cadillac, cadillac cts, cadillac seville, cadillac forums, lincolns of distinction, forum, lincoln mark viii, Performance, parts, lincoln, mark viii, mark vii, lincoln ls, lincoln town car

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums


(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums




Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma



Back to the Archive Main Page


Pages: 1 2

"Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad"?!

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: cammerfe

Response to #195

Nah, you're calling me a bigot too. I don't care what people do in private, and don't have the temerity to speak for God. But changing a definition because somebody is snarky or belligerent is not something I'm willing to countenance. The definition of marriage, in our culture, is the connection of one man and one woman. And saying so isn't being bigoted, but only speaking fact.
KS


Posted by: TheDude

Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
That isn't quite the argument. There are a few steps between allowing gay marriage and marriage loosing its meaning to society. I thought they were rather clear. My mistake. Let me spell them out...

When marriage is redefined to allow for gay marriage, marriage is separated from the idea of parenthood and looses its seriousness to society as a whole. People are more casual about getting married (not taking it as a serious commitiment). As this trend continues less people get married (so less people are getting divorced), illegitimacy rates increase and marriage eventually looses its meaning to society.

not really. It can be taken out of context, cherry-picked and spun to show that. But objectively, it supports my view.

It is far too soon for that stat to indicate much of anything yet, with regards to gay marriage. Other factors are also relevant; illegitimacy rates, marriage rates, ect. What is the context of that statistic?

Due to the early nature of that stat, it is going to be more a reflection of divorce of marriages entered into from before gay marriage was allowed. So the connection to the redefining of marriage is questionable at best. It cannot be expected, with any degree of accuracy, to say anything either way yet about the effect of gay marriage.

If I remember correctly, there was also an issue of if homosexual are legally allowed to get a divorce (though I don't have the time right now to go find that story).

So it is really hard (kind of a stretch) to draw much of any conclusion either way, yet, from Mass as to the effects of gay marriage there.
Again, there is no logical reason to believe gay-marriage would render marriage for hetero couples obsolete or lessen it in some way, as noted by others, the very fact that people can get married in under 5 minutes and for chump-change and then get a divorce that very same night (also of note, open and convenience marriages, which are both legal), yet people who want to get married in order to have children and take marriage seriously still current do and will continue to do so, renders that line of thought faulty.

What info supports your view exactly? Because hetero marriage is still alive and kicking and it is extremely hard to imagine that people who were intending to marry have cancelled those plans because gays can marry now or that married couples have divorced for the same reasons.

Well, it's been 4 years and counting and so far hetero-marriage Armageddon hasn't happened in Mass. or anywhere else.


Posted by: TheDude

Quote:
Originally Posted by cammerfe View Post
Response to #195

Nah, you're calling me a bigot too. I don't care what people do in private, and don't have the temerity to speak for God. But changing a definition because somebody is snarky or belligerent is not something I'm willing to countenance. The definition of marriage, in our culture, is the connection of one man and one woman. And saying so isn't being bigoted, but only speaking fact.
KS

Let me guess (correct me if I'm wrong), you also have no problem with a gay couple receiving the same exact benefits and social standings of a straight couple, just as long as it isn't classified as a marriage and they're not issued a marriage certificate?

Oh, Webster disagrees, he must be one of those damn liberals.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>


Posted by: ford nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS View Post
Well, it's been 4 years and counting and so far hetero-marriage Armageddon hasn't happened in Mass. or anywhere else.
I beg to agure that point ... the bible belt is were marriage Armageddon happens.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Quote:
"We hear an awful lot from conservatives in the Bible Belt and on the TV about how we all should be living. Certainly a culture that teaches the conservative religious values of the Christian right must have clean living written all over it. And lots of ripe fruit from their morally superior lives abounding."

"It doesn't. Far from it. People that talk the loudest may be the ones walking the slowest. Joining its history of Biblically correct bigotry and discrimination, it is an area with the highest divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and obesity rates in the nation. As a region, the Bible Belt has the poorest health care systems and the lowest rates of high school graduation."
This a also a fun little link
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/13/14120/4811

Quote:
Among those US states that are most opposed to same sex marriage which have also provided divorce data for the time period -- ( alaska ? ) AR, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, ND, OH, OK, OR, UT, TX -- the average divorce rate ( unadjusted for population changes ) for 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005 increased 1.75%. This group contains 4 of the 5 states with the highest divorce rate increases in the US during 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005.
But I guess I am just pickin cherries


Posted by: fossten

Quote:
Originally Posted by ford nut View Post
I beg to agure that point ... the bible belt is were marriage Armageddon happens.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Quote:
"We hear an awful lot from conservatives in the Bible Belt and on the TV about how we all should be living. Certainly a culture that teaches the conservative religious values of the Christian right must have clean living written all over it. And lots of ripe fruit from their morally superior lives abounding."

"It doesn't. Far from it. People that talk the loudest may be the ones walking the slowest. Joining its history of Biblically correct bigotry and discrimination, it is an area with the highest divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and obesity rates in the nation. As a region, the Bible Belt has the poorest health care systems and the lowest rates of high school graduation."
Your quotation seems to be light on facts and heavy on opinion and rhetoric. Also, your source is heavily biased, slanting towards the highest levels of Bible hatred. I've read that site before. It's an "anti" site.

That being said, your knowledge of history is lacking. A hundred years ago the Bible was part of our school curriculum and most people went to church and read it. Just because a few haters come along and call Christians bigots doesn't mean squat. In fact, the name callers marginalize themselves with their petty, immature tactics.

Finally, I don't hear conservatives or Christians who tell people how to live. In fact, it's usually the other way around. Leftists want to tell us what we can or can't eat, what we can or can't smoke, what we can or can't drive, what temperatures we should set our thermostats to, what kinds of guns we can own (if we can own them at all), what kinds of books we can read, whether or not we can home school our children, who we can or can't hire, whether or not we get health insurance, and how much of our tax money is confiscated and given to those who refuse to work.

All I hear from conservatives is "get out of my life and let me live it in peace."

Evangelicals teach the Bible but (with the exception of the wackos in PA) I don't see them getting in people's faces. This is a false premise. You don't see me preaching the Bible here. I only post scripture in response to claims (usually false) about the Bible or biblical principles.


Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS View Post
Again, there is no logical reason to believe gay-marriage would render marriage for hetero couples obsolete or lessen it in some way,
That is a pretty oversimplified representation of the argument....

How is it illogical, as you are claiming by stating that there "is no logical reason" to buy into the argument? Be specific, please. It is very easy to claims something is fallacious (and thus illogical, or "not logical") and say it is a non sequiter, but can you show what specific type of fallacy it is? Or are you just throwing that out there (as I suspect).

I have given you many facts that objectively,and empirically lead to the view I articulated. I connected the dots for ya. So show me, specifically, how I am somehow leaping to a conclusion.

Quote:
as noted by others, the very fact that people can get married in under 5 minutes and for chump-change and then get a divorce that very same night (also of note, open and convenience marriages, which are both legal), yet people who want to get married in order to have children and take marriage seriously still current do and will continue to do so, renders that line of thought faulty.
Those facts say nothing about the conclusion I laid out. There is your illogical argument; specifically, a red herring that only serves to obfuscate the issue.

