Rick Santorum: Gay Marriage Will 'Disintegrate' American Family

Oct 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: On Top Magazine

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

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of2,277
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Circular Cemetery

Springfield, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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.
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.
And of course why would any homosexual like The Sheep care about the future of anything anyway? To think if they were near equal in numbers with heterosexuals we would have a worldwide hiv/aids epidemic worse than the black death.
No big deal at all though right?
The rainbow ruse marches on.
Circular Cemetery

Springfield, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
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.
The interest of the people was sold out with the 1892 Banker's Manifesto and the 1913 federal reserve act. This issue is merely stalling the inevitable. We are doomed!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Circular Cemetery wrote:
<quoted text>
The interest of the people was sold out with the 1892 Banker's Manifesto and the 1913 federal reserve act. This issue is merely stalling the inevitable. We are doomed!
Then please, do us all a favor, and hasten the inevitable for yourself.
Junior E

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You acknowledge that what I stated was an analogy, but you don't seem to understand what an analogy is. An analogy is a statement of similarity, not equality. It is designed for people like you, who cannot see a truth, so you are shown a truth that is similar, to get your brain in gear.
So I was not claiming that homosexuality or gay marriage is a crime. In fact, my post had nothing to do with homosexuality, just gay marriage. If you cannot distinguish between the two, it is because of what I constantly refer to as the Gay Conflation Theory.
And as far as any "evidence of harm", like I have said, that may take generations before it is manifest.
Junior E

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
My statement is not ridiculous. It is based on documented fact the majority of homosexual relationships are not monogamous.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
You acknowledge that what I stated was an analogy, but you don't seem to understand what an analogy is. An analogy is a statement of similarity, not equality. It is designed for people like you, who cannot see a truth, so you are shown a truth that is similar, to get your brain in gear.
So I was not claiming that homosexuality or gay marriage is a crime. In fact, my post had nothing to do with homosexuality, just gay marriage. If you cannot distinguish between the two, it is because of what I constantly refer to as the Gay Conflation Theory.
And as far as any "evidence of harm", like I have said, that may take generations before it is manifest.
wow... you're funny.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
My statement is not ridiculous. It is based on documented fact the majority of homosexual relationships are not monogamous.
in this day and age, neither are heterosexual relationships. in fact, very few people believe that it makes any difference... it's only sex, after all.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
You acknowledge that what I stated was an analogy, but you don't seem to understand what an analogy is. An analogy is a statement of similarity, not equality. It is designed for people like you, who cannot see a truth, so you are shown a truth that is similar, to get your brain in gear.
So I was not claiming that homosexuality or gay marriage is a crime. In fact, my post had nothing to do with homosexuality, just gay marriage. If you cannot distinguish between the two, it is because of what I constantly refer to as the Gay Conflation Theory.
The problem with your analogy is that it is false. There is no basic similarity between same-sex couples in civil marriage and criminality or crime.

In order for an analogy to have any strength as an argument, it must present the relevance of known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion; it must present a multiplicity and variety of examples in the analogy; and it must share a number of characteristics in common.

You fail once again.
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>And as far as any "evidence of harm", like I have said, that may take generations before it is manifest.
Like you've said, you lack evidence.

After nearly 20 years in Europe, Canada, several other nations and US states, you can find NO EVIDENCE to support your claim that allowing same-sex marriage will cause societal harm.

In the absence of evidence, all you have to offer is "intuition". Intuition based solely on irrational anti-gay bigotry and animus is no basis for the formulation of rational public policy.

There remains no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage. All arguments in opposition are illogical, irrational, or based on ignorance, animus, fear, or religious superstition or myth.

There is no rational basis for creating a "separate but equal" institution for establishing kinship between unrelated adults when a perfectly suitable one already exists: civil marriage.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
My statement is not ridiculous. It is based on documented fact the majority of homosexual relationships are not monogamous.
You would deny to same-sex couples access to the very civil institution that promotes stability and monogamy and then criticize gay people for their supposed lack of monogamy, and do so without even attempting to offer evidence to support the claim.

