Rick Santorum: Gay Marriage Will 'Dis...

Rick Santorum: Gay Marriage Will 'Disintegrate' American Family

There are 2277 comments on the On Top Magazine story from Oct 11, 2012, titled Rick Santorum: Gay Marriage Will 'Disintegrate' American Family. In it, On Top Magazine reports that:

Rick Santorum has claimed that the American family would be on the precipice of extinction if gay marriage where to become legal.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at On Top Magazine.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#183 Oct 15, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure I understand the point your trying to make here. But as far as straight people being in LGBT, yes I guess they could. LGBT people are NOT the ones trying to be exclusive but rather inclusive. But for a transgendered person to be considered straight, that would mean that YOU and your ilk, would have to accept their 'change', which you don't, otherwise they wouldn't be labeled transgendered, their sex would be a non issue.
So, does the fact that being gay is NOT REQUIRED to be LGBT negate LGBT being about gay issues?

because its your side's argument that the existence of infertile married couples negates that marriage is related to procreation...

so I gather that straight LGBT members must also negate that LGBT is about being gay.

if the logic was applied evenly...

The part I like most about the LGBT analogy is not that it translates so well, its how offended gays have gotten that a straight wanted to join...
the irony was just too much...

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#184 Oct 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
So, does the fact that being gay is NOT REQUIRED to be LGBT negate LGBT being about gay issues?
because its your side's argument that the existence of infertile married couples negates that marriage is related to procreation...
so I gather that straight LGBT members must also negate that LGBT is about being gay.
if the logic was applied evenly...
The part I like most about the LGBT analogy is not that it translates so well, its how offended gays have gotten that a straight wanted to join...
the irony was just too much...
Perhaps in your world people who are transgender are immediately accepted by everyone and never encounter any sort of difficulties related to being transgendered. In this world unfortunately transgendered people are usually lumped in with LG and B people and are subjected to the same stupid bigotry. And so in our world we consider our diverse community to be LGBT since we have common cause to fight for our rights and to combat bigotry against us.

By the way, what color is the sky in your world?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#185 Oct 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
So, does the fact that being gay is NOT REQUIRED to be LGBT negate LGBT being about gay issues?
because its your side's argument that the existence of infertile married couples negates that marriage is related to procreation...
so I gather that straight LGBT members must also negate that LGBT is about being gay.
if the logic was applied evenly...
The part I like most about the LGBT analogy is not that it translates so well, its how offended gays have gotten that a straight wanted to join...
the irony was just too much...
those members of the LGBT community that are not homosexual are not being denied their right to marry, so the point you think you have is moot. A non-issue...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#186 Oct 15, 2012
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps in your world people who are transgender are immediately accepted by everyone and never encounter any sort of difficulties related to being transgendered. In this world unfortunately transgendered people are usually lumped in with LG and B people and are subjected to the same stupid bigotry. And so in our world we consider our diverse community to be LGBT since we have common cause to fight for our rights and to combat bigotry against us.
By the way, what color is the sky in your world?
I was merely discussing the difficulties of having a perfect grouping...

so, does the fact that some infertiles marry mean marriage cannot be about procreation?
Because then my only point is that by the same logic, LGBT cannot be about gay issues since NON GAYS are included in the grouping..
that's all folks...

If I said the sky was blue, you would say I was crazy because the sky is sometimes grey...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#187 Oct 15, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>those members of the LGBT community that are not homosexual are not being denied their right to marry, so the point you think you have is moot. A non-issue...
nope, you missed the point...
do imperfections in the grouping negate the main focus of the grouping or not?
If non-gays are LGBT that must mean LGBT cannot be about gays if infertiles marrying negates the link between marriage and procreation...
Uve