How does the fact that people can, "get married in under 5 minutes...then get a divorce that very same night", and open marriages and convenience marriages being legal while those who want to get married to have kids can, somehow disprove my claim? That is a huge logical leap.

here is what I said:
When marriage is redefined to allow for gay marriage, marriage is separated from the idea of parenthood and looses its seriousness to society as a whole. People are more casual about getting married (not taking it as a serious commitiment). As this trend continues less people get married (so less people are getting divorced), illegitimacy rates increase and marriage eventually looses its meaning to society.
How do any of the facts you cite say anything about the logical nature (let alone the legitimacy) of that claim?

As I pointed out in a previous post, Just because marriage isn't what it should be doesn't me it can't be broken down much further and drawn farther into the abyss through gay marriage, causing much more and irreversible damage to society along the way.

Yet that is what you are asserting will not happe by citing some random facts that really don't logically say anything of the sort. Unless I am missing the connection (which I doubt) which you need to spell out.

Quote:
What info supports your view exactly?
This has been spelled out many times in various posts here. You can go back and read them. Off the top of my head, the Kurtz articles and the article posted in the first post of this thread, among others. All the statistical data (unless cherry-picked, taken out of context and spun) on gay marriage from countries that have had it for a while (not a small part of a country for only 4 years), specifically the Netherlands, demonstrates the huge negative effect that gay marriage has on marriage in that society.

Quote:
...and it is extremely hard to imagine that people who were intending to marry have canceled those plans because gays can marry now or that married couples have divorced for the same reasons.
The only person claiming that is you. Not myself, nor anyone else on this forum claimed or implied anywhere in this thread that "people who were intending to marry have canceled those plans because gays can marry now or that married couples have divorced for the same reasons."

In fact, what we have said was completely different; that, in the long run fewer couples want to get married, or feel that it is right and proper to raise children in wedlock (due to the devaluing of marriage due to it's redefinition). Basically, marriage eventually looses all serious meaning to society as a result of gay marriage.

Quote:
Well, it's been 4 years and counting and so far hetero-marriage Armageddon hasn't happened in Mass. or anywhere else.
4 years is hardly enough time for anything to be shown yet. That is like saying that if I diet for a week and don't loose the weight I wanted to, then the diet isn't working. You have to give it time to have an effect before you draw a conclusion. Otherwise you are jumping to a conclusion.

I have also given a few reasons why society in Mass would be more resistant to the effects of gay marriage on marriage (which you haven't accounted for). That would thus take longer for gay marriage to show an effect in Mass then in the Netherlands (10+ years), and would be a false analogy to compare Mass to the rest of the United States, or to the statistical evidence from the Netherlands (claiming that it somehow disproves or invalidates it).

Quote:
Oh, Webster disagrees, he must be one of those damn liberals.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
This serves as another red herring to cloud the issue here.

Webster doesn't get to determine what the definition of marriage is, it reflects the various definitions people use for marriage. In fact, Webster has to account for all possible uses of a term in their definitions. Just because they have a definition of marriage that allows for gay marriage doesn't mean that is the definition we are discussing. What we are discussing is the legal and societal (cultural) definition of marriage; not what "Adam and Steve" wanna call their relationship. That would be definition number one:
the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law



Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by ford nut View Post
I beg to agure that point ... the bible belt is were marriage Armageddon happens.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm


This a also a fun little link
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/13/14120/4811


But I guess I am just pickin cherries
None of that is even relevant to this discussion! It is simply another hateful attack of Christianity on your part.

More troll-like activity from ford nut, it seems.

...but I forgot, you can't be a troll because Fossten in a troll, right? (irrelevant red herring).

And I am "spamming" here I assume.


Posted by: TheDude

Shag,

For every claim of mine you cite as being a fallacy, ill-founded or illogical, your claim of "marriage will be separated from the idea of parenthood etc. etc. etc. if gay-marriage is accepted" is just that. There is no proof that hetero couples will be less inclined to be married in the future if gay-marriage is accepted; it's little more than a guess (unless of course you have some valid statement/data of hetero couples opting to not get married because of the rulings in Mass & Ca.). So what do we have to go on? Logical reasoning and deduction.

I can't see hetero-couples throwing in the towel in regards to marriage because a relatively small group of other people are now allowed to, it goes against reason. Do you seriously see this happening? Would you not get married in the future if gay-marriage were accepted nationwide? Do you know of anyone who wouldn't? It simply goes against reason and frankly, it borders on fear-mongering.

See the "logic" used 40+ years ago when Whites and Blacks couldn't marry (Loving v. Virginia). They could have sex, they could have children and they could even live together (all looked down upon), but the notion of a Black and White person being joined in marriage was seen as an atrocity. Yet here we are in 2008 and nothing negative came from that.


Posted by: fossten

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS View Post
the notion of a Black and White person being joined in marriage was seen as an atrocity. Yet here we are in 2008 and nothing negative came from that.
LOL at the absurd claim.

Spike Lee would disagree with you.


Posted by: TheDude

Quote:
Originally Posted by fossten View Post
LOL at the absurd claim.

Spike Lee would disagree with you.

If my claim is "absurb", surely you can bring up points that disprove it. So, what negatives came from miscegenation in America?

A movie by a known racist surely isn't proof.


Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS View Post
For every claim of mine you cite as being a fallacy, ill-founded or illogical, your claim of "marriage will be separated from the idea of parenthood etc. etc. etc. if gay-marriage is accepted" is just that.
I can (and do) point out (when necessary) specifically how your claims are fallacious; what type of fallacy it is, why your argument is fallacious, ect...

You have not been able to do that with my claims. I have spelled out my arguments and you are now just claiming it is fallacious. Simply asserting that it is fallacious without showing how doesn't demonstrate or prove anything.

Quote:
There is no proof that hetero couples will be less inclined to be married in the future if gay-marriage is accepted;
More bald assertions on your part. I have provided plenty of evidence, and you know it. As I have shown, the definition of "proof" you are using is inappropriate to this debate, serves as equivocation to change the burden of proof, is fallacious and thus invalid.

Quote:
it's little more than a guess (unless of course you have some valid statement/data of hetero couples opting to not get married because of the rulings in Mass & Ca.).
Contrary to your assertions, my argument is a very rational and logical one given the evidence in other countries that have redefined marriage to embrace homosexual marriage. You keep ignoring that info, but haven't given a justifiable and logical reason for it. The search for evidence against gay marriage isn't limited to California and Massachusetts as you seem to want to assume.

Quote:
So what do we have to go on? Logical reasoning and deduction.
...and I have laid out a logical argument. You have yet to show otherwise.

Inductive reasoning is more then adequate to meet the burden of proof dictated by the precautionary principle on the traditional marriage side of the debate. You don't get to shift the burden of proof to a purely deduction dependent one.

Quote:
I can't see hetero-couples throwing in the towel in regards to marriage because a relatively small group of other people are now allowed to, it goes against reason.
No one has said anything about "throwing in the towel" or "giving up" on marriage here, except you. I have never said anything of the sort, and frankly couldn't care less about that. It is irrelevant to my point.

You are not looking at the long term, and effectively mischaracterizing my argument as such. I have made it clear that I am looking at the long term here. The effects, over time, of what changing a societal norm (in this case, marriage) has on that norm.

Quote:
Would you not get married in the future if gay-marriage were accepted nationwide?
What I plan on personally doing when it comes to marriage is irrelevant to this issue. The argument is about marriage in society as a whole; macro, not micro.

