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

[halo001]

Back on subject.....

I believe that Bob Hubbard has the right idea about this whole thing, the debate is over Gay MARRIAGE, not them being together, nothing more. No one said anything when the Domestic Partnership concept was introduced, becuase it did not impede on something traditionally resevered for Heterosexual relationships.

A marriage is a concept that is recognized by the church, and most marriages are held in a church. Now I now someone is going to say "But what about atheist marriages?" Well, it is the concept of marriage that is recognized by the church, not the people, and as such if it breaks the common laws of the church, can not be recongnized as a marriage. Which keeps with my basic belief of the one last rule to marriage, that it be a man and woman.

If gays lead an "Alternative Lifstyle", I'm sure that they can find an alternative to marriage, such as the Domestic Partnership. Either way, since gay marriages will not be condoned by the Church, it can not be calle a marriage, which is defined by the bible as "The joining of a man and woman in holy matrimony." Which goes back to my earlier arguments of Homosexuality being defined as an abomination of god, and can therefore not be "Holy" in anyway.

Off-topic
Gays are trying to force themselves upon society even though some dislike what they stand for, or even hate them. Where are the straight rallys, my school has a designated Gay Day on Memorial day, and Gay weekend where gays flood the beaches where I live on Memorial Weekend, so I have a proposal.

Let's have a Straight day, where we ride in floats and chant "We're straight, we've been here,......for a long time.....now stop screaming about being gay." It's like they are saying, "I'm gay, got a problem?" Yeah your screaming your gay in my ear!!! I don't mind gays, its when they throw it up in my face that that I have a problem. I'm not trying to kill you for being gay, I tolerate you, so shut up, stop yelling about it.

 

[hrmwrm]

you said exactly what the problem is halo. gay marriage will not be recognized by the CHURCH. the definition only comes from religious tradition. and it's pretty much religious traditionalists that fight against the idea. maybe we should go back to religious tradional ideas of the earth being the center of the universe as well. everything revolves around it. it's outdated thinking in a modern society. the point more comes down to, what harm would it do to let gays marry?

 

[hrmwrm]

from shag

"Simon LeVay, a homosexual scientist said:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.
Dr. Antonio Pardo said:
Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.
Basically, homosexuality is incidental at best in the animal kingdom and is likely due to a number of other instincts besides reproduction or sexual attraction. There is no such thing as a homosexual animal (an animal that is only attracted to animals of the same sex). Really it is hetero animals who occasionally conduct homosexual acts."


i obviously read this different than you then shag. swans choose mates for life, and some are choosing the opposite sex for a lifetime mate. i think it would be you who missed the point. you said homosexuality is incendental and occasional(i assume occasional means on a per individual basis, not percentage) yet this is a lifetime pairing, and not within the norm of choice. so you are the one raising the bar of proof.

from your statement from levay, to me it sounds like any single heterosexual act would negate a gay coupling. i'm not attempting to mischarecterize your arguement. that is how you view it. you stated it there. "it is hetero's occasionally performing homosexual acts". i've merely shown the opposite of what you said. it's actually homosexuals occasionally performing heterosexual acts. you set your own straw man to knock down.

 

[hrmwrm]

and as for the full house analogy, they had girlfriends outside of the child rearing environment. but it was a funny attempt.

 

[Kbob]

and as for the full house analogy, they had girlfriends outside of the child rearing environment. but it was a funny attempt.

So were they heterosexuals occasionally performing homosexual acts, or homosexuals occasionally performing heterosexual acts?

 

[ford nut]

Back on subject.....

A marriage is a concept that is recognized by the church, and most marriages are held in a church.

Marriage is a concept that is recognized society religion is just a part of society......I would like to konw what you mean by MOST ?
Do you have any proof ? What percent of marriages are held in a church ?

you said exactly what the problem is halo. gay marriage will not be recognized by the CHURCH. the definition only comes from religious tradition. and it's pretty much religious traditionalists that fight against the idea. maybe we should go back to religious tradional ideas of the earth being the center of the universe as well. everything revolves around it. it's outdated thinking in a modern society. the point more comes down to, what harm would it do to let gays marry?

:I :leghumper

So were they heterosexuals occasionally performing homosexual acts, or homosexuals occasionally performing heterosexual acts?

That would be bisexuals preforming bisexual acts I would think

 

[fossten]

the point more comes down to, what harm would it do to let gays marry?

Assuming you asked this question in good faith and not rhetorically, I have posted this article for you to peruse.

Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful

Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society.

By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott

Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?

The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?

It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.

Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.

