Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you feel this is a winning argument for you? It's a terrible argument and not worthy of your time. If the argument is correct, then my interactions are irrelevant. If the argument is incorrect, then my interactions are still irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what you are saying is that no 'true' gay converts?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have I stated here anywhere what I believe they should do? Seems to me you're making assumptions without asking me what I actually believe. I'm happy to answer you but you have to ask first.

Anyways, coercion is wrong. Some gay people choose to seek therapy to help them overcome predispositions that they do not want. Just like some alcoholics do the same. I fail to see why someone who chooses to undertake said therapy is acting contrary to their will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you believe that someone who is voluntarily celibate is 'un-self actualized?'

[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.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Oakvale]

Anyways, coercion is wrong. Some gay people choose to seek therapy to help them overcome predispositions that they do not want. Just like some alcoholics do the same. I fail to see why someone who chooses to undertake said therapy is acting contrary to their will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you believe that someone who is voluntarily celibate is 'un-self actualized?'

I haven't read through this entire thread, but I just want to address these two points briefly.

My response would be that I don't think it's very healthy for someone to voluntarily supress their basic, biological urges, either in terms of not having sex at all or attempting to "cure" themselves of their sexual orientation by brainwashing or however those programs work.

There are people who are asexual, not many (AFAIK it's similar to Asperger's in that it's a self-diagnosed condition by nerds on the internet a lot of times ), but they do exist. Unless you're asexual I think it's harmful to supress a basic human instinct when it's not doing anyone any harm.

[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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's Maslow isn't it? Sex as a basic need, with morality as just about the very last one?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What I would argue is this.

An individual who is fulfilled on Maslow's higher needs is willing to forgo some of the others in order to get fulfillment on the highest levels. Someone who fulfills their moral needs by acting in accordance to their beliefs can go without the other needs and still feel 'self-actualized'.

[Oakvale]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's Maslow isn't it? Sex as a basic need, with morality as just about the very last one?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What I would argue is this.

An individual who is fulfilled on Maslow's higher needs is willing to forgo some of the others in order to get fulfillment on the highest levels. Someone who fulfills their moral needs by acting in accordance to their beliefs can go without the other needs and still feel 'self-actualized'.

I'm not even talking philosophically, but psychologically.

 It's not healthy for (to use an example that might apply to evangelical Christians) teenagers going through puberty to abstain from masturbation, but (again, assuming) I'm sure there are those raised in ultra-religious households who try, fail, and are wracked with guilt for giving into normal instincts.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does one define what is 'normal'?

[TJ in Oregon]

I've never understood why repressing one's concupiscience is automatically viewed as a bad thing. Being able to resist the urge to act on a temptation of some sort is a crucial part of self-discipline. I guess it really comes down to tightly connected you view a concept of temporal hapiness to our purpose on this earth. I've also found in my rather brief life so far is that I am not always less happy while under a burden view as terrible (ie. we find a way to make ourselves just as happy doing without something we hold dear). I believe there's something more than this life and that shapes my worldview on these matters substantially. On a personal level I find the notion that self-discipline (ie. not always acting on a temptation) to be a backwards and twisted thought.

On a political level, it clearly gets more complicated that that. Government recognized marriage as a subsidy to encourage a certain behavior that society deems beneficial. If society deems gay marriage worthy of that subsidy then it should be recognized by that society. Notice how race is treated differently that gender in our history; the Equal Rights Amendment failed. If it had passed we very likely would have to required gay marriage on the grounds that forbiding it is gender discrimination.

As far as the "broken windows" theory regarding gay marriage, I think there is something there but it's more long-term than fluctuations in marriage and divorce rates over a five-year period in Massachusetts vs. the rest of the country. The real issue here that will change society is the underlying concept of sexuality and family life. I highly doubt many if any straight couples are going to suddenly decide to get a divorce just because gay marriage has been legalized. It's more of a "populations change but individuals do not" type of effect where those who grow up in an atmosphere where homosexuality is socially acceptable will be less likely to view the possibility of procreation as a requirement for sexual morality.

[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.

[TJ in Oregon]

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?),...

True, there are some logistical benefits of marriage, mainly that the government recognizes you as family. This is still essentially a subsidy since most people view having a legal marriage as on the net beneficial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's becuase there are people who feel gay marriage is personally unacceptable but should be legally recognized, perhaps they see some value in a committed relationship regardless of sexuality or because they view "marriage" as something reserved for religious purposes and "civil union" as allowing benefits to be received. I don't see much difference between the two--no matter what you call them--but a lot of people do.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To respond to Ben's question about love up above, there is certainly something of the erotic about romantic love, but the erotic need not necessarily be sexual. It's a general flavor of loving somebody that does not have to include any kind of particular acts or even desire for particular acts. I am a person who does not experience sexual desire, and I have fallen head over heels in love. I have somebody I'm still in love with, even though she's dead (I'd rather not talk about it).