Indio, CA

#188 Oct 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
So, does the fact that being gay is NOT REQUIRED to be LGBT negate LGBT being about gay issues?
because its your side's argument that the existence of infertile married couples negates that marriage is related to procreation...
so I gather that straight LGBT members must also negate that LGBT is about being gay.
if the logic was applied evenly...
The part I like most about the LGBT analogy is not that it translates so well, its how offended gays have gotten that a straight wanted to join...
the irony was just too much...
They are two separate issues and to try and relate them is silly, your argument is weak at best. There are very few things that are exclusively 'Black and White'. Like I said, LGBT is about being inclusive, something all of society should be, NOT exclusive. It's called 'diversity' and like I've said before, acceptance of societies diverse elements gives it strength and understanding. It is YOU and people like you that have applied these labels/classifications to people like me to have to live under, now your saying we're being exclusive because you don't fit in the classification? AND NO procreation is NOT a requirement to marriage! Yet you deny me the right to marry by trying to make it one and then NOT apply that distinction to everyone that marries, it's hypocritical at best! It's sad that all this bigotry and discrimination is about who someone sleeps with, it is SO ignorant and a waste of time!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#189 Oct 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, you missed the point...
do imperfections in the grouping negate the main focus of the grouping or not?
If non-gays are LGBT that must mean LGBT cannot be about gays if infertiles marrying negates the link between marriage and procreation...
you need to stop focusing on that particular grouping which has nothing to do with the issue of same sex marriage.

It is you who has obviously missed the point.

Prejudice and hatred often blinds people to clear thinking...

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#191 Oct 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, you missed the point...
do imperfections in the grouping negate the main focus of the grouping or not?
If non-gays are LGBT that must mean LGBT cannot be about gays if infertiles marrying negates the link between marriage and procreation...
As others have pointed out, you are the one missing the point. Same-sex marriage is the issue at hand and you are talking about something completely off topic.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#192 Oct 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
exactly, me supporting myself with legal reality is a weakness to you...
Ever notice even courts cut and paste other courts in to theri decision?
why do you think that is?
Nope, you only think you're supporting yourself with your interpretation of legal reality.

When you're sitting on one of the courts then your interpretation will matter, until then, it's just another meaningless opinion.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#193 Oct 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, you missed the point...
do imperfections in the grouping negate the main focus of the grouping or not?
If non-gays are LGBT that must mean LGBT cannot be about gays if infertiles marrying negates the link between marriage and procreation...
No, the point is that if an exception to the procreation link can be made for opposite-sex couples who can't or choose not to procreate, then the same exception can be made for same-sex couples that can't or choose not to procreate.

Once you start making exceptions to the rule, then you must justify denying additional exceptions. THAT is the problem the anti-gays are running into. Had you made ZERO exceptions to the marriage-procreation rule you'd be on solid legal standing. As it is, the link between procreation & marriage has clearly been broken.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#194 Oct 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I was merely discussing the difficulties of having a perfect grouping...
so, does the fact that some infertiles marry mean marriage cannot be about procreation?
Because then my only point is that by the same logic, LGBT cannot be about gay issues since NON GAYS are included in the grouping..
that's all folks...
If I said the sky was blue, you would say I was crazy because the sky is sometimes grey...
And LGBT is NOT solely about "gay issues" by the very nature of including lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals, some of whom are heterosexual.

Just as marriage is not solely about procreation, by the very act of including infertile & other non-procreative opposite-sex couples.

Yes, procreation is a PART of the justification for the govt getting involved in personal relationships, but it is not the ONLY nor the DEFINING aspect, by the very inclusion of non-procreative couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#195 Oct 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
So, does the fact that being gay is NOT REQUIRED to be LGBT negate LGBT being about gay issues?
because its your side's argument that the existence of infertile married couples negates that marriage is related to procreation...
so I gather that straight LGBT members must also negate that LGBT is about being gay.
if the logic was applied evenly...
The part I like most about the LGBT analogy is not that it translates so well, its how offended gays have gotten that a straight wanted to join...
the irony was just too much...
Straights are MORE than welcome in ANY LBGT group, and in fact we ENCOURAGE them to join.

Yes, the inclusion of heterosexuals doe indeed mean LGBT isn't solely about "the gays".

Every time you make this moronic claim makes it clear you've never been to an LGBT meeting.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#196 Oct 15, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you need to stop focusing on that particular grouping
Why, I simply applied the logic you guys are using on marriage to a group of you guys...

the funniest part is how offended you all got about the notion of having a straight be LGBT...

the second funniest part is how you all think exceptions negating rule sis dumb when applied to your group and the greatest argument since sliced bread as to marriage...

and so i will ask you, name any grouping of people that has no exceptions...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#197 Oct 15, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Straights are MORE than welcome in ANY LBGT group, and in fact we ENCOURAGE them to join.
Yes, the inclusion of heterosexuals doe indeed mean LGBT isn't solely about "the gays".
Every time you make this moronic claim makes it clear you've never been to an LGBT meeting.
is the groups agenda about gay rights?

this is the same as me claiming you can have a straight marriage...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#198 Oct 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Why, I simply applied the logic you guys are using on marriage to a group of you guys...
the funniest part is how offended you all got about the notion of having a straight be LGBT...
the second funniest part is how you all think exceptions negating rule sis dumb when applied to your group and the greatest argument since sliced bread as to marriage...
and so i will ask you, name any grouping of people that has no exceptions...
Now it seems to be you making false assumptions. real ones this time...

