Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's been falling for longer than this actually. It's mostly due to no-fault divorce and some to demographic factors (fewer people of marriagable age), waiting longer for marriage, education factors, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

MA has very low marriage rates. Fewer people get married, even fewer get divorced. MA was a leader in the decline, so it's not surprising that they would be a leader in other ways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not just the average age of marriage - fewer people are choosing to get married. If you look at the percentages, it's rather drastic.

Again, this gets back to some of the basics which we should be arguing about. One of Santorum's arguments, and a big part of it is that marriage is generally a huge benefit to people. Sure for some it's not, but in general, it's the single most reliable indicator of poverty, is whether someone is or is not married. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really, no. It's better off to get married and stay married, when the alternative is not to get married at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not when the absolute numbers of those getting married has dropped so dramatically.

Again, this isn't a recent phenomenon, it's been going on for a long time.

[Alcon]

Why am I against it? Because I'm Catholic and my faith teaches that homosexuality is sinful. So if you feel it's worth your time to argue with me otherwise, feel free. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Theoretical question:  Even if gay marriage was empirically proven to bolster the economy, and marriage, and whatever, would you still unconditionally oppose civil recognition because your faith disagrees with it?

As for interracial marriage - nobody chooses to be black (or white, or whatever). People choose to engage in homosexuality. The analogy between the two simply doesn't hold up.

People...choose to engage in interracial relationships too.  I'm not sure how you think that breaks down the analogy.  There are distinctions, but that's not one of them.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's two questions going on here -

One, do I believe that what I believe ought to be state policy;

Two, do I believe that marriage is something that ought to be regulated by the state.

We haven't really touched either one of them.

No - I wouldn't change my mind on gay marriage based on this evidence. Which is kind of why I specified what the question we were examining beforehand was not about whether I supported gay marriage or not.

That's really not the question on the table, nor really a productive use of your time. I'm sorry if you feel I've mislead you, but I thought I was pretty clear. I see now that I obviously was not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you saying that you believe that homosexuality is a choice?

[Alcon]

I'm still wondering on how you distinguish the interracial issue using your method of analysis, but whatever.

I'm also wondering why you thought the portion I quoted wouldn't lead me to the assumption about your argument I made.  Was I not paraphrasing what you said?

Do you oppose civil recognition of gay marriage (that allows churches to refuse to marry gays)?

Your last post kind of confused me because of the weird quote-copying.

[Wisconsin+17]

Do you see homosexuality as a choice or what, alcon?

[Joe Republic]

BK, could you kindly use the quote function in the usual manner, please?  It's not essential to the casual observer for reading back-and-forth conversations, but it certainly helps.  Thanks.

[Wisconsin+17]

Well I'm unfamiliar with the norms here.

What is the usual fashion?

[Alcon]

Do you see homosexuality as a choice or what, alcon?

I tend to think people have strong biological predispositions, although those can be socialized and conditioned to an extent.  I think that's true of both heterosexuality and homosexuality.  Homosexual acts are a choice, like any sex act.

Does that help you to answer my questions, or explain why you seemed to be arguing what you're now claiming you never did?

[Joe Republic]

Well I'm unfamiliar with the norms here.

What is the usual fashion?

Click the  button in the post that you want to reply to.

[Wisconsin+17]

Do you see homosexuality as a choice or what, alcon?

Does that help you to answer my questions, or explain why you seemed to be arguing what you're now claiming you never did?

Key words here - "I seemed". This is why I clarified myself. You had the wrong perception.

Now as for this point here, thank you for clarifying yourself. So you think we have strong predispositions that can be controlled. Ok.

Race is different, far different from this. This is why what applies to race cannot be applied to homosexuality. You can't suddenly stop being black, white, whatever. But you can change your habits and your desires.

This is a part of marriage - giving up things that you may have once enjoyed for other benefits inside a family. We restrict choices in marriage. Curtail behaviours that can be destructive out of concern for our partners and our family.

See where I'm going with this?

It comes back to the basic question - you are not what you do. What you do does not change who you are as a person.

I'm going to stop here. Get your reaction to all this.

[Wisconsin+17]

Apologies Joe. I'm not used to such swanky forums, I'm used to the HTML....

[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.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you know this to be true?

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.

