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.

“”

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#82 Oct 13, 2012
Paul Ryan is similiar to Santorum but bit more polished as far as how he comes across but as insane and a blinding hate for women's rights.

I am shocked that so many women are still considering the GOP.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#83 Oct 13, 2012
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.
Yes, when presented with an argument that has no evidence to back it up, must sane folks will notice that lack of evidence.

That's only common sense.

Something you seem to be lacking.

For instance, you claim that the vast majority of married gay folks are not faithful to their spouses, and try to use that as an argument to deny all gay folks the right to marry, while, oddly, denying that the same criteria could be used to deny all straight folks the ability to marry, since their fidelity rates are not good.

And you didn't produce a shred of real evidence for your claims.

There is already great deal of evidence that shows that gay folks marrying will not destroy society. There is already a boatload of evidence that proves marriage is good for couples, kids, and the security of the elderly.

Denying that only makes you look silly. Well, sillier.
dona

Jakarta, Indonesia

#84 Oct 13, 2012
let's ignorant gay
,because they are animals
Uve

Indio, CA

#85 Oct 13, 2012
dona wrote:
let's ignorant gay
,because they are animals
Don't know enough English honey? Let's try that hate statement again...sigh..

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#86 Oct 13, 2012
Geesh!

Heteros have been doing "open marriages" for decades. Then theirs their divorce hate, somewhere near to 50% that's been in place for many years now. Neither of which have been caused by marriage equality and has anong with your outside marriage. Childbirth rates already created the ultimate less stable environment for raising children. Marriage equality won't effect those issues one iota and you damned well know it.

Why not just outright admit your bigotry, because that is all you have going for yourself. Idiot.

.
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.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#87 Oct 13, 2012
Ok, lets do some math.

Divorce rate in heterosexuals: 45%. Giving you a break
Infidelity in hetero marriage: 20%. Again giving you a break no doubt

We're easily talking about a 65% not monogamous rate of heterosexual relationships.

Your glass house is a pile of broken shards.
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
My statement is not ridiculous. It is based on documented fact the majority of homosexual relationships are not monogamous.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#88 Oct 13, 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.
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 in other words you have ZERO evidence to back the claim that same-sex couples getting married will have a negative effect on hetero marriages.

Yep, that's what I said, ZERO evidence.

While we DO have evidence that same-sex couples marrying does NOT have any effect on hetero marriages.

So feel free to wait several generations for the sky to fall. Meanwhile we'll just keep on marrying.......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#89 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.
The majority of heterosexual relationships are not monogamous.

Shouldn't we be banning heteros from marrying?
Junior E

United States

#90 Oct 13, 2012
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.
More homosexual rationalization.
I was referring to what marriage is supposed to be, not what people like you make it. If you really believe that marriage does not or should not involve manogamy, or that "it's only sex", then you prove my point that homosexuals have a warped view of what marriage is all about.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#91 Oct 13, 2012
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.
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.
And yet ALL evidence to date refutes that claim.

So keep crying, we'll keep marrying.
Junior E

United States

#92 Oct 13, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, when presented with an argument that has no evidence to back it up, must sane folks will notice that lack of evidence.
That's only common sense.
Something you seem to be lacking.
For instance, you claim that the vast majority of married gay folks are not faithful to their spouses, and try to use that as an argument to deny all gay folks the right to marry, while, oddly, denying that the same criteria could be used to deny all straight folks the ability to marry, since their fidelity rates are not good.
And you didn't produce a shred of real evidence for your claims.
There is already great deal of evidence that shows that gay folks marrying will not destroy society. There is already a boatload of evidence that proves marriage is good for couples, kids, and the security of the elderly.
Denying that only makes you look silly. Well, sillier.
"you claim that the vast majority of married gay folks are not faithful to their spouses".
Never said that. I said that on the present SMALL scale, most gay marriages probanly ARE committed relationships, but on a large scale, probably not.

"There is already great deal of evidence that shows that gay folks marrying will not destroy society."
That I would like to see.

"There is already a boatload of evidence that proves marriage is good for couples, kids, and the security of the elderly."
Kind of stating the obvious. But you should have qualified that statement. A gay "open" marriage will not accomplish that. Only a traditional manogamous marriage will.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#93 Oct 13, 2012
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.
According to the US Census Bureau & the CDC:

States with the HIGHEST divorce rates:

OK, AR, AK, AL, KY, NV, MS, GA, TN, AZ

States with the LOWEST divorce rates:

MA, CT, IA, VT, NH, NY, DC, MD, NJ, IL

Notice it's the bible belt states with the HIGHEST divorce rates, while the "gay marriage" states are among the LOWEST dirovce rates.