Your grouping has absolutely nothing to do with this issue and you know it.

Please explain how it does if you can...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#199 Oct 15, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Now it seems to be you making false assumptions. real ones this time...
Your grouping has absolutely nothing to do with this issue and you know it.
Please explain how it does if you can...
what is the false assumption?
I am only seizing on the FACT that some transgendered are actually straight...

my point is simply that any grouping of people is imprecise.
Your side wishes to claim that the fact that some who marry do not or can not procreate means procreation is unrelated to marriage..
do you buy this argument?

To highlight the fallacy of this argument, I merely point out that the LGBT group, that is supposedly about gay rights, includes some STRAIGHTS...
and so if you buy the first argument, you have to also say that LGBT must then not be about gay issues...

and since we all know LGBT is about gay issues, I think it shows your side's attempt to use an imperfection is faulty...

A baseball team is about paying baseball, but since there are managers on the team and they don't play it must not be about playing baseball, right?
Uve

Indio, CA

#200 Oct 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
what is the false assumption?
I am only seizing on the FACT that some transgendered are actually straight...
my point is simply that any grouping of people is imprecise.
Your side wishes to claim that the fact that some who marry do not or can not procreate means procreation is unrelated to marriage..
do you buy this argument?
To highlight the fallacy of this argument, I merely point out that the LGBT group, that is supposedly about gay rights, includes some STRAIGHTS...
and so if you buy the first argument, you have to also say that LGBT must then not be about gay issues...
and since we all know LGBT is about gay issues, I think it shows your side's attempt to use an imperfection is faulty...
A baseball team is about paying baseball, but since there are managers on the team and they don't play it must not be about playing baseball, right?

The logic is false..transgendered are included in gay rights because..If they are straight after the 'change' then they would have been 'gay' before..still a gay rights issue. A person's sexuality doesn't change even though their body does..and procreation is NOT a prerequisite for marriage. It doesn't happen, straight couples are NOT denied a marriage license based on the fact that they cannot have children. That is only an argument to deny gays from marriage..DO YOU NOT SEE THE HYPOCRISY IN THIS EXCUSE?

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#201 Oct 15, 2012
That's just as stupid as saying mixed race people have no business joining the NAACP.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I was merely discussing the difficulties of having a perfect grouping...
so, does the fact that some infertiles marry mean marriage cannot be about procreation?
Because then my only point is that by the same logic, LGBT cannot be about gay issues since NON GAYS are included in the grouping..
that's all folks...
If I said the sky was blue, you would say I was crazy because the sky is sometimes grey...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#202 Oct 15, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
AND NO procreation is NOT a requirement to marriage! Yet you deny me the right to marry by trying to make it one and then NOT apply that distinction to everyone that marries, it's hypocritical at best!
yup, the exact argument I made as to LGBT...
Simply take the exception that straight transgenders are LGBT and apply it to all straights...
so LGBT will just be about all sexuality, not only homosexuality...
right?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#203 Oct 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
is the groups agenda about gay rights?
this is the same as me claiming you can have a straight marriage...
NO, the group's agenda is NOT solely about gay rights.

How many times do you have to be told that before it sinks in?!

If the LGBT groups agenda was just about gay rights, then it would simply be the G.

Straights ARE a part of every LGBT group.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Little Robbie's Happy Place 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 10
News NBA Moves All-Star Game Out of North Carolina O... 5 hr Here is what I 14
News Judge to monitor Kansas' actions on gay marriag... 5 hr Here is what I 18
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 5 hr Rosa_Winkel 14,558
News Connecticut's convention-goers head home, many ... 5 hr In Hillary Gays T... 1
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 6 hr Christsharian Law 24
News Making GOP history, Trump vows to protect LGBTQ... 6 hr Christsharian Law 6
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 hr Rose_NoHo 38,354
More from around the web