[Alcon]

Do you see homosexuality as a choice or what, alcon?

Does that help you to answer my questions, or explain why you seemed to be arguing what you're now claiming you never did?

Key words here - "I seemed". This is why I clarified myself. You had the wrong perception.

Now as for this point here, thank you for clarifying yourself. So you think we have strong predispositions that can be controlled. Ok.

Race is different, far different from this. This is why what applies to race cannot be applied to homosexuality. You can't suddenly stop being black, white, whatever. But you can change your habits and your desires.

This is a part of marriage - giving up things that you may have once enjoyed for other benefits inside a family. We restrict choices in marriage. Curtail behaviours that can be destructive out of concern for our partners and our family.

See where I'm going with this?

It comes back to the basic question - you are not what you do. What you do does not change who you are as a person.

I'm going to stop here. Get your reaction to all this.

Again...race may not be selected, but participating in a relationship with someone of another race is.  It's probably easier to condition yourself out of love with someone of a different race than condition a sexual orientation change.

What point were you making with that initial post, if not the one I replied to?  ...How else does one read that?

I'm also waiting on an answer to the other questions from my last post.

[Wisconsin+17]

Again...race may not be selected, but participating in a relationship with someone of another race is.  It's probably easier to condition yourself out of love with someone of a different race than condition a sexual orientation change.

Ok, now lets go back a bit. That's an important point here.

Is the purpose of marriage to recognize all relationships? Or only some? If the purpose of marriage is to recognize all relationships, then you are correct here - that there's no rationale.

But if the purpose of marriage is to recognize only some relationships, then the question is - which relationships are relevant to recognition in marriage? Why have marriage at all?

[Alcon]

Again...race may not be selected, but participating in a relationship with someone of another race is.  It's probably easier to condition yourself out of love with someone of a different race than condition a sexual orientation change.

Ok, now lets go back a bit. That's an important point here.

Is the purpose of marriage to recognize all relationships? Or only some? If the purpose of marriage is to recognize all relationships, then you are correct here - that there's no rationale.

But if the purpose of marriage is to recognize only some relationships, then the question is - which relationships are relevant to recognition in marriage? Why have marriage at all?

I'll keep this broad and short, but feel free to ask me to expand as-needed!

I think that the best argument for civil marriage is incentivizing monogamy and stability and other conditions that have positive societal benefits (...nice windows? )

How this lines up with your response re: interracial marriage or explaining why your original comment sounded like it was arguing gay marriage did bad things, I do not know!  I look forward to being led down the (garden? ) path on this one...

[Wisconsin+17]

I'll keep this broad and short, but feel free to ask me to expand as-needed!

I think that the best argument for civil marriage is incentivizing monogamy and stability and other conditions that have positive societal benefits (...nice windows? )

How this lines up with your response re: interracial marriage or explaining why your original comment sounded like it was arguing gay marriage did bad things, I do not know!  I look forward to being led down the (garden? ) path on this one...

I'm getting to there.

I believe that race, for the purposes of marriage to the state is irrelevant. It makes no difference to the state to recognise marriage between say black people and white people or whatever.

Personally, this is something that's really important to me. My own preferences are for someone who isn't white. Statewise, the state derives the exact same benefit either way.

However, I don't see this as true with gay marriage. I think the state has a legitimate concern to promote marriage between one man and one woman for two purposes:

1, marital stability. Marriage is the best outcome for a man and a woman because the alternatives (as we are seeing right now with common law), are less stable. They are more likely to break up.

2, procreation. Marriage, between a man and a woman is the best situation for children. I am not saying that alternatives are unworkable, just that on the overall scale - it's in the best interest of the state to promote what has and does work. Even though many children are born outside of wedlock marriage is more likely to produce families with sufficient children to not only sustain, but to induce population growth.

Where does gay marriage fit into this? If we start saying that marriage isn't about the union between a man and a woman, then it starts to lose it's purpose. The question starts being asked - what benefit does the state derive from marriage recognition? Would the state be better off providing no recognition whatsoever?

[Phony Moderate]

[Brittain33]

Is this getting back to "gays can choose to be celibate and single, so they should consider that most of society would like them to do that, and take the hint"?

No thanks. Sorry.

[Alcon]

I'm getting to there.