FYI: I don't plan on having kids or ever getting married, regardless of what happens with regards to gay marriage.

Quote:
Do you know of anyone who wouldn't?
I haven't asked around, but I am sure I could find someone. But it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote:
It simply goes against reason and frankly, it borders on fear-mongering.
First...
you have yet to show how it goes against reason. All you have done is misrepresent and ignore inconvenient information, then claim my argument is illogical without even attempting to show how.
Second...
You claim of "fear mongering" exaggerates and distorts what is more accurately described as reasonable caution.
Quote:
See the "logic" used 40+ years ago when Whites and Blacks couldn't marry (Loving v. Virginia). They could have sex, they could have children and they could even live together (all looked down upon), but the notion of a Black and White person being joined in marriage was seen as an atrocity. Yet here we are in 2008 and nothing negative came from that.
This has been thrown around a lot in this thread, but when specifics are asked for, none are given. In fact, it clearly is comparing apples to oranges and is a fallacious false analogy. I am tired of this argument and am going to put it to bed...

Here are a few relevant areas that need to be the same for it to be valid argument:

First...
The minorities need to be proven to be similar. Racial minorities are unquestionably naturally born that way. Homosexuals; at the very least it is questionable (as has been demonstrated at great length in this thread).

In addition, homosexuals are a minority due to a sexual act. Racial minorities are minorities due solely to genetics and not any action or activity on their part.
Second...
The marriages between the two parts of the analogy needs to be similar. In fact, this is not the case. When it comes to interracial marriage, of the two participants, only one is of a given minority. When it comes to homosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of the same minority.
Finally...
The argument against the types of marriages has to be similar. This is the big one that blows this analogy out of the water.

At a very simple, superficial level, the arguments are similar. The both have a religious aspect, the both are rooted in tradition and they both are claiming potential negative consequences to society.. However that is where the similarities end.

Interracial marriage was viewed as "unnatural" and a "threat to society" mainly do to the ideas of racial purity and/or tampering with what it was viewed that God set up. In the ruling from the Loving v. Virginia case you cite (which can be found here) this is the reasons cited as justification for a ban on interracial marriage:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
It was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because:
The Virginia law... had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination."
There is much more evidence to back up not allowing homosexual marriage then simply the fact that they were placed in different parts of the world (as in the case of banning interracial marriage). Specifically, the stats (over the long term) from other countries that have redefined marriage to embrace gay marriage.

The negative consequences claimed by the two arguments are completely different. the interracial marriage argument vaguely implies that it will incur God's wrath due to being against his will, and thus society will be harmed. The argument against gay marriage claims it will severely damage the institution of marriage (as I have previously spelled out). Where are the claims about damaging the institution of marriage in general ( or separating marriage from parenthood, specifically) in the argument against interracial marriage?

The tradition that both arguments are rooted in is different. The banning of interracial marriage is based in nothing more then the awful tradition of racism. In the case of the argument against homosexual marriage, it is based in nothing less then the tradition of marriage and parenthood.

The religious aspects of both arguments are different. In the case of interracial marriage, it is simply a casual observation of the geographical origin of the various races and then claiming that is how God wanted it. in the case of gay marriage, it is based in biblical scripture.

It is clear that the arguments behind banning interracial marriage and not allowing homosexual marriage are nothing alike, unless you oversimplify both to the point of misrepresentation.
Interracial marriage, it's banning and eventual SCOTUS recognized protection under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, says nothing about gay marriage and the reasoning behind not allowing it. It serves as nothing more then a red herring and only clouds the issue here.


Posted by: ford nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
None of that is even relevant to this discussion! It is simply another hateful attack of Christianity on your part.

More troll-like activity from ford nut, it seems.

...but I forgot, you can't be a troll because Fossten in a troll, right? (irrelevant red herring).

And I am "spamming" here I assume.
I like this post shag nice to see.... short and to the point and it shows the real you
I was a little disappointed in the red herring ...you do use it ALOT but I guess I better not call it spam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
Interracial marriage was viewed as "unnatural" and a "threat to society" mainly do to the ideas of racial purity and/or tampering with what it was viewed that God set up. In the ruling from the Loving v. Virginia case you cite (which can be found here) this is the reasons cited as justification for a ban on interracial marriage:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
How history repeats itself.

Despite this Supreme Court ruling, such laws remained on the books, although unenforced, in several states until 2000, when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law against mixed-race marriage.

LOL the gays will have to wait until .....2041 I dont think I will be around to see it
OBTW post 211 is long and boring just when you were doing so much better.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/get_in...v_virginia.php

Mildred Loving

Quote:
"When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn't to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

...Not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.

...I am proud that Richard's and my name are on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."



Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by ford nut View Post
I was a little disappointed in the red herring ...you do use it ALOT
That is because people are using as a argument, points that only serve as a red herring misdirection or mischaracterization, A LOT.


Quote:
How history repeats itself.
I think I rather aptly demonstrated in my last post that comparisons between the struggle against the ban of interracial marriage, and the movement for gay marriage are inaccurate and nothing more then spin that serves as misdirection and demonization.


Posted by: ford nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
That is because people are using as a argument, points that only serve as a red herring misdirection or mischaracterization, A LOT.




I think I rather aptly demonstrated in my last post that comparisons between the struggle against the ban of interracial marriage, and the movement for gay marriage are inaccurate and nothing more then spin that serves as misdirection and demonization.
I like that Mildred Loving thinks it does... I am going with that.
She knows a little about love...also a little about hate.


Posted by: TheDude

Shag,

Your argument is that 'allowing gay-marriage will take away from hetero-marriage and separate it from a union for the purpose of having children, which in turn would raise illegitimacy rates, crime etc.' Where has this happened? Where is the proof of this? There isn't any solid proof and you know it, it's merely an assertion/specualtion (this is how your argument is faulty, since it isn't fact), just as my assertion is that hetero couples will continue to marry regardless of gay-marriage, since the institute of marriage has survived other "atrocities" as some view them. I base my claim purely on logic/common sense as I can't see couples who wanted to be married not marry because another small group is now allowed that same right. I doubt you'll find any significant number of hetero people throwing in the marriage-towel based on what gays could/can do now; this would be the data you would need to prove your claim, since gay-marriage is happening and hetero people are still getting married (which currently supports my assertion/speculation).


Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by ford nut View Post
I like that Mildred Loving thinks it does... I am going with that.
She knows a little about love...also a little about hate.
both the issues of gay marriage, and interracial marriage have many more aspects then "love" and "hate" that are much more important and relevant then those two aspects you mention.

There is no reason to assume that Ms. Loving has a strong understanding of gay marriage, including all the relevant aspects of it.

It is rather obvious that you are cherry picking...


Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS View Post
Your argument is that 'allowing gay-marriage will take away from hetero-marriage and separate it from a union for the purpose of having children, which in turn would raise illegitimacy rates, crime etc.' Where has this happened? Where is the proof of this?
The proof is in any and every country that has redefined marriage to embrace gay marriage, and had gay marriage long enough to draw some reasonable conclusions about the effects of the changing of that social norm.

The best examples are the Scandinavian countries.

They have been discussed in this thread in the first post of this thread, as well as posts 157, 162, 164 and 172.

It has also been referenced in posts 206 and 211, among others...

But we can't expect you to acknowledge (let alone be familiar with) inconvenient facts, can we.