But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.

1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing "gay unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay marriage.

Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."

The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."

A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.

In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.

Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).

2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.

Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.

Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.

3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.

In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.

In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously harm Americans—including those in heterosexual marriages—over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.

Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals.

Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott, who both teach religion at Roanoke College, wrote an earlier version of this article for the Public Theology Project. Viewpoints published in "Speaking Out" do not necessarily represent those of Christianity Today.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/februaryweb-only/2-16-41.0.html

 

[shagdrum]

i obviously read this different than you then shag. swans choose mates for life, and some are choosing the opposite sex for a lifetime mate. i think it would be you who missed the point. you said homosexuality is incendental and occasional(i assume occasional means on a per individual basis, not percentage) yet this is a lifetime pairing, and not within the norm of choice. so you are the one raising the bar of proof.

I am not changing the burden of proof. I am expecting accuracy and not using fallacious arguments; basically intellectual integrity, which the author of the article you cite clearly lacked in writing that article.

Your example is extremely vague when it comes to the sex going on between the same sex pair. Homosexuality is by definition dependent on sexual attraction and sexual acts. This is textbook equivocation.

As I pointed out, the only example of any sexual acts or attraction in that example is of heterosexual sex involved in the creation of the egg(s).

The article simply characterizes the pair as homosexual, but only provides as proof that they are raising young together. It is too vague to tell if the couple is actually homosexual. There are no homosexual acts actually cited.

from your statement from levay, to me it sounds like any single heterosexual act would negate a gay coupling. i'm not attempting to mischarecterize your arguement. that is how you view it. you stated it there. "it is hetero's occasionally performing homosexual acts". i've merely shown the opposite of what you said. it's actually homosexuals occasionally performing heterosexual acts. you set your own straw man to knock down.

The point that LeVay was making was that there is no predisposition to homosexuality in the animal community; no homosexual orientation. As evidence, he points to the fact that there is no long lasting predisposition to engage in homosexual acts exclusively when heterosexual acts are an option. Basically, homosexuality in the animal community is incidental and circumstantial.

He is not saying that any heterosexual act negates a gay coupling. He doesn't say anything about a gay coupling. He says that when hetero sex is an option, there is no predisposition to exclusively engage in homosexual sex in the animal kingdom.

For your example to disprove that, it would have to show that these "gay couples" are consistently committing homosexual acts to the exclusion of heterosexual sex, when that is an option.

Your example says nothing about any homosexual acts of any kind. It simply characterizes the pair as a homosexual couple. The example is too vague to determine if that characterization is accurate or not. It could simply be very sloppy work on their part.

However,It seems highly unlikely that the author simply forgot to include in the swan example any facts that indicate that this same sex couple is having sex with each other, given the thought and detail that went into the rest of the article. specifically, the article cites speculation on the part of Linda Wolf:

"I think to some extent people don't think it's important because we went through all this time period in sociobiology where everything had to be tied to reproduction and reproductive success," said Linda Wolfe, who heads the Department of Anthropology at East Carolina University. "If it doesn't have [something to do] with reproduction it's not important."​

and then saying:

"You can make up all kinds of stories: Oh it's for dominance, it's for this, it's for that, but when it comes down to the bottom I think it's just for sexual pleasure," Wolfe told LiveScience.
​

and following the swan example up with this line:

"Homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are terms defined by societal boundaries, invisible in the animal kingdom.​

The author is clearly trying (through speculation and conjecture) to create the impression in the reader's mind that animals have sex for pleasure and not just reproduction or other survival instincts (like dominance, etc.), even though that has been show to not be the case for the vast majority of the animal kingdom.

This act obfuscates the issue enough that the reader is directed to illogically assume that because these same sex couples are raising a child and characterized as "homosexual" by the author, that they are committing homosexual acts.

The line that follows the swan example, and the further discussion of hermaphrodites in the animal kingdom (which is irrelevant to the discussion) serves to obfuscate the definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality in the readers mind.

The author is thus able to give a false impression about homosexuality in the animal kind and the sexual orientation of the swan couples specifically, without actually giving any false information.

Given the way the article is set up and the choices in examples and quotes cited, it seems pretty clear that the author is intentionally equivocating when it comes to homosexuality, so that the swan couples are defined as homosexual in the article. It is highly unlikely that the leaving out of any facts that would indicate that the same sex couple was in fact homosexual (citing homosexual acts) is a mere oversight on the author's part.