I believe that race, for the purposes of marriage to the state is irrelevant. It makes no difference to the state to recognise marriage between say black people and white people or whatever.

Personally, this is something that's really important to me. My own preferences are for someone who isn't white. Statewise, the state derives the exact same benefit either way.

However, I don't see this as true with gay marriage. I think the state has a legitimate concern to promote marriage between one man and one woman for two purposes:

1, marital stability. Marriage is the best outcome for a man and a woman because the alternatives (as we are seeing right now with common law), are less stable. They are more likely to break up.

Interracial marriages have higher divorce rates.  Something like 50% higher I believe.  Maybe you should condition yourself to love somebody else -- you know, for society's sake.

However, the better question is really not whether divorce rates are higher, but whether the effect of marriage on a given population is to increase monogamy -- since the purpose of the public policy is to increase monogamy, not necessarily just keep divorce rates down.  No?

2, procreation. Marriage, between a man and a woman is the best situation for children. I am not saying that alternatives are unworkable, just that on the overall scale - it's in the best interest of the state to promote what has and does work. Even though many children are born outside of wedlock marriage is more likely to produce families with sufficient children to not only sustain, but to induce population growth.

What do you honestly think gay marriage prohibition does more of?

1. Causes gays to rethink the gay thing, turn straight, and have kids.

2. Discourage long-term gay couples, about a third of whom adopt -- which is something we (and the world generally) need.

Where does gay marriage fit into this? If we start saying that marriage isn't about the union between a man and a woman, then it starts to lose it's purpose. The question starts being asked - what benefit does the state derive from marriage recognition? Would the state be better off providing no recognition whatsoever?

Yes, and ignoring arguments of equal protection (which still are important to me), the case for heterosexual marriage being a significantly superior policy to gay marriage seems terrible to me.

I still have no idea what this has to do with your first post in this thread, btw, or my questions about your methods of analysis.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, going back to the point in question - is marriage about recognizing all relationships or just some. No one is saying that you have to leave the person that you love, far from it.

But I am asking - should we recognize this particular relationship as marriage?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given the lack of participation of the gay community into marriage - I don't see how one can argue that gay marriage increases monogamy among them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, then gay marriage is a failure due to lack of participation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, as you've so beautifully argued early - gay marriage has no effect on the overall divorce rate because there isn't enough of them.

Which has the larger effect - 10 percent of the population choosing not to get married at all, or 1 percent of the population choosing to adopt?

You've said that we should not expect overall marriage rates to go up because there's not enough gay people, and at the same time, you're arguing now that they are going to have a net, positive effect.

Which is it? If they are going to have a net positive effect here, shouldn't we also be seeing a net positive effect on the marriage rate too?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And we get another argument pulled out of the bin.

Equal protection doesn't apply here. Equal protection only applies to things like race, and disability, things which are not choices. We don't apply equal protection to things that can change over time.

[Fritz]

Being gay is not a "choice."  One cannot "choose" to be gay, any more than one can "choose" to be straight.  You could argue that gays can choose not to act upon their homosexuality, to which I would say, straights can also choose not to act upon their heterosexuality.

[Wisconsin+17]

Being gay is not a "choice."  One cannot "choose" to be gay, any more than one can "choose" to be straight.  You could argue that gays can choose not to act upon their homosexuality, to which I would say, straights can also choose not to act upon their heterosexuality.

One, alcon already conceded this point quite awhile back. He can't use this argument anymore.

Two, that's a terrible argument. Are you arguing that celibacy is impossible?

Yes, straight people make the choice to engage in relationships with men or women according to their desires. They can choose not to engage in these relationships, same with gay people.

Once again, who you are has no bearing on what you choose to do.

[Fritz]

I am not going to wade through all the pages of argument here to see what Alcon said.  Of course I am not arguing that celibacy is impossible, in fact I conceded that celibacy is possible for straights and gays alike.  I would argue that celibacy is undesirable, for straights and gays alike.  Everyone wants to have sex, and should be able to do so, within safe guidelines of course.  But when you start to argue that homosexuality itself is something that is chosen, and that gays are not entitled to equal protection under the law because of that, I have to take issue with that.

[Free Palestine]

Why in the [Inks] should gay people be celibate?