Certainly we need to have social discussions about any incidental restrictions on this idea of marriage we might need to impose on the basis of things like sketchy power dynamics (incest/intergenerational stuff), but for this, even for the maintenance of family life once it's entered into however that may be, people happening to be the same biological sex, which doesn't necessarily correlate to any germane feature of a person's actual existence, doesn't strike me as particularly important.

I understand the concerns about procreation in terms of sexual morality (I don't necessarily share them but I do understand them) but it's the idea that sex has to be involved for a good romantic or conjugal or family life to be established that I don't like, partially because I agree entirely in principle with TJ that there can indeed be some very good things to be said for ignoring the wants of concupiscence, whatever one might have in the way of concupiscence. Even if you care about the maintenance of biological relations, which to a certain extent I think is a perfectly valid concern, those can get pretty diffuse and still be meaningful. The term 'social construct' is thrown around a lot these days but parenthood as inherently connected to biology is one of them.

The reason why it's best that marriage and family life remain based around pairs of adults rather than larger groups is that in a pair there's a certain at least theoretical symmetry in the relationality. Again, I don't think this has to involve what sex the pair are any more, even if there were periods in social history where that was important (which I am not necessarily denying). The family, rather than being valuable for its own sake, is to be valued as a way of constructing the ground level of society that is a microcosm of the kinds of loves and relationalities we're vouchsafed of the community of the righteous.

Some things will change; some things never change. The process of change certainly can seem fickle but there remain things that we can and definitely should conserve, even if we are people who are on my side on this particular issue. I hope you'll find me as an ally in defending the importance of these kinds of storge relationalities, even as due to the specifics of my own existence and experience I can't really couch connecting them necessarily to particular gender dynamics. Family as a conceptual structure and monogamy as an instance of committed and devoted Love remain among the most important things in the whole world.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I would argue that sex is essential to marriage. You can't have marriage without sex. Yes, you are right that it's possible to engage in eros without sex, but that's not really what marriage is about. Eros without sex is what you'll see in courtship, where the couple will deny themselves the fulfillment of eros in order to develop the other forms of it. Marriage at the end of it is the culmination of eros. 

This is really a crucial distinction. If sex isn't necessary, then that opens the door to quite a few other relationships.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I'd argue you're referring to agape here. And I agree that it's important in marriage too, but you need both. I have friends that I do love in this way that I would not want to marry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry to hear that. You have my sympathies. Didn't intend to bring up bad memories.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that goes back to your argument that you do not believe that sex is a required part of marriage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's a very important word. Conjugality. I would argue that the union of husband and wife in marriage is part of the reason why it's limited to men and women. It's a very specific word with a very specific meaning. It doesn't surprise me that you would find conjugality unnecessary given what you've already said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But if there's no conjugality, couldn't symmatry be acheived between evens?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Storge is important, but this is really going to sound strange given the common perception - but I think your understanding of the relationship between eros and marriage is problematic. I cannot see most people seeing that marriage without sex would be something desireable, and I think most would see sexual desire in it's full glory as an important part of a healthy marriage.

I also think your points are not something that's unique - it's the other half that I don't think gets talked about enough. More people who feel like you, means fewer folks in marriage altogether, and fewer families. How this gets dealt with, I'm not sure.

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I would argue that sex is essential to marriage. You can't have marriage without sex. Yes, you are right that it's possible to engage in eros without sex, but that's not really what marriage is about. Eros without sex is what you'll see in courtship, where the couple will deny themselves the fulfillment of eros in order to develop the other forms of it. Marriage at the end of it is the culmination of eros. 

This is really a crucial distinction. If sex isn't necessary, then that opens the door to quite a few other relationships.

This difference comes from the fact that Nathan is a Protestant and thus does not seem to believe that sex is required for a marriage ti be sacramental, as it is in the Catholic Church. This topic rarely comes up since as Ben says, marriage without sex isn't a very popular idea (of course then we get entangled into discussion of contraceptives--which is another topic for another thread).

[Wisconsin+17]

Actually, I was a Prot for many years.