Quote:
I base my claim purely on logic/common sense as I can't see couples who wanted to be married not marry because another small group is now allowed that same right. I doubt you'll find any significant number of hetero people throwing in the marriage-towel based on what gays could/can do now; this would be the data you would need to prove your claim, since gay-marriage is happening and hetero people are still getting married
This information has nothing to do with my claim! You keep using mischaracterization and misdirection, here.

The whole point I have been making is that when marriage is redefined to allow for gay marriage, marriage eventually loses it's meaning and seriousness and less people want to get married in the first place! Not that people "who wanted to be married" are "changing there mind", or "throwing in the towel", or anything like that...

I made that clear most recently in posts number 200 and 211 as well as many earlier posts.

But we can't expect you to accurately portray my argument before you attempt to counter in, can we.

Deville, I have been rather patient with you...
What you wrote in post #180 gave me the impression that you were willing and possibly able to have an honest debate here. I could have accurately pointed out (as Fossten did) that you needed to re-read my previous posts, and were coming across as disrespectful to ignore those. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and work to better explain and clarify what I was saying. I pointed out what needed to be done on your end of the debate to meet the burden of proof against it. I even downplayed and overlooked your baseless effectively calling me a bigot and groundlessly claiming I am fear-mongering.

It seems my judgement of you was too kind...

Instead of doing what needed to be done to prove your side of the debate (logically and reasonably show that gay marriage will not harm marriage in general, in spite of the evidence that shows that it would), you have ignored the evidence and tried to downplay the premise the argument is based on.

You have misrepresented the opposing point of view, made fallacious arguments, wrongly claimed my arguments are fallacious (but unwilling to show how so, when asked) and gone so far as to effectively making blatant and baseless personal attacks (calling me a "bigot"). Even when your fallacious arguments are pointed out, you have seen fit to continue using them, strongly suggesting a lack of intellectual integrity in the area of gay marriage on your part.

For whatever reason, it seems you are either unwilling or incapable of having an honest, objective debate on this. I am left wondering if you are even capable of considering the possibility that you might actually be wrong on this issue...

In going back through this thread again, it is rather interesting to note that it took over 165 posts, and 6 weeks and 5 days to get to a discussion of the reasons to not allow gay marriage; and even then, it was purely tangential, in an ad hominem, red herring attempt to discredit the author of the article reaching those conclusions.

Among the reasons for this is due to red herring misdirection focusing on tangential (at best) issues, ranging from Elton John's homosexuality, to homosexuality in the animal kingdom, to Girls Gone Wild video's, to the struggle against the banning of interracial marriage and many other even less relevant issues.

There is also the issue of ad hominem personal attacks (I was personally called a bigot at least twice, as far as I can remember) and reasoning, mischaracterization of "inconvenient" facts and opposing claims, illogical attempts to shift the burden of proof, equivocation, continued assertion of a claim that ignores evidence and/or arguments given that counter that assertion and many other fallacious arguments.

All this simply serves to dance around the relevant issue of gay marriage (specifically, the evidence and arguments against gay marriage), cloud the issues and overall debate, and avoid any honest and reasonable debate on the issue of gay marriage.

What it cannot be reasonably shown weather all these arguments were intentional or not, it is rather obvious that far to many of them were. This suggests a lack of intellectual integrity and it (and all these fallacious arguments) are coming from the extreme end of one side of this debate.

It seems Tammy Bruce was right when she wrote:
...when Americans have said through polls and voting, that they do not want to give up the meaning of marriage but support a comparable alternative, how do the gay elite respond? When you ask for one cultural thing to be left untouched, the Gay Elite become the Gay Gestapo.

...In classic Thought Police fashion and like children throwing a tantrum, the name-calling flies—those who oppose gay marriage are “homophobes,” “haters” and the label du jour “bigots.” Once again, the left, unable to answer critics with respect, resort to name-calling only to further the divide they need to validate their inevitable victimhood.
It is very clear in all 8 pages and 200+ posts that the extreme end of the pro-gay marriage side of this issue is too concerned with being clever, outraged, compassionate and/or (most importantly) right, to be concerned with things like intellectual honesty and integrity, respectfulness, reasonableness, objectivity, what is better for society or (most importantly) facts and the truth.


Posted by: ford nut

Shag you only see the facts as you want to see them.
Kurtz's assertions are the only thing you keep hanging on to.

Anything I post against him you start a rant " see post 166"

Well I will post again to try to show you Kurtz is twisting facts to lean them towards his view.

http://online.logcabin.org/issues/th...l_picture.html

Quote:
"There is no evidence that giving partnership rights to same-sex couples had any impact on heterosexual marriage in Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands. Marriage rates, divorce rates, and non-marital birth rates have been changing in Scandinavia, Europe and the United States for the past thirty years. But those changes have occurred in all countries, regardless of whether or not they adopted same-sex partnership laws, and these trends were underway well before the passage of laws that gave same-sex couples rights."
"Divorce rates (in Scandinavia) have not risen since the passage of partnership laws and marriage rates have remained stable or actually increased."
"Non-marital birth rates have not risen faster in Scandinavia or the Netherlands since the passage of partnership laws. Although there has been a long-term trend toward the separation of sex, reproduction, and marriage in the industrialized west, this trend is unrelated to the legal recognition of same-sex couples."
"Non-marital birth rates changed just as much in countries without partnership laws as in countries that legally recognize same-sex couples' partnerships."
"The legal and cultural context in the United States gives many more incentives for heterosexual couples to marry than in Europe and those incentives will still exist even if same-sex couples can marry. Giving same-sex couples marriage or marriage-like rights has not undermined heterosexual marriage in Europe, and it is not likely to do so in the United States."
By M. V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D
Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Amherst, MA 01003

lbadgett@econs.umass.edu
http://www.iglss.org/media/files/briefing.pdf

Married parents are still the majority in Scandinavia
Marriage and child-bearing have become less directly connected over time in many
European countries, including Scandinavia. But as we shall see, this separation hardly
qualifies as the death of marriage, and it cannot be blamed on the passage of same-sex
partner laws.
In fact, Denmark’s longterm decline in marriage rates turned around in the early
1980’s, and the upward trend has continued since the 1989 passage of the registered
partner law (Chart 1). Now the Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest
they have been since the early 1970’s. The most recent marriage rates in Sweden,
Norway, and Iceland are also higher today than they were in the years before the partnership
laws were passed. The slight dip in marriage rates in the Netherlands since
2001 is the result of a recession-induced cutback on weddings, according to Dutch
demographers, and the actual number of marriages has gone up and down in the last
few years, even before the legalization of same-sex marriage.2
No research suggests that recognizing same-sex couples’ relationships caused the
increase in marriage rates. But heterosexual couples in those countries were clearly not
deterred from marrying by the legalization of same-sex couples’ rights.



