot initiatives.

You run it through the courts and the legislatures. Every time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your argument is that the bible teaches x. I am saying that the bible does not teach X. Some Christians may think this, but they are incorrect if they do so. I am pointing out to you that the bible does make the distinction between the sinner and the sin. Even in the old testament and even in leviticus. It says that the sin is the abomination and not the sinner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I do. People choose to indulge in their impulses, and that's certainly not restricted to just one sin...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then I can only conclude that this is a passing fad.

And, no, DOMA is not what I'm referring to. Further back then this (considerably so), but not as far back as you went.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mind restating them? We've been talking past each other...

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All I said is that the evidence we have at present supports the thesis. I don't believe it's sufficient to prove the thesis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would be inclined to reject the hypothesis if the evidence presented was precisely the opposite of what the thesis argued.

I hope that's clearer.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Statistically significant evidence - showing that the divorce rate has dropped, yes. Inconclusive evidence? No.

[Wisconsin+17]

They are also 3rd lowest in marriage rate.

Only CT and DC are lower.

GA has the same divorce rate but has a higher marriage rate.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really. Fewer people actually choosing to get married supports the broken window argument. More people choosing to get married is a benefit for the state, as well as lower rates of children born out of wedlock.

It's now up to 41 percent nationwide as of 2009, if you can find me MA stats, I'd love to see them.

29 percent for white non hispanic, 53 for hispanic, 73 for black.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I did not. I said I accepted the declining marriage rates as evidence in favor of the broken window hypothesis, expecially when coupled with rising numbers of children born out of wedlock.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, 'can't' is a very different statement from saying that I haven't done so which is what I did say. Feel free.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yessir, I'm saying that the evidence that we do have supports the argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm accepting evidence that supports the conclusion that we are looking at, yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you yourself have admitted that there's nothing to indicate your claim which is that gay marriage has actually increased marraige rates.

Again, I said, if I'm going to believe that gay marriage is a net benefit, then I want to see increases in the marriage rate. That's not happening. Inconclusive evidence isn't sufficient to prove the alternative.

You seem to believe that I should treat your evidence as compelling, even though you've said so yourself, that it is not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What circumstantial evidence is there for the marriage rate increasing?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where are you getting this from?

I'm getting my national numbers from:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf

Which is the CDC numbers for 2009.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What was the marriage rate at the time?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where are you getting this from?

[Wisconsin+17]

Divorce rate Massachusetts:

2010/2009/2008/2007/2006/2005/2004/2003/2002/2001/2000

2.5, 2.2, 2.0, 2.3, 2.3, 2.2, 2.2, 2.5, 2.5, 2.4, 2.5

I believe they call that 'cherry picking'. You picked 2008 as a 'representative sample'. Why am I not surprised?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/divorce_rates_90_95_99-10.pdf

Divorce rate in MA is now higher than it was previously, not lower.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And it wastes my time when you cherrypick data that supports yours. Hey, I'm gonna be honest and follow the argument to its conclusions. That means I'm going to follow up on your claims and check to see what the data you are looking up actually says.

When you do something like this, this really makes me less likely to trust your conclusions. I'm disappointed.

[Wisconsin+17]

Here's the marriage rate in MA, over the same period.

5.6, 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, 5.9, 6.2, 6.5, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2, 5.8.

So, despite the fact that there has been a 15 percent drop in the overall marriage rate, the divorce rate has jumped up 20 percent.

Divorce rate/Marriage rate =

.446,  .393, .351, .390, .390,  .355,  .338, .446,  .424, .387, .431.

If I go back further, the marraige rate has dropped from 7.1 to about 5.6 today. So in 15 years, marriage has dropped 23 percent.

Divorces/marriage did drop, but have a sharp upward trend. matching the record high in 2002.

[Wisconsin+17]

I believe the 2008 MA for divorces/1000 numbers are the lowest divorce rate every recorded in any state, over the entire history of the US.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only patterns I'm seeing here, are a gradual erosion of marriage rates (1,2 percent a year) in MA, and divorce rates bouncing up and down, but significantly higher now than previous, with a long term increase.

Does this analysis of the MA data strike you as correct? That way you can save some time.