I can't say my thinking on this point has changed since before I was a Christian.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, see...I think you're misunderstanding me. It's a type of eros without sex that I think is possible, because I feel it as possible in my own life. When you think I am referring to agape in my first paragraph I actually am referring to (what I perceive and feel as distinctly) eros, which...to be honest is incredibly hard to explain, so the onus is entirely on me if I'm not doing it well. In any case that's something that feels possible for me, and since I am probably more a knight of infinity than a knight of faith, at least so far in my life, I am inclined to trust my judgment of the world on this point. It's probably not possible in most people's lives but it's not something that's inherently possible for humans. God could have afflicted you thisaway but He did not. God could have afflicted me youraway but He did not.

TJ is entirely correct that I don't feel that the sacramental character of marriage requires sex, though I do think that the sacramental character of sex calls for that of marriage. I'm not fond of the idea of sex outside of marriage--I would agree with most Catholics that it's piss-poor sacramental theology--but as you can see I view marriage if anything somewhat less restrictively than sex.

I'm avoiding getting into discussions of whether or not gay sex is or has to be sinful because that's been beaten to death many times over and we're discussing the character of marriage as it relates to the family. Ben is incorrect in presuming that I don't want marriage or a family, if he is presuming that (I'm not sure if he's doing that or just saying that the admitted strangeness of might outlook might put off other people if it became more general to the way marriage and family were constructed). I'm also using the word 'conjugal' in its generalized sense, which is tautological since in that sense it's essentially just the adjectival form of 'marriage'. As indeed it is somewhat tautological to define 'conjugal' as 'pertaining to husband in wife' in a debate over how marriage is to be defined.

Again, there are points I'm deliberately not arguing here because I feel that the idea that a by and large asexual marriage and family life is possible for those of us who are by basic inclination asexual is important to get across here, since the discussion had turned to the question of sex as necessary for eros and hence marriage. I'm perfectly aware that both my definition of eros and my experience of it are profoundly odd but I'm not asking anybody else to share them. (Full disclosure: I also feel a religious vocation but, again, as an Anglican this isn't construed as mutually exclusive to my feeling called to start or enter into a family unit.)

As to the symmetry/affinity I mentioned, you can technically get symmetry with even numbers but once there is a >2 number of people involved in any relationship the power dynamics become such that it's inherently irreconcilable with the sort of dialectic that should go on within a marriage. Could we at least agree on this point, even if we arrive at it differently?

I apologize for any incidental lack of clarity or diffuseness of what I'm saying here. I just finished midterms and I've been awake for sixteen hours on a previous four hours of sleep.

[Wisconsin+17]

Nothing to apologize for.

I guess I should rephrase.

You are arguing that you feel eros without sex. I know that's not agape. Agape is what I meant as the love between husband and wife (and friends, and others) as a self sacrificial giving love.

You're talking about something different here - eros without sex.  I didn't mean to call that Agape - it's very much eros. I think one of the important parts of marriage is the relief of eros with sex - the culmilation that I spoke of.

I actually believe that your viewpoint was much more common in the middle ages. The model was very different than it is today with everyone regulated into the 2.5 kids per family. Those who were more comfortable on their own in this asexual thing could be more welcomed in the Church in various ministries.

Those who felt this desire - would be free to have as many children as they wanted and would have large families, etc. We get to today and that's see as odd - the lack of desire for actual sex.

Interesting you feel a call to a vocation. Would you feel more comfortable being unmarried rather then putting on the burden of a family? I didn't mean to imply that I thought you didn't want one, just was trying to understand where you were coming from.

I've been told (and bluntly I might add), that I would be a good fit for the priesthood myself. I don't see it - but the ladies all seem to see that in me much more clearly then they see me as a lover, etc. I think that I come off as very asexual - which is mostly just temperment.

I very much want a famiy and a wife and lots of little ones. Nothing would make me happier than the part of the marriage relationship. I think I would make a poor priest - I love women too much.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm honestly not sure whether or not I feel comfortable or capable, having a family. I know I want one, very much so, but wanting one isn't the same as being called to having one, and the love that I mentioned a couple of posts ago is actually the BEST any of my attempts at becoming close to people I like that way so far have ended, so...I mean, add to that my views on extended versus nuclear family structures, and it's entirely possible I'll end up unmarried and childless myself, ordained a priest of the Episcopal Church, living as a member of a family in the role of cousin or uncle or something of the type. That isn't my ideal future but at this moment it seems most likely unless I meet somebody who absolutely sweeps me off my feet again. In that case I'll have a wife and kids (adopted or consenting to sex out of love for my wife, who knows) and holy orders. You presumably won't consider my holy orders valid but that's schism for you!

