Rick Santorum: Gay Marriage Will 'Disintegrate' American Family

Oct 11, 2012 Full story: On Top Magazine 2,277

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

Full Story
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#42 Oct 12, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no logic with him only his logic...I doubt he even knows what LGBT stands for, otherwise he would make such a stupid comment. I'm just surprised he didn't C/P a court case from 1968 to try and back it up.
What does the T stand for?

are some transgendered attracted to only the opposite sex?
why yes, yes, they are...so that must means being gay is not required to be LGBT...right?

so LGBT has nothing to do with being gay, right?

and did you ever notice even other courts "cut and paste" from prior decisions?
Its called supporting your argument....its so funny you guys take it as a sign of weakness that I support myself...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#43 Oct 12, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
if you went into the meeting with the same attitude as you have here, I have no doubt they'd want to throw you out.
see how you have to creatively rewrite it?

Guess what, i didn't say a word at the meeting....

You would be surprised to know that many people who support Cu's but not marriage have gay friends, live balanced lives, do yoga, eat vegetarian, and do a lot of work for their community INCLUDING for gays...
I have MANY gay clients who have set up all forms of businesses in my town...

You have created a cartoon version of me so you can attack me instead of dealing with the legal reality here...

rather than address you reality, you simply substitute your own...

just today, on separate threads, you described LGBT meetings as the epitome of harmony between people and republicans meet in private mountaintop lair where they their plot world domination in secret...

makes for a great batman comic, but its not rational.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#44 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, so you were not all huffy when there were not enough LGBT protections in the violence against women act?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/hous...
"and it leaves out protections for the LGBT community altogether."
you do get that when all straights are LGBT, you no get no different protections right?
If you had any sense, you would know that adding all straights to LGBT eliminates what LGBT is all about. I bet you think you can add all straights and still have it be all about gays...its always all about you isn't it?
Why do you continue to assert that heteros are part of LGBT? You've never made that a workable point.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#45 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
What does the T stand for?
are some transgendered attracted to only the opposite sex?
why yes, yes, they are...so that must means being gay is not required to be LGBT...right?
so LGBT has nothing to do with being gay, right?
and did you ever notice even other courts "cut and paste" from prior decisions?
Its called supporting your argument....its so funny you guys take it as a sign of weakness that I support myself...
No, we take it as a sign of weakness that you need to continually cut & paste to make up for your stupidity, and then proceed to demonstrate how stupid you are by misinterpreting what you've just pasted.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#46 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
see how you have to creatively rewrite it?
Guess what, i didn't say a word at the meeting....
You would be surprised to know that many people who support Cu's but not marriage have gay friends, live balanced lives, do yoga, eat vegetarian, and do a lot of work for their community INCLUDING for gays...
I have MANY gay clients who have set up all forms of businesses in my town...
You have created a cartoon version of me so you can attack me instead of dealing with the legal reality here...
rather than address you reality, you simply substitute your own...
just today, on separate threads, you described LGBT meetings as the epitome of harmony between people and republicans meet in private mountaintop lair where they their plot world domination in secret...
makes for a great batman comic, but its not rational.
So why did Santorum and his fellow anti-gays ban cameras & the media from their meeting about an upcoming referendum vote???

Btw, you make yourself out to be a cartoon character with you continued stupidity. Oh yeah, I'm sure you're the Mother Theresa of gay rights.......
Junior E