Divorce rates also show no evidence of harm to heterosexual marriage from partnership
laws. Scandinavian divorce rates have not changed much in Scandinavia in the
last two decades (Chart 2). Danish demographers have even found that marriages in
the early 1990’s appear to be more stable than those in the 1980’s.3
Cohabitation rates are indeed on the rise, though, as is the likelihood that an
unmarried cohabiting couple will have children. In Denmark, the number of cohabiting
couples with children rose by 25% in the 1990s. Roughly half of all births in Norway,
Sweden, and Denmark, and almost 2/3 in Iceland, are to parents who are not married.
From these figures, Kurtz concludes that “married parenthood has become a minority
phenomenon.”4
In fact, however, the majority of families with children in Scandinavia and the
Netherlands are still headed by married parents.5 In 2000, for instance, 78% of Danish
couples with children were married couples. If we also include single parent families in
the calculation, almost two-thirds of families with children were headed by a married
couple. In Norway, 77% of couples with children are married, and 61% of all families
with children are headed by married parents.6 And 75% of Dutch families with children
include married couples. By comparison, 72% of families with children are headed
by married couples in the United States.
How can this fact coexist with high nonmarital birth rates and cohabitation rates?
The main reason is that in Scandinavia and the Netherlands most cohabiting couples
marry after they start having children.7 In Sweden, for instance, 70% of cohabiters
marry after the birth of the first child, most of them within five years. In the
Netherlands, while 30% of children are born outside of marriage, only 21% of children
under one live with unmarried parents, and by age five, only 11% live with unmarried parents.8 As a result, high rates of married couple parenting and rising marriage rates
in Scandinavia are not incompatible with high nonmarital birth rates.



As I said in post 166 Kurtz is a joke and there is evidence to prove it.
Do yourself a favor and read the whole link By M. V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D

Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
both the issues of gay marriage, and interracial marriage have many more aspects then "love" and "hate" that are much more important and relevant then those two aspects you mention.

There is no reason to assume that Ms. Loving has a strong understanding of gay marriage, including all the relevant aspects of it.

It is rather obvious that you are cherry picking...
What could be more important then love in a marriage ?
And Mildred Loving has a full understanding of Bigotry and hate with interracial and gay marriage issues.
She lived it.


Posted by: shagdrum

FINALLY!! Someone confronting the real argument here against gay marriage! It only took 218 posts and continuously pointing out the petty, childlike arguments being made in defense of gay marriage to get there, and even then it still has it flaws...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ford nut View Post
Shag you only see the facts as you want to see them.
Kurtz's assertions are the only thing you keep hanging on to.
Actually, no. Quite the opposite is true, here. Up until this point, you have demonstrated cherry-picking and taking info out of context (or citing sources that do) and I have exposed that.

There is also other things I have pointed out, among them the article that opens this thread. You were the one who started bringing up Kurtz ("spamming" if you wanna call it that), not me. That article mentions him and some of his findings, but it also mentions a few other sources. Chief among them the book being discussed in the article (which is not written by Kurtz).

If you wanna win the argument about gay marriage, you will need to disprove the arguments in that book as well, not just anything Kurtz writes. Maybe you should go pick that book up.

This is where your argument is still tainted. It is, at it's core, still a childish ad hominem smear against Kurtz, and by extention me. Which makes the main focus of it irrelevant to this discussion. Still the facts you cite (as far as I can tell reading what is in you post) are not merely a hit piece on Kurtz (unlike the Slate article you cited), and actually serve as a relevant critique of the argument against gay marriage...

Quote:
Anything I post against him you start a rant " see post 166"
Looking to make the debate about me again, it seems. Textbook ad hominem misdirection.

It is not surprising, considering your demonstrable lack of intellectual integrity on this issue, that you have only cited your post, and not my response to it, or the initial post by you that prompted all this. Looking only at post #166 hardly gives a clear picture of the whole issue. It seems you are the one cherry picking and looking to, "only see the facts as you want to see them".

The relevant posts are: 163, 164, 166, 172, 182 and 185.

Yet more proof of your tendency to cherry pick info and take it out of context.

In fact when you read post #166 in the context of the debate spelled out in those posts that you didn't wanna cite or link to, it becomes clear that what I said in regards to your intentional disregarding of Kurtz was hardly a "rant".

Quote:
Well I will post again to try to show you Kurtz is twisting facts to lean them towards his view.
Yep. And I will do some research on it and respond later. Probably tomorrow, or the next day.

I actually have to applaud you though. You made a halfway decent post with some substantive and relevant critiques, which is more then most of the posts in defense of gay marriage have been able to achieve, or most of the more extreme pro-gay marriage side of this issue is capable of.


Posted by: shagdrum

It seems that I may have been a little premature in my praise there, ford nut. What you cited seems to all come back to Kurtz. It seems that your attempt at an ad hominem smearing and disregarding of Kurtz is likely the initial angle through which you found Badgett's study.

For those reading...
Badgett's studies were as a response to Kurtz. So far, all I have been able to find is two competing sets of interpretations of the stats. Which one (if any) is cherry-picking data, or taking any stats out of context, I haven't determined yet. But I have found a few links on this. There is actually a kind of back-and-forth going on between the two here.

I figure I would link to some of the more relevant pieces here and help facilitate anyone else who wants to read on this and add some insight...

Here is the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) article ford nut linked to which critiques Kurtz's argument using Badgett's study (which is where ford nut got those fancy charts and info), and the article she wrote for Slate, which ford nut had cited earlier in this thread.

The (LCR) article cites a few articles by Kurtz including this one, which was a response to the Badgett study, which was effectively a follow up to this article by Kurtz which was a response to an earlier attack by Badgett of this article by Kurtz.

There is also this article which expands on the "controversy" surrounding Kurtz and his research. In addition to talking about Kurtz, it talks about some of his various critics, their arguments against Kurtz and their backgrounds, Badgett included.

Alright now, everyone take a deep breath!

I will look into this more myself later, but I figured I would attempt to give everyone a good starting point from which they can become familiar with this whole issue and make their own interpretation. Hopefully, this will lead to a more reasonable discussion of this here...


Posted by: ford nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
FINALLY!! Someone confronting the real argument here against gay marriage! It only took 218 posts and continuously pointing out the petty, childlike arguments being made in defense of gay marriage to get there, and even then it still has it flaws...



Actually, no. Quite the opposite is true, here. Up until this point, you have demonstrated cherry-picking and taking info out of context (or citing sources that do) and I have exposed that.
Wow...talk about a double standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
If you wanna win the argument about gay marriage, you will need to disprove the arguments in that book as well, not just anything Kurtz writes. Maybe you should go pick that book up.

Do you think anyone could ever win a gay marriage argument with you Shag ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
This is where your argument is still tainted. It is, at it's core, still a childish ad hominem smear against Kurtz, and by extention me. Which makes the main focus of it irrelevant to this discussion. Still the facts you cite (as far as I can tell reading what is in you post) are not merely a hit piece on Kurtz (unlike the Slate article you cited), and actually serve as a relevant critique of the argument against gay marriage...



Looking to make the debate about me again, it seems. Textbook ad hominem misdirection.
Wow again.... pull down your dress shag your arrogance is showing.
Kurtz is nothing more then a modern day Anita Bryant


Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
I actually have to applaud you though. You made a halfway decent post with some substantive and relevant critiques, which is more then most of the posts in defense of gay marriage have been able to achieve, or most of the more extreme pro-gay marriage side of this issue is capable of.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
It seems that I may have been a little premature in my praise there, ford nut. What you cited seems to all come back to Kurtz. It seems that your attempt at an ad hominem smearing and disregarding of Kurtz is likely the initial angle through which you found Badgett's study..
Now this is more like the Shag I know, now I can get ready for the fallacious argument, red herring, straw man, ad hominem attack, false analogy, non sequitur, burden of proof, proof by assertion rant thats comming


Posted by: fossten

Quote:
Originally Posted by ford nut View Post
Now this is more like the Shag I know, now I can get ready for the fallacious argument, red herring, straw man, ad hominem attack, false analogy, non sequitur, burden of proof, proof by assertion rant thats comming
Face it, ford nut, if you wouldn't make such flawed arguments, you wouldn't hear all those terms. And trying (in vain) to make a mockery of Shag's analysis of your argument is ineffective. Nobody's falling for it. You mock what you cannot overcome.