I do indeed feel more at home, to be honest, with a particular part of the High Middle Ages when there were good harvests and some theorized easing of Church attitudes towards benign gender-role variance (which a historian named John Boswell did some work on, work that you and I would probably both find highly hit-and-miss for almost entirely opposite reasons) than with most of what's come since then. What you see from me is often a fundamentally non-modern viewpoint--not necessarily any specific kind of premodern, but definitively not modern--translated into a life that experiences eros without sex, a very strange genderedness, a group of close friends most of whom are lesbians, and academic work on the language and literature of a country that's 98% non-Christian. I have to make uncomfortable choices, sometimes, about which aspects of my beliefs and experiences I want to prioritize, if that makes sense.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Up to a point. Hypermodern in the sense that you adopt many of the same viewpoints expressed in the Episcopal church. They aren't exactly rare these days especially among the educated folks.

As for recognition of the order - that has nothing to do with me - everything to do with a decision made some 500 years ago. It wasn't necessary to break off, but it was desired. The consequence being that the orders are no longer valid.

I really do believe the Catholic approach is more fruitful than the half in- half out awkwardness that is the Episcopal church. They really dont' seem to have a concrete path for themselves, and the aridity is starting to come out recently. Frankly, I don't see a future for them.

Losing the one person you love is hard. There is quite a bit we share in common - probably more than you would expect. Oddly, I feel that our lives, even if there is disagreement over the whys and wherefores are probably pretty similar in the hows, and don't really find much identification for the world of today.

Rare that I find someone that actually understands these points.

Do have a good evening. Peace + Blessings to you on your path.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Up to a point. Hypermodern in the sense that you adopt many of the same viewpoints expressed in the Episcopal church. They aren't exactly rare these days especially among the educated folks.

Well, that's the experiences and personality traits that influence the non-modern substructure of my worldview that I was talking about. At a basic level, the way I see the world is based on other things. I, as an Episcopalian, will of course align myself with the part of the Episcopal Church coming closest to my views, but I'm actually often made uncomfortable by the modern 'any consensual sex is okay' view and again, there's a relatively narrow scope of things at hand that are what make me align myself with the more liberal elements. I'd dearly like to align myself as a more traditional Anglo-Catholic within the Communion some day. It's not that I'm comfortable with the modern expression of these matters; I'm just more uncomfortable with the common alternatives that I've seen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I'm aware of all this history; I was just joking with you. I'm concerned about the Episcopal Church's future as well. To be quite honest there are a lot of days when I agree with you, and it scares me; in that case I'd enter into a desert exile without the desert. Schism might actually reinvigorate its own products, but that leads to a whole other scary dimension--we've prided ourselves as Anglicans on our internal broadness of worship and philosophy within the points of the Instruments of Unity and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (which historically always has accommodated very conservative as well as very liberal standpoints). That was supposed to be our 'concrete path', it's why I am an Anglican, and I'm actually very afraid of losing it. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who is a member of my general faction and speaks my language, announced his resignation this morning, and I'm really concerned about the future.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree entirely. Much like with TJ, it's been easier for me to talk to you and find common points of reference than with a lot of the liberals on here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you.

[Alcon]

Interracial marriage analogy

Already have. I said, very specifically that I support interracial marriage.

Ok, and? You've made this argument many times now. Race is not relevant to marriage. Sex is. Marriage is about sex, no?

If race is not relevant to sex, why do interracial marriages have 50% higher divorce rates?  Obviously, someone could easily argue (with empirical evidence) that "interracial vs. not" is relevant to marriage.  So, what would you say to someone who argued a similar "broken window" effect for interracial marriage?  And that interracial marriage is atraditional, potentially dangerous and fails to have a "net" effect on the overall divorce rate?

I just said that equal protection applies to race, because race is something that you do not choose.

...And it's less of a choice to be in an interracial relationship than a homosexual relationship?  You can't choose your race, but as you point at, you can choose (to some degree) your relationships.  If it's reasonable to ask people to choose their sexual orientation, why isn't it reasonable to ask you to stop dating someone of the other race?  The statistics show you're contributing to that "broken window" because your relationship is more likely to end in divorce.  Why wouldn't your mode of analysis demand extending the prohibition for interracial relationships too?  "Race" is different is not an answer when it fails the analogy because the analogous component is voluntary participation in an interracial relationship.

Issue of marginal effect

It does follow. If only 10 percent of all gay couples are getting married, then the policy is an outright failure at promoting monogamy.

That is not necessarily true, and I have explained why, but instead of engaging on me you have just chosen to repeat this statement.  (Marginal effects.)  It would help if you responded directly to be critiques.