Now where is your evidence again? Oh that's right, we have to wait another 50 or 100 or 1000 years, and then you'll have that info.......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#94 Oct 13, 2012
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
More homosexual rationalization.
I was referring to what marriage is supposed to be, not what people like you make it. If you really believe that marriage does not or should not involve manogamy, or that "it's only sex", then you prove my point that homosexuals have a warped view of what marriage is all about.
That's how most HETEROS view marriage, which is why half of your marriages end in divorce and another 25% are cheating on their spouse but haven't got caught yet.

I agree, you heteros have a VERY warped view of what marriage is about.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#95 Oct 13, 2012
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
I said that on the present SMALL scale, most gay marriages probanly ARE committed relationships, but on a large scale, probably not.
Since you obviously have no evidence for this claim, do you at least have some LOGICAL reason for it?

If it's all about scale, then maybe we should start banning heteros from marrying in the deep south, because obviously it's too easy for those non-committed hetero couples to get married down there; hence their highest-in-the-nation divorce rate......
Junior E

United States

#96 Oct 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's how most HETEROS view marriage, which is why half of your marriages end in divorce and another 25% are cheating on their spouse but haven't got caught yet.
I agree, you heteros have a VERY warped view of what marriage is about.
More queer rationalization.
No, that's NOT how straights view marriage. They don't go into marriage with "DancesWithWeebles" view that "it's only sex". They go into marriage with the intent of being manogamous, but fall short.
Marriage needs fixing, but gay marriage is certainly not a remedy, it would only make things worse.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#97 Oct 13, 2012
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
More queer rationalization.
No, that's NOT how straights view marriage. They don't go into marriage with "DancesWithWeebles" view that "it's only sex". They go into marriage with the intent of being manogamous, but fall short.
Marriage needs fixing, but gay marriage is certainly not a remedy, it would only make things worse.
What evidence exists to demonstrate that recognizing civil marriage for same-sex couples "would only make things worse"?

Oh, that's right... you don't believe your claims require evidence, only "intuition".

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#98 Oct 13, 2012
Junior E wrote:
<quoted text>
More queer rationalization.
No, that's NOT how straights view marriage. They don't go into marriage with "DancesWithWeebles" view that "it's only sex". They go into marriage with the intent of being manogamous, but fall short.
Marriage needs fixing, but gay marriage is certainly not a remedy, it would only make things worse.
B.S.

I know MANY heteros who got married who NEVER had ANY intent of it being monogamous. Not suprisingly they're all divorced now and on their 2nd or 3rd non-monogamous marriage.

STILL no proof that same-sex couples marrying has ANY effect on what you dumbass heteros do.

NONE.

ZERO.

ZILCH.
Circular Cemetery

Pittsfield, MA

#99 Oct 13, 2012
Jose - in Miami wrote:
Paul Ryan is similiar to Santorum but bit more polished as far as how he comes across but as insane and a blinding hate for women's rights.
I am shocked that so many women are still considering the GOP.
Without the gop there would be no tax base then correct? Then libs would have to go it alone. Maybe even fight a war. Please do be specific on where exactly womens rights are violated here in America. We waste every election talking about abortion even though it has been legal which seems like forever.
Circular Cemetery

Pittsfield, MA

#100 Oct 13, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence exists to demonstrate that recognizing civil marriage for same-sex couples "would only make things worse"?
Oh, that's right... you don't believe your claims require evidence, only "intuition".
You conveniently forget what homosexual and heterosexual 'vice' have already had on our society through std's and pornography. People are already losing their jobs and their rights because they simply express their beliefs that homosexual acts are wrong. Which they are.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#101 Oct 13, 2012
Circular Cemetery wrote:
<quoted text>
Without the gop there would be no tax base then correct? Then libs would have to go it alone. Maybe even fight a war. Please do be specific on where exactly womens rights are violated here in America. We waste every election talking about abortion even though it has been legal which seems like forever.
We talk about abortion and reproductive rights like access to health care and contraception because presidents choose the nominees for the Supreme Court, a court which has several members inclined to overturn a woman's right to decide the issue of abortion herself.

Abortion may be legal, but it's not easy to obtain in all states. Ask women in Indiana, Missouri, or Oklahoma, for example, how restrictive the laws are in their states.
http://www.remappingdebate.org/map-data-tool/...

Republicans want a government so small that it can fit in a woman's uterus.

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
JADE DiARY 6 min Butter Biscuit 3
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 min barry 6,982
News Study: 12,000 acts of condomless gay sex, 0 HIV... 12 min anon 4
Straight man recalls horrific sexual assault at... 18 min Paul 9
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 27 min Terra Firma 52,167
News This Gay Man Wants to End Texas' War Against LG... 27 min Tre H 27
News Charlize Theron admits to taking 'a dip in the ... 1 hr Wondering 16
News Blood donation rules relaxed for gay men and se... 7 hr Howser 30
News Gay couple grilled by judge about their sex liv... 16 hr TomInElPaso 108
News Catholic church in Cambuslang praised for issui... 22 hr Palin s Turkey Th... 3
More from around the web