There is also the fact that the author is claiming that 25% of all swan couples are homosexual when the actual percentage of human homosexual couples (humans being known to have sex for pleasure and not just for reproduction or other survival instincts) is only around 1.5% by the most accurate studies, and only close to 10% by some of the most bias studies (namely Kinsey). This is further evidence that the author is using a much broader definition of homosexuality then the generally accepted definition in order to cast a much broader net in claiming homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

Given all these facts, it is rather clear that the claim that the swan same sex couples are homosexual is a blatant mischaracterization based on equivocation with regards to homosexuality. The author is subtly making fallacious arguments to draw irrational conclusions, most likely to promote an agenda.

So your claim that the swan example is "homosexuals occasionally performing heterosexual acts" is not accurate. There is no evidence that the same sex pairs of swans are actually homosexual under the generally accepted, textbook definition of homosexuality.

In fact, the only example of sex on the part of the same sex pairs of swans is hetero sex to conceive the egg. This fits in with what LeVay says.

There is no straw man being set up on my part. I am examining the claims and consistencies in the article you presented and finding fallacies, inconsistencies and baseless spin that I am then accurately pointing out.

gay marriage will not be recognized by the CHURCH. the definition only comes from religious tradition. and it's pretty much religious traditionalists that fight against the idea. maybe we should go back to religious traditional ideas of the earth being the center of the universe as well. everything revolves around it. it's outdated thinking in a modern society. the point more comes down to, what harm would it do to let gays marry?

It isn't just "pretty much religious traditionalists that fight against the idea [of gay marriage]"; It is most of society.

Marriage is originally defined by the church and society, historically. you seem to want to downplay that by saying the definition only comes from religious tradition, as if that somehow makes it irrelevant or unimportant. Care to point out how?

As to your question of "what harm would it do to let gays marry?", that has been answered it the original article that started this thread, in the article posted by Fossten in post #157, and numerous other places in this thread.

The relevant question is not "what harm would it cause", but "why should we allow for gay marriage". Due to the precautionary principle, the burden of proof logically is on those advocating gay marriage, not those opposed to it. You seem to be forgetting that.

In this debate, it is the job of the person advocating change to convince those opposed to the change, not the other way around. This is not going to be done by ad hominem personal attacks, fallacious arguments, attempting to downplay, poke irrelevant holes in or ignore opposing arguments and concerns or forcing a homosexual agenda on society. It can only be done by reasonably addressing their concerns and arguments and rationally dispelling them.

 

[halo001]

"All of this in a nation where 74 percent of marriages still occur in church," pondered syndicated New York Times ethics and religion columnist Mike McManus.

and if you'd like I can provide a link to the article that this was taken from.

And my ealier post was not taken as I meant it. What I meant is, that gays should not call it a marriage, I mean what do they get out of this. The Tax crap was already dispelled, so what do they get, just the ability to say, "Well, were married, it didn't really change anything since we've been living together, and having sexual relations for a while anyway."

In most religions, though people do not always adhere to this, marriage is when you are supposed to be able to have sex, not before, and in part was marriages original purpose, that a man and woman say "I will only have sex with you.", basically. Gays have sex anyway, and if you know your gay, you've probably already had sex, so why marry? Like I said, its another way of forcing themselves to be accepted by society, by destroying really the only thing that differs them from a regular couple, the ability to get married.

Off-topic
My history teacher once said that Americans have short attention spans, that if you annoy them long enough, you get what you want. Like in Vietnam, we were winning, we had lost 58,000 troops and the body count on them was 1.3 million, they just dragged it out long enough that we finally got bored and left. This is what the gays are doing, annoy everyone long enough and they will give you what you want so you will shut up and stop bugging them. Speaking of which, I could probably annoy my parents into giving me some cash.

 

[ford nut]

It isn't just "pretty much religious traditionalists that fight against the idea [of gay marriage]"; It is most of society.

I would like to see you back this one up.

As to your question of "what harm would it do to let gays marry?", that has been answered it the original article that started this thread, in the article posted by Fossten in post #157, and numerous other places in this thread.

There is no evidence here only what Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott ideas of what might happen.
The only way to prove what would happen is if gay marriage was allowed for an amount of time then study society afterwards.
Then you would have facts not religious ideals.
Or David Blankenhorn thinking the children will suffer...there is nothing to prove what would happen because it hasent happened yet.

The relevant question is not "what harm would it cause", but "why should we allow for gay marriage". Due to the precautionary principle, the burden of proof logically is on those advocating gay marriage, not those opposed to it. You seem to be forgetting that.