El Segundo, CA

#47 Oct 12, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you continue to assert that heteros are part of LGBT? You've never made that a workable point.
Similar question for gay Canucks-
In Canada, the acronym used is LGBTQ, even in formal documents. The "Q" stands for "Queer" (seriously). So what is the distinction between a "Gay" and a "Queer" (seriously)? And why, in Canada, does the word "Queer" not have the negative connotation that it has in the US?(seriously)
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#48 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
What does the T stand for?
are some transgendered attracted to only the opposite sex?
why yes, yes, they are...so that must means being gay is not required to be LGBT...right?
so LGBT has nothing to do with being gay, right?
and did you ever notice even other courts "cut and paste" from prior decisions?
Its called supporting your argument....its so funny you guys take it as a sign of weakness that I support myself...
Thought we weren't speaking.... Hopefully a 'court' will do more than just cut and paste. Leave that to a lousy lawyer, who doesn't do some research. BTW Your assumption that transgendered are only attracted to the opposite sex is not true. I know this as fact..Just a tip - When you deal with human sexuality, nothing is a given even if it seems 'logical' to you.
Junior esq

El Segundo, CA

#49 Oct 12, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Thought we weren't speaking.... Hopefully a 'court' will do more than just cut and paste. Leave that to a lousy lawyer, who doesn't do some research. BTW Your assumption that transgendered are only attracted to the opposite sex is not true. I know this as fact..Just a tip - When you deal with human sexuality, nothing is a given even if it seems 'logical' to you.
"When you deal with human sexuality, nothing is a given even if it seems 'logical' to you."
You are erroneously implying that homosexuality might appear logical to someone other than a homosexual.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#50 Oct 12, 2012
Junior esq wrote:
<quoted text>
"When you deal with human sexuality, nothing is a given even if it seems 'logical' to you."
You are erroneously implying that homosexuality might appear logical to someone other than a homosexual.
Your still out of credibility..No that's not what I implied..and rather than having to go through this whole twisted exchange that your capable of..I will answer you..What I implied is that you can't assume anything about anybody when it comes to human sexuality.
Junior E

El Segundo, CA

#51 Oct 12, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Your still out of credibility..No that's not what I implied..and rather than having to go through this whole twisted exchange that your capable of..I will answer you..What I implied is that you can't assume anything about anybody when it comes to human sexuality.
You changed the wording. In the first post you referred to logic. In the second post you refer to presumptions. So yours is the twisted exchange.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#52 Oct 12, 2012
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
You changed the wording. In the first post you referred to logic. In the second post you refer to presumptions. So yours is the twisted exchange.
The logic comment wasn't meant for you
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#53 Oct 12, 2012
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
You changed the wording. In the first post you referred to logic. In the second post you refer to presumptions. So yours is the twisted exchange.
And you edited my response that wasn't even directed toward you..And your still out of credibility and bigoted POS

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#54 Oct 12, 2012
Since there is no evidence that the family will "disintegrate" if same-sex couples are allowed to marry everywhere, perhaps Rick Santorum and his ilk will become extinct when gender restrictions on civil marriage are lifted; that's probably what he's really worried about.
Junior E

El Segundo, CA

#55 Oct 12, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
And you edited my response that wasn't even directed toward you..And your still out of credibility and bigoted POS
Topix is an open forum. Anyone can respond to any post or reply.
And I didn't "edit" your response, I simply replied to it to point out the error in your logic.
Junior E

El Segundo, CA

#56 Oct 12, 2012
Jerald wrote:
Since there is no evidence that the family will "disintegrate" if same-sex couples are allowed to marry everywhere, perhaps Rick Santorum and his ilk will become extinct when gender restrictions on civil marriage are lifted; that's probably what he's really worried about.
Your logic is like saying that one need not be proactive and protect oneself against crime, because if the crime has not yet been committed, there is no evidence that a crime could be committed.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#57 Oct 12, 2012
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is like saying that one need not be proactive and protect oneself against crime, because if the crime has not yet been committed, there is no evidence that a crime could be committed.
Same-sex couples have been getting married for over 8 years now in Massachusetts. Surely if the family was going to disintegrate because gays are getting married, there would be SOME evidence of that by now.

Nope, no evidence whatsoever. In fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, and that rate has FALLEN EVEN LOWER since same-sex couples started marrying.