You've already used this "mockery" tactic repeatedly in this and other threads. Continuing this is trollish.


Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by ford nut View Post
Wow...talk about a double standard.
Actually, there is no double standard on my part, and you know it.


you cannot demonstrate one. However, there are plenty of double standards that can be demonstrated in your posts, as I have done so.

It is rather interesting that you guys on the fringe of the same-sex marriage side here keep mocking and trying to downplay my pointing out of their double standards and fallacious arguments, even when I make sure to point out how those are the case, and specifically what fallacious arguments are being used.

Yet you guys then see fit to accuse me of illogical arguments and double standard, yet consistently cannot provide specifics...

Quote:
Kurtz is nothing more then a modern day Anita Bryant
Actually, you just have your own personal vendetta against Kurtz, it seems. Outside of his mention in the original article, you were the first one to mention him in this thread (and accused me of "spamming" him).

You have yet to be able to make an argument here, with regards to Kurtz, that doesn't reek of some childlike attempt to smear someone.

You wanna talk about a double standard, fine...

Here is what you said in post number 163 in regards to Kurtz:
Stanley Kurtz is deep in bed with conservative think tanks what do you think he would write ? so marriage is outdated in Norway he just links gay marrage to it....it doesnt mean anything to me
When pressed about the ad hominem nature of this reason given from discrediting him, you wrote this in post 166:
Ah I was waiting for the ad homenim lets get this one right...to me what ever Stanly Kurtz has to say means nothing you can spam it post it 100 times .
And cited this article as justification for your ad hominem disregard of Kurtz, which I showed was cherry picking, to which you replied in post 182 that it was simply "spam" and that "Kurtz is doing the same thing [cherry picking and taking info out of context] to fit his agenda", yet didn't show any other info to back that up. At least not until post 218. The only info you have given to dispute Kurtz argument is Badgett (I am still going through her work an comparing it to Kurtz). Let's look at Badgett's ties and background for a minute...

From that study of Badgett's you provided:
M. V. Lee Badgett is an associate professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She is also the research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies.
It should also be noted that Badgett is a lesbian.

So, if you are going to disregard Kurtz's for his ties to a "conservative think tank", as you tried to do in post 163, you have to disregard Badgett as well. She has just as strong of ties (if not more so) to the opposite end of this debate. She actually stands to gain more from successfully promoting that agenda, as a lesbian, then Kurtz does as an hetero.

Disregarding only Kurtz shows a blatant double standard on your part.

You also seem to think that discrediting Kurtz wins the debate on the issue of gay marriage, judging by your obsession with Kurtz and solely focusing on his work as opposed to anyone else brought up in this debate.

The opening article was chiefly focused on the work of David Blankenhorn. It is rather telling that you picked up on Kurtz and focused on him while ignoring Blankenhorn.

You might wanna start looking at Blankenhorn's work. I'll help ya get started...

Blankenhorn shows in this article that, "Support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage" and that...
people in nations with gay marriage are less than half as likely as people in nations without gay unions to say that married people are happier. Perhaps most important, they are significantly less likely to say that people who want children ought to get married (38 percent vs. 60 percent). They are also significantly more likely to say that cohabiting without intending to marry is all right (83 percent vs. 50 percent), and are somewhat more likely to say that divorce is usually the best solution to marital problems. Respondents in the countries with gay marriage are significantly more likely than those in Australia and the United States to say that divorce is usually the best solution.
He then concludes:
By itself, the "conservative case" for gay marriage might be attractive. It would be gratifying to extend the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples--if gay marriage and marriage renewal somehow fit together. But they do not. As individuals and as a society, we can strive to maintain and strengthen marriage as a primary social institution and society's best welfare plan for children (some would say for men and women too). Or we can strive to implement same-sex marriage. But unless we are prepared to tear down with one hand what we are building up with the other, we cannot do both.
Now, can you show some evidence to dispute his argument, or are you gonna try and smear him, as you do Kurtz?

Quote:
Wow again.... pull down your dress shag your arrogance is showing.
You draw this conclusion from two hand picked quotes of mine taken out of context and put together to give a wrong impression about what I am saying.
This is where your argument is still tainted. It is, at it's core, still a childish ad hominem smear against Kurtz, and by extention me. Which makes the main focus of it irrelevant to this discussion. Still the facts you cite (as far as I can tell reading what is in you post) are not merely a hit piece on Kurtz (unlike the Slate article you cited), and actually serve as a relevant critique of the argument against gay marriage...

Looking to make the debate about me again, it seems. Textbook ad hominem misdirection.
That last line had absolutely nothing to do with the preceding paragraph. It was a response to your claim:
Anything I post against him you start a rant "see post 166"
The paragraph before that line was a response to a different claim of yours:
Shag you only see the facts as you want to see them.
Kurtz's assertions are the only thing you keep hanging on to.
There is no evidence to claim I am arrogant, so you manufactured some. More proof of your lack of intellectual integrity, by cherry picking and taking info out of context; two methods of debate which are disturbingly common on your end of this issue.

FYI; if you knew me at all, you would know that I am actually a very humble person.

Quote:
Now this is more like the Shag I know, now I can get ready for the fallacious argument, red herring, straw man, ad hominem attack, false analogy, non sequitur, burden of proof, proof by assertion rant thats comming
Does characterizing my response as a "rant" somehow successfully dispute the claims I make about your arguments being fallacious? If so please show me how.

You have been consistently disrepectful, here. In addition to fallacious arguments, personal attacks and smears seem to be the modus operandi for you; calling me "arrogant" without proof that isn't manufactured, claims of "spamming" and "ranting", attempts to mock those who you disagree with on this forum, etc. etc.

I hope you will note I haven't commented yet on the two articles you cite in post number 218. I am still examining that info and formulating a response. However, just as I'm considering how to respond to your few valid points, you slip into personal attacks that convince me anew of the uselessness of devoting time to arguing with you.

It is rather clear that there is no chance for an honest, respectful, adult debate with you here.


Posted by: TheDude

Shag,

Google "has gay marriage had a negative impact in europe" (or simlar), the hits vary, some support your view (aka Kurtz's), some don't, so you claiming other people cherry-pick is dishonest.

What we have is a claim that gay-marriage will have a negative impact on the institution of hetero-marriage, ergo it shouldn't be allowed and the gay community is held responsible to prove that it wouldn't (essentially asked to prove a negative) if they expect society to accept it. It's a cowardly and dishonest approach, they would have no way to disprove/prove such a claim unless gay-marriage were first allowed and then the outcome was observed and dissected. You know this.

The funny thing, gay-marrige has been allowed on a small scale for 4+ years now regardless of doom and gloom claims and it hasn't impacted hetero-marriage, even on a small scale. Straight people are still getting married and still having children on par with pre gay-marriage (divorce/marriage rates have been in slight decline far longer than 2003), talk about real-time proof for the U.S., there it is.

So you can continue claiming others are making fallacies, acting childish, being dishonest and you're the only one with clear objective view, but gay-marriage is happening in the U.S. and the data observed doesn't support your view.