In this debate, it is the job of the person advocating change to convince those opposed to the change, not the other way around. This is not going to be done by ad hominem personal attacks, fallacious arguments, attempting to downplay, poke irrelevant holes in or ignore opposing arguments and concerns or forcing a homosexual agenda on society. It can only be done by reasonably addressing their concerns and arguments and rationally dispelling them.

If you go back to the title of the thread the burden of proof is on you to prove that Liberals Know It's Bad...good luck with that one.

and if you'd like I can provide a link to the article that this was taken from.

Here let me help you
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_15/ai_54246288
Its ten years old and nothing there to back up the claim keep looking
And my ealier post was not taken as I meant it. What I meant is, that gays should not call it a marriage, I mean what do they get out of this. The Tax crap was already dispelled, so what do they get, just the ability to say, "Well, were married, it didn't really change anything since we've been living together, and having sexual relations for a while anyway."

In most religions, though people do not always adhere to this, marriage is when you are supposed to be able to have sex, not before, and in part was marriages original purpose, that a man and woman say "I will only have sex with you.", basically. Gays have sex anyway, and if you know your gay, you've probably already had sex, so why marry? Like I said, its another way of forcing themselves to be accepted by society, by destroying really the only thing that differs them from a regular couple, the ability to get married.

I dont know how to tell you this but sex has little to do with marriage.
Sex is a very small part of a working marriage.
I would like you to break out of the box you live in just a little bit and read this.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-marriage17-2008jun17,0,6193795.story

 

[shagdrum]

and if you'd like I can provide a link to the article that this was taken from.

And my ealier post was not taken as I meant it. What I meant is, that gays should not call it a marriage, I mean what do they get out of this. The Tax crap was already dispelled, so what do they get, just the ability to say, "Well, were married, it didn't really change anything since we've been living together, and having sexual relations for a while anyway."

In most religions, though people do not always adhere to this, marriage is when you are supposed to be able to have sex, not before, and in part was marriages original purpose, that a man and woman say "I will only have sex with you.", basically. Gays have sex anyway, and if you know your gay, you've probably already had sex, so why marry? Like I said, its another way of forcing themselves to be accepted by society, by destroying really the only thing that differs them from a regular couple, the ability to get married.

Off-topic
My history teacher once said that Americans have short attention spans, that if you annoy them long enough, you get what you want. Like in Vietnam, we were winning, we had lost 58,000 troops and the body count on them was 1.3 million, they just dragged it out long enough that we finally got bored and left. This is what the gays are doing, annoy everyone long enough and they will give you what you want so you will shut up and stop bugging them. Speaking of which, I could probably annoy my parents into giving me some cash.

Good points.

 

[shagdrum]

I would like to see you back this one up. [that most of society is fighting against gay marriage]

Every time the issue of amendments allowing for or forbidding gay marriage has been put up for a vote, society has come down on the side of not allowing gay marriage.

There is no evidence here only what Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott ideas of what might happen.

There is evidence, but you are missing the point.

The burden of proof is not on them; It is on advocates of gay marriage.

Your question assumes the opposite. It doesn't work like that.

The only way to prove what would happen is if gay marriage was allowed for an amount of time then study society afterwards.

Then you don't allow gay marriage!
You have just spelled out one of the reasons for the precautionary principles.

If there is a viable possibility of a negative consequence it has to be assumed as likely unless and until proven otherwise.

In order to avoid imposing those potential costs (negatives) on society, the burden of proof logically falls on those advocating change (in this case, gay marriage).

You don't conduct "social experiments".

Besides, if you read the article at the beginning of this thread, you would realize that the negative effects of allowing gay marriage have already been demonstrated:

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”

But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal. ​

Then you would have facts not religious ideals.

You can't base a policy like this on religious or societal ideals? Why?

Or David Blankenhorn thinking the children will suffer...there is nothing to prove what would happen because it hasn't happened yet.

Prime example of an argument from ignorance. You are claiming that because it can't be proven true that it must be false. The fact is that if a premise can't be proven true, then it can't be assumed to be true or false, under a neutral burden of proof.

However, due to the precautionary principle, the burden of proof falls on those advocating change. So regardless of weather the premise of children suffering due to gay marriage can be proven true, the fact that it can't be proven false means that those advocating gay marriage need to rationally address this issue. Not downplay and disregard it, as you are attempting to do.

Besides, it isn't as if the this issue is unfounded and hasn't been proven, as you claim. Again, if you had done your homework and actually read the article at the beginning of this thread, you would know that.

We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage. ​

If you go back to the title of the thread the burden of proof is on you to prove that Liberals Know It's Bad...good luck with that one.