If anything, the evidence shows allowing same-sex couples the right to marry has actually STRENGHTENED the family.
Junior E

El Segundo, CA

#58 Oct 12, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Same-sex couples have been getting married for over 8 years now in Massachusetts. Surely if the family was going to disintegrate because gays are getting married, there would be SOME evidence of that by now.
Nope, no evidence whatsoever. In fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, and that rate has FALLEN EVEN LOWER since same-sex couples started marrying.
If anything, the evidence shows allowing same-sex couples the right to marry has actually STRENGHTENED the family.
From a statistical standpoint, your entire post is hogwash. Eight years is not sufficient time to determine the results of a social experiment. And MA is small. There are ranches in Texas that are larger than MA.
On this small scale, most gay couples that marry would be committed couples. However, if gay marriage were allowed on a large scale, meaning the entire US, you would run out of committed gay couples. The bulk of gay marriages would then become non-committed gay couples marrying simply for the economic benefit. The resultant marriages would then be a more "open" or promiscuous type of marriage.
The damage would occur when straights decide to emulate the open marriage, and begin providing a less stable environment for raising children, which is the primary function of marriage.
The negative effects of the above are not going to evident in eight years, it would take at least several generations.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#59 Oct 12, 2012
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is like saying that one need not be proactive and protect oneself against crime, because if the crime has not yet been committed, there is no evidence that a crime could be committed.
Your analogy breaks down immediately and obviously under even the most casual analysis. Homosexuality or same-sex marriage are neither crimes, nor is there evidence of harm.

As you've stated before, you rely solely on "intuition" as a basis for your claims, and you've dismissed any insistence on empirical evidence as "crap."

You have no credibility when it comes to making claims of logic.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#60 Oct 12, 2012
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
From a statistical standpoint, your entire post is hogwash. Eight years is not sufficient time to determine the results of a social experiment. And MA is small. There are ranches in Texas that are larger than MA.
On this small scale, most gay couples that marry would be committed couples. However, if gay marriage were allowed on a large scale, meaning the entire US, you would run out of committed gay couples. The bulk of gay marriages would then become non-committed gay couples marrying simply for the economic benefit. The resultant marriages would then be a more "open" or promiscuous type of marriage.
Define "small scale" and "large scale" in terms of numbers. What do you mean? Feel free to provide empirical evidence to support your claim that "the bulk of gay marriages would then become non-committed gay couples marrying simply for the economic benefit."

Are opposite-sex marriages that are formed "simply for the economic benefit" not allowed?

Do citizens exist to serve the interest of the state, or doesn't the state exist to protect the rights of its citizens?
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>The damage would occur when straights decide to emulate the open marriage, and begin providing a less stable environment for raising children, which is the primary function of marriage.
The negative effects of the above are not going to evident in eight years, it would take at least several generations.
So, according to your position, same-sex marriage should never be allowed, but then we'd never know if the parade of horribles you predict will ever come true.

Convenient position, isn't it? You have no evidence to support your claim, and then assert that no evidence should ever be allowed to accumulate one way or the other.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#61 Oct 12, 2012
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
...However, if gay marriage were allowed on a large scale, meaning the entire US, you would run out of committed gay couples....
This statement alone is so ridiculous on so many levels it's almost too funny. I don't think you can possibly understand how stupid this statement is; no one with any sense would write it.

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
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida 4 min WeTheSheeple 33
Critics Claim Religious Freedom Act Legalizes B... 9 min scs2011 42
Monday Afternoon NE Jade Party 9 min Curteese 1
Arguments for same-sex marriage 10 min david traversa 25
Studies Show Voters Can Be Swayed on Gay Marria... 13 min Jesus Latter Day ... 25
Ukip candidate: 'Gay donkey tried to rape my ho... 14 min Jesus Latter Day ... 5
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 15 min Frankie Rizzo 68,535
Supreme Court allows gay marriage to proceed in... 17 min WeTheSheeple 40
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 27 min eyeful 2,933
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 51 min Frankie Rizzo 5,062
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Wondering 5,770
More from around the web