You said that 'we should not expect to see gay marriage have any effect on the overall divorce rate', because it's overshadowed by simple numbers.

"Simple numbers"?  I.e., overshadowed by a population that outnumbers gays at least 10:1?

You said it so yourself. Now you claim that it is going to have an effect, even though the same principle applies.

I'm asking whether "no effect on the overall divorce rate" means:

1. The presence of gay marriage does not impact the divorce rate either way; or,

2. The presence of gay marriage does not impact the divorce rate sufficiently to compensate for any trends or current statuses in heterosexual marriage.

Those are different things...which has been a point I've made about five times now, minimum.

Answer the question please, if 10 percent of couples choose not to get married, isn't that going to overshadow a 1 percent increase in adoption rates?

Simple yes or no.

Obviously, yes, you're asking me a math problem.

The same effect applies equally to both. You can't have it both ways, alcon. You've used it as a rationale as to why we shouldn't expect to see gay marriage have positive effects on the overall rate. Now you say that we should.

So either your former explanation is wrong, or your new explanation is wrong. I'm going to go with your new explanation being wrong.

Again, when you say "positive effects on the overall rate," you mean something different than what "positive effects on the overall rate" actually means.  When someone loses $5,000 for an organization and I donate $1,000, that $1,000 has a "positive effect on the overall rate" even if it does not render the organization's cashflow positive.  I have explained multiple times that I'm making this distinction (want me to pull out quotes?) but you continue to equivocate.

I agreed with you that the overweighting effect was going on, now you're getting defensive when confronted with the consequences of this conclusion. Same train rolling down both.

I'm really only getting defensive about your equivocation of marginal effects with non-effects.  I also might be defensive about the phrase "same train rolling down both" if I had any idea what it means.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

50 percent higher than what? The average marriage in the US?

You do know that most people in the US are white, right? And that white folks have a lower divorce rate than other races?

Ergo - it stands to reason that a mixed marriage between someone who is white and someone who is not would have a higher divorce rate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because we see these same problems with intraracial, non-white marriages?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same answer to both of these.

Freedom of association. See, you're all over the place here. The state has no privilege to regulate relationships. It does have the privilege to regulate marriage. Unless you're arguing that all relationships should be considered marriage, then your point doesn't work.

WRT to marriage - sex is relevant, race is not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've completely missed the point of my earlier argument. But that's ok, since you really don't care about what I said earlier.

Again, interracial marriage is not an issue because we see the same issues involved with marriage within different races. It comes down to a huge cultural problem that needs to be addressed. One that is far, far more important than the gay marriage debate in terms of scope.

Why are black people struggling in marriage? The problem is that state intervention in marriage is acting to encourage people not to marry. When you get greater benefits for being a single mom with children, and those benefits are way higher than you would earn as a wife. This is a problem, because now the state has set up an incentive for these types of relationships. Then you have the folks growing up today, who may never have seen an actual marriage in their family - what are they going to choose?

This is why the interracial marriage rate is higher than average, because you have folks that have gotten caught in this culture getting married to those who have not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would help if you bothered reading my replies instead of dismissing them. But we know you don't care about what I write because you keep writing the exact same things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And my point is that on the face of the actual numbers, 1 and 2 are indistinguishable. That's my point here. If you're willing to concede that gay marriage doesn't actually change the numbers, then we can move onto something more productive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you. That's because it is a math problem. One you already answered correctly and apparently didn't like the answer you got.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The door is always open.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The door is always open.

Going to Rome is one of the alternatives that I'm more uncomfortable with as things stand now, but I appreciate the offer of welcome, and--maybe, someday.

[Alcon]

Ben,

I'm replying to your posts in loud, public areas.  I'm sincerely not feeling that I'm missing substantive parts of your argument.  Trust me, dude, if I'm willing to sift through detailed analyses and run statistical tests, I'm willing to actually listen to what you're saying.  Tell you what: I'm going to go back in this topic and try to map out your arguments and figure out what you're saying.  I'm going to admit that this may be subject to error -- even in retrospect, I have no idea how you expected me to not think you were arguing gay marriage contributes to the "broken window" effect...absolutely no idea.

But!  At this point, any progress will have to entail some legwork on someone's part.  I don't think either of us are being intentionally spiteful here It will come soon, but tomorrow night is St. Patrick's, so yeah don't expect it that soon.

P.S. "Asking you to stop dating someone of the same race" does not imply government coercion in any way.  This is the sort of imprecise inference we need to avoid if we make this work.  Just saying!