Edit: Here's one example I found in google that counters each of Kurtz's claims:

"Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged." -End Snip

"Cohabitation rates tell a similar story. In Denmark, from 1980 to 1989, the number of unmarried, cohabiting couples with children rose by 70 percent, but the same figure rose by only 28 percent from 1989 to 2000—the decade after Denmark introduced its partner-registration laws—and then stopped rising. From 2000 to 2004, the number has increased by a barely perceptible 0.3 percent. The fact that rates of cohabitation and nonmarital births either slowed down or completely stopped rising after the passage of partnership laws shows that the laws had no effect on heterosexual behavior." -End Snip

Fully Story Here: http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/


Posted by: TheDude

I originally missed that the one Ford Nut mentioned had been Badgett (your noting of Badgett being a lesbian is just as valid as Krutz being a staunch consevative), so here's another:

"There is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a whopping 28.8% in Sweden. In Denmark over the last few years, marriage rates are the highest they've been since the early 1970s. Divorce rates among heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have fallen. A decade after each country passed its partnership law, divorce rates had dropped 13.9% in Denmark; 6% in Norway; and 13.7% in Sweden. On average, divorce rates among heterosexuals remain lower now than in the years before same-sex partnerships were legalized.

In addition, out-of-wedlock birthrates in each of these countries contradict the suggestion by social conservatives that gay marriage will lead to great increases in out-of-wedlock births and therefore less family stability for children. In Denmark, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births was 46% in 1989; now it is 45%. In Norway, out-of-wedlock births jumped from 14% in 1980 to 45% right before partnerships were adopted in 1993; now they stand at 51%, a much lower rate of increase than in the decade before same-sex unions. The Swedish trend mirrors that of Norway, with much lower rates of increase post-partnership than pre-partnership.

Is there a correlation, then, between same-sex marriage and a strengthening of the institution of marriage? It would be difficult, and suspect, to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these trends in heterosexual marriage and marriage rights for gays and lesbians. But the facts demonstrate that there is no proof that same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage, or children. An optimistic reading of the facts might even suggest that the energy and enthusiasm that same-sex couples bring to the institution of marriage may cause unmarried heterosexual couples to take a fresh look at marriage as an option."


http://www.volokh.com/posts/1162396316.shtml

Here are the authors of the book on Bill O'Reilly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9atnCSSFP8


Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS View Post
Google "has gay marriage had a negative impact in europe" (or simlar), the hits vary, some support your view (aka Kurtz's), some don't, so you claiming other people cherry-pick is dishonest.
It is only "dishonest" if you assume both Kurtz and his critiques are cherry picking, which has hardly been shown to be the case. Accusations do not equal facts.

I have already shown one example of Kurtz countering one of his critiques by pointing out that they were taking stats out of context and he put them into context to show.



Quote:
What we have is a claim that gay-marriage will have a negative impact on the institution of hetero-marriage, ergo it shouldn't be allowed and the gay community is held responsible to prove that it wouldn't (essentially asked to prove a negative) if they expect society to accept it.
That is a little oversimplified but,more or less, yes. That is the way the Framers set up the Constitution (through the amendment process) to work when it comes to changes like this.

It is also the only logical way to approach such change, as dicated by the precautionary principle.

Quote:
It's a cowardly and dishonest approach, they would have no way to disprove/prove such a claim unless gay-marriage were first allowed and then the outcome was observed and dissected. You know this.
"cowardly and dishonest"...
More attempts at demonization and marginalization. Just because you can mock the burden of proof doesn't necessitate it's move. Nice try...

There is nothing "dishonest" here, and you know it. You just can't consider the possibility that you might be wrong on this, can you.

If you can't disprove the claim, then you don't allow the chance. Society isn't a science project; you don't conduct experiments with the results being what is important so you can draw empirical conclusions and the consequences are meaningless. The consequences are far more important then having a means to draw empirical conclusions.

This is a social and political debate, with far more broad reaching and potentially irreversible consequences then any scientific experiment. More caution is necessitated.

Quote:
The funny thing, gay-marrige has been allowed on a small scale for 4+ years now regardless of doom and gloom claims and it hasn't impacted hetero-marriage, even on a small scale. Straight people are still getting married and still having children on par with pre gay-marriage (divorce/marriage rates have been in slight decline far longer than 2003), talk about real-time proof for the U.S., there it is.
More proof by assertion.

I have pointed out a number of times in this thread that 4 years is hardly enough time to draw any conclusions either way. In addition, there are plenty of reasons that Massachusetts may be more resistant to that change. It is also questionable weather Massachusetts is an accurate and relevant analogy to the United States.

You have yet to say anything about those critiques. You simply keep bringing up the fact that Mass has had gay marriage for 4 years, and ignoring those critiques. Textbook proof by assertion.

Quote:
So you can continue claiming others are making fallacies, acting childish, being dishonest and you're the only one with clear objective view,
I have not simply "claimed" fallacious arguments, childishness and dishhonesty. You guys have demonstrated that, and I have effectively shown a spot light on it to make your actions clear for what they are.

Quote:
but gay-marriage is happening in the U.S. and the data observed doesn't support your view.
A: That doesn't disprove the critiques of making fallacious arguments, acting childish and being dishonest. Another non sequiter

B: The "data observed" in Mass or California is not enough to support or disprove any view yet

Quote:
Edit: Here's one example I found in google that counters each of Kurtz's claims:

Fully Story Here: http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/
FYI: This article is by Badgett and has already been pointed out in post 166. I have been rather busy and haven't had a chance to develop a response yet concerning the whole Badgett/Kurtz thing.


Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS View Post
your noting of Badgett being a lesbian is just as valid as Krutz being a staunch consevative
I think you are missing my point...both are irrelevant. I was citing Badgett's ties and potential to benefit from winning this debate as way to show ford nut's double standard between the Kurtz and Badgett.

The noting of both their ties, while factually accurate, is hardly valid as a means to disregard both. It is simply ad hominem reasoning.

As I said in post 220, what we have here is two competing sets of interpretations of the stats. Which one (if any) is cherry-picking data, or taking any stats out of context, hasn't been shown yet.

You can cite articles whose given facts and conclusions reached seem to go against Kurtz or Badgett (depending on the angle you wanna come at). At this point that is simply worthless in the debate. What is necessary is a comparison between the two and some research to find out which conclusion is accurate given the info taken in whole and in context. That is why I cited all those links; to make sure people can do that here if they want.

Until you can show that, you are just wasting everybody's time here and only spinning your wheels in this debate.

Quote:
Is there a correlation, then, between same-sex marriage and a strengthening of the institution of marriage?
Actually, David Blankenhorn rather aptly demonstrates in a number of his works (including this one) that there is a definite correlation between same-sex marriage and a poor state of marriage in a country.

possible cherry picking of info?

In fact, that link you cite is based on the work of William Eskridge and Darren Spedale (who, not suprisingly, happen to be gay advocates). Kurtz rather aptly demonstrates in this article how their work is flawed due to cherry picking and taking stats out of context, among other things. Here is an excerpt:
Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite evidence that since then [Denmark legalizing gay marriage in 1989], marriage has strengthened. Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent.

Yet the half-page statistical analysis of heterosexual marriage in Darren Spedale's unpublished paper doesn't begin to get at the truth about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia during the nineties. Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to.