You couldn't have provided a better example of hypocrisy if you tried.
Junior E

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
in this day and age, neither are heterosexual relationships. in fact, very few people believe that it makes any difference... it's only sex, after all.
wow... you're funny.
Junior E

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with your analogy is that it is false. There is no basic similarity between same-sex couples in civil marriage and criminality or crime.
In order for an analogy to have any strength as an argument, it must present the relevance of known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion; it must present a multiplicity and variety of examples in the analogy; and it must share a number of characteristics in common.
You fail once again.
<quoted text>
Like you've said, you lack evidence.
After nearly 20 years in Europe, Canada, several other nations and US states, you can find NO EVIDENCE to support your claim that allowing same-sex marriage will cause societal harm.
In the absence of evidence, all you have to offer is "intuition". Intuition based solely on irrational anti-gay bigotry and animus is no basis for the formulation of rational public policy.
There remains no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage. All arguments in opposition are illogical, irrational, or based on ignorance, animus, fear, or religious superstition or myth.
There is no rational basis for creating a "separate but equal" institution for establishing kinship between unrelated adults when a perfectly suitable one already exists: civil marriage.
"it must present a multiplicity and variety of examples in the analogy".
I believe what you are thinking of is analogies, as in plural.
Go back and review my analogy. It correctly states that A is to B as C is to D. A does not have to equal C, and B does not have to equal D.

QED
Junior E

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
You would deny to same-sex couples access to the very civil institution that promotes stability and monogamy and then criticize gay people for their supposed lack of monogamy, and do so without even attempting to offer evidence to support the claim.
You couldn't have provided a better example of hypocrisy if you tried.
You are the one making an assumption: that marriage could provide "stability and monogamy" in a homosexual relationship that is not based on those qualities.
If gay marriage were to take place on the same scale of numbers as straight marriage, the divorce rate for gay marriages would outnumber straight divorce by an order of magnitude.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
"it must present a multiplicity and variety of examples in the analogy".
I believe what you are thinking of is analogies, as in plural.
Go back and review my analogy. It correctly states that A is to B as C is to D. A does not have to equal C, and B does not have to equal D.
QED
Your analogy fails. There is no similarity at all.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one making an assumption: that marriage could provide "stability and monogamy" in a homosexual relationship that is not based on those qualities.
This sentence doesn't even make grammatical or logical sense. Which homosexual relationship are you talking about? Every single one? A majority?

How can you possibly claim to know these unknowable things?
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>If gay marriage were to take place on the same scale of numbers as straight marriage, the divorce rate for gay marriages would outnumber straight divorce by an order of magnitude.
How do you know this? What is the basis for this claim? You make sweeping claims and huge generalizations but without a scrap of evidence, only "intuition".
Junior E

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
This sentence doesn't even make grammatical or logical sense. Which homosexual relationship are you talking about? Every single one? A majority?
How can you possibly claim to know these unknowable things?
<quoted text>
How do you know this? What is the basis for this claim? You make sweeping claims and huge generalizations but without a scrap of evidence, only "intuition".
Two of the gays favorite words: "no evidence".
They demand I provide "evidence", yet they cannot provide a shred of evidence for their own claims.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
Two of the gays favorite words: "no evidence".
They demand I provide "evidence", yet they cannot provide a shred of evidence for their own claims.
Feel free to point out an unsupported affirmative claim that I've made.

You keep running around the issue without providing any evidence for any claim that you make.

I call you on your BS, ask you to put up or shut up, you fail miserably, and you then expect ME to prove the negative.

Another anti-gay who can't argue his way out of a paper bag.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Thank you, but NO error in my logic!

“"And Stay Off"”

Since: May 12

Tempe Arizona

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
My statement is not ridiculous. It is based on documented fact the majority of homosexual relationships are not monogamous.
Oh do you mean like the over 50% of heterosexual marriages that end in Divorce? And that an even larger number cheat on their spouses? How about you sit down and STFU as you don't have a clue as to what you're babbling about! LOL
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Oct 13, 2012
 
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
My statement is not ridiculous. It is based on documented fact the majority of homosexual relationships are not monogamous.
"... a documented fact..."??????????

Really?

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Oct 13, 2012
 
disaster in the making wrote:
<quoted text>
cause in 4 years he will be making another pitch for the oval office
but by that time hopefully the Tea Party will be dead ang gone
Just look at the three self serving disasters which the Tea Party endorsed here in Florida, Rick scott Pam Bondi and Marco Rubio.

I also blame Democrats who ignore state elections as much as the Tea Party.

The anti-Obama ads which I have been getting in the mail ,blame Obama for what Rick Scott has done and not done.
Cleverly worded lies .

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of2,277
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••