It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married. Moreover, a closer look at Danish divorce in the post-gay marriage decade reveals disturbing trends. Many Danes have stopped holding off divorce until their kids are grown. And Denmark in the nineties saw a 25 percent increase in cohabiting couples with children. With fewer parents marrying, what used to show up in statistical tables as early divorce is now the unrecorded breakup of a cohabiting couple with children.

What about Spedale's report that the Danish marriage rate increased 10 percent from 1990 to 1996? Again, the news only appears to be good. First, there is no trend. Eurostat's just-released marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark (Norway hasn't reported). Second, marriage statistics in societies with very low rates (Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997) must be carefully parsed. In his study of the Norwegian family in the nineties, for example, Christer Hyggen shows that a small increase in Norway's marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the institution's decline than with any renaissance. Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older couples "catching up." These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage among the large number of divorced.

Spedale's report of lower divorce rates and higher marriage rates in post-gay marriage Denmark is thus misleading. Marriage is now so weak in Scandinavia that shifts in these rates no longer mean what they would in America. In Scandinavian demography, what counts is the out-of-wedlock birthrate, and the family dissolution rate.

The family dissolution rate is different from the divorce rate. Because so many Scandinavians now rear children outside of marriage, divorce rates are unreliable measures of family weakness. Instead, we need to know the rate at which parents (married or not) split up. Precise statistics on family dissolution are unfortunately rare. Yet the studies that have been done show that throughout Scandinavia (and the West) cohabiting couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So rising rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth stand as proxy for rising rates of family dissolution.

By that measure, Scandinavian family dissolution has only been worsening. Between 1990 and 2000, Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39 to 50 percent, while Sweden's rose from 47 to 55 percent. In Denmark out-of-wedlock births stayed level during the nineties (beginning at 46 percent and ending at 45 percent). But the leveling off seems to be a function of a slight increase in fertility among older couples, who marry only after multiple births (if they don't break up first). That shift masks the 25 percent increase during the nineties in cohabitation and unmarried parenthood among Danish couples (many of them young). About 60 percent of first born children in Denmark now have unmarried parents. The rise of fragile families based on cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing means that during the nineties, the total rate of family dissolution in Scandinavia significantly increased.
He also makes an interesting point in his final paragraph that has relevance to the 4 years of gay marriage in Mass you keep citing as proof in support of gay marriage.
Conservative advocates of gay marriage want to test it in a few states. The implication is that, should the experiment go bad, we can call it off. Yet the effects, even in a few American states, will be neither containable nor revocable. It took about 15 years after the change hit Sweden and Denmark for Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate to begin to move from "European" to "Nordic" levels. It took another 15 years (and the advent of gay marriage) for Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate to shoot past even Denmark's. By the time we see the effects of gay marriage in America, it will be too late to do anything about it. Yet we needn't wait that long. In effect, Scandinavia has run our experiment for us. The results are in.
About 15 years to see the effects in a country that embraced gay marriage. Let me repeat, about 15 years!

So how is 4 years after being forced to allow for gay marriage in a part of a country that, on the whole opposes gay marriage, enough time to draw a conclusion either way when there is no chance for the effects to show yet?

At the very least, you would have to admit that we have to wait another 11 years or more before any further action in the direction of allowing gay marriage. Are you willing to do that?


Posted by: ford nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
Deville, I have been rather patient with you...
What you wrote in post #180 gave me the impression that you were willing and possibly able to have an honest debate here. I could have accurately pointed out (as Fossten did) that you needed to re-read my previous posts, and were coming across as disrespectful to ignore those. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and work to better explain and clarify what I was saying. I pointed out what needed to be done on your end of the debate to meet the burden of proof against it. I even downplayed and overlooked your baseless effectively calling me a bigot and groundlessly claiming I am fear-mongering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
For whatever reason, it seems you are either unwilling or incapable of having an honest, objective debate on this. I am left wondering if you are even capable of considering the possibility that you might actually be wrong on this issue...
Your arrogance is obvious, not just towards me but to anyone the diagrees with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shagdrum View Post
There is no evidence to claim I am arrogant, so you manufactured some. More proof of your lack of intellectual integrity, by cherry picking and taking info out of context; two methods of debate which are disturbingly common on your end of this issue.

FYI; if you knew me at all, you would know that I am actually a very humble person.
I couldnt help myself a I had to pick some of that low hanging fruit


FYI; I could care less about Gay Marriage I care more about the religious right pushing there agenda telling people what is right because of what they believe.


Posted by: Kbob

Quote:
Originally Posted by ford nut View Post
FYI; I could care less about Gay Marriage I care more about the religious right pushing there agenda telling people what is right because of what they believe.
That's a pretty broad statement. What about the liberal left and their agenda? Do you have similar feelings towards that?


Posted by: cammerfe

Answer to #203

You're right---I don't care about benefits.
Society is complex enough that some will accept and some will not.

I don't know about Webster, (I thought he was dead) but it's a typical liberal trick---must be liberals in the Webster organization---to change or add to a definition to give credence to a point of view. (See original def. of 'income' as an example).
KS


Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by ford nut View Post
Your arrogance is obvious, not just towards me but to anyone the diagrees with you.
How do any of those quotes show arrogance?!

That first quote:
Deville, I have been rather patient with you...
What you wrote in post #180 gave me the impression that you were willing and possibly able to have an honest debate here. I could have accurately pointed out (as Fossten did) that you needed to re-read my previous posts, and were coming across as disrespectful to ignore those. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and work to better explain and clarify what I was saying. I pointed out what needed to be done on your end of the debate to meet the burden of proof against it. I even downplayed and overlooked your baseless effectively calling me a bigot and groundlessly claiming I am fear-mongering.
That quote shows frustration more then any other emotion or trait. Even when I go out of my why to be respectful to Deville he is demonstratively and habitually rude and disrespectful in his arguing tactics, as well as demonstratively and habitually lacking in intellectual integrity on this issue. That is what I am responding to.

How is there any sign of arrogance in that?

and the second quote:
For whatever reason, it seems you are either unwilling or incapable of having an honest, objective debate on this. I am left wondering if you are even capable of considering the possibility that you might actually be wrong on this issue...
Again, demonstrative of frustration on my part, but where is there a sign of arrogance?

The conclusion I reach is logically drawn from the actions taken by Deville.

I would ask for some clarification and explanation as to how those quotes in any way show arrogance, but you so far when you have been challenged in your baseless and irrelevant smears of me (and make no mistake that is all this is), the best you can do is come up with equivocation, if you offer any attempt to justify your statements at all. You have already said at different times that I am "spamming" or "ranting" but refuse to offer any valid proof.

You are continuing to demonstrate what you have been doing in the vast majority of this thread; being childishly disrespectful in your arguments as well as habitually baiting and antagonizing others and generally distracting from this debate.

Quote:
FYI; I could care less about Gay Marriage I care more about the religious right pushing there agenda telling people what is right because of what they believe.
Then why the crusade against Kurtz? None of my argument (or his) has been in any way dependent on (or based in) a religious angle. Yet you work to smear the both of us and baselessly work to disregard anything we say.


Posted by: fossten

Quote:
Originally Posted by ford nut View Post
Your arrogance is obvious, not just towards me but to anyone the diagrees with you.
That's ridiculous. Shag has disagreed with me before and he's never acted arrogant.

This is just a simple case where the truth hurts. Get over it and quit whining.


Posted by: fossten