Is this a joke?
Citing the title of the article somehow changes the burden of proof? can you say red herring?

Did you see how I phrased the title of the thread? With a question mark and a exclamation mark at the end? On the surface, it is a very bold statement, which is why I phrased it like that.

I am really wondering if you even look at the rest of this thread, because if you did, you would realize that is was simply a reprint of the title of the original article that started this thread. It wasn't my place to prove or disprove that claim, it was the authors. He proceeded to do so in his article. That article set up the rest of the discussion here on gay marriage.

The discussion in this thread now has nothing to do with weather or not liberals think gay marriage is bad; it is about gay marriage. Don't try to distract from the debate, please.

I dont know how to tell you this but sex has little to do with marriage.
Sex is a very small part of a working marriage.

Anybody who has had a marriage fail and end in divorce due to infidelity would probably disagree with that statement, I imagine.

In general, I would agree with your statement to degree. Sex is ultimately the icing on the cake in a good relationship and not what that relationship is built on. However, IMO, we have seen a rise in the number of divorces in this country in large part because people put too much emphasis on sex and get married due to those superficial reasons, and not due to substantive reasons. Again, IMO.

However, none of that dispels the fact that the traditional purpose of marriage is about much more then just the relationship between the two people (love) and exclusivity in sexual activity: namely marriage is about procreation and the raising of children. To repeat a quote from Bill Bennet I posted in post # 10 of this thread:

Based as it is on the principle of complementarity, marriage is also about a great deal more than love. That "great deal" encompasses, above all, procreation. The timeless function of marriage is childbearing and child-rearing, and the best arrangement ever developed to that end is the marital union between one man and one woman.​

The op-ed article you cite is very biased in its presentation. All it says is the following:

Opponents of same-sex marriage often deplore this expansion of the meaning of marriage because they view it as threatening to traditional unions. As they use this day as a rallying point for a proposed amendment to the state Constitution to ban such marriages, it's time to ask them directly: How does marriage of one type threaten others? Why do many heterosexuals feel that the beauty of their own marriage vows is in no way changed by today's weddings, while others feel theirs have somehow been diminished?​

This fallaciously attempts to shift the burden of proof to those opposed to gay marriage, while acting as if these concerns are unfounded. It asks leading and misleading questions of the opposing point of view that serve as a red herring and ultimately sets up a strawman mischaracterization.

It you have followed this thread, you have seen that there are some very strong foundations for opposition to gay marriage, but the author of the article can't be expected to actually be familiar with and reasonable counter the substance of any opposing point of view, right?

The article also makes a false analogy between gay marriage and interracial marriage which has already been discussed in this thread and shown to be a false analogy that serves as a red herring.

Also...

Here let me help you
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...15/ai_54246288
Its ten years old and nothing there to back up the claim keep looking

He provided all he had to. There doesn't need to be anything more in the article to back that claim up. It is on you to disprove it. You are simply trying to raise the burden of proof.

Off topic:
If you are going to make posts arguing certian positions in this thread, please have the courtesy to familiarize yourself with what has been discussed before (especially in regards to the opposing point of view) and take that into account before you post. Please don't make us retread old ground unnecessarily. Thanks.

 

[ford nut]

Every time the issue of amendments allowing for or forbidding gay marriage has been put up for a vote, society has come down on the side of not allowing gay marriage.

Link please


There is evidence, but you are missing the point.

The burden of proof is not on them; It is on advocates of gay marriage.

Your question assumes the opposite. It doesn't work like that.
Sure it does if you are going to make any point you should try to prove it with facts



Then you don't allow gay marriage!
You have just spelled out one of the reasons for the precautionary principles.
Kind of a catch 22 isnt it shag ?

If there is a viable possibility of a negative consequence it has to be assumed as likely unless and until proven otherwise.

In order to avoid imposing those potential costs (negatives) on society, the burden of proof logically falls on those advocating change (in this case, gay marriage).

You don't conduct "social experiments".
One is being done in CAL right now my friend

Besides, if you read the article at the beginning of this thread, you would realize that the negative effects of allowing gay marriage have already been demonstrated:
I did shag

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”

But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal. ​

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



You can't base a policy like this on religious or societal ideals? Why?

religion... no which one would be used ?

Prime example of an argument from ignorance. You are claiming that because it can't be proven true that it must be false. The fact is that if a premise can't be proven true, then it can't be assumed to be true or false, under a neutral burden of proof.
Putting words in my mouth shag. you should read your own link I never claimed that a premise is true I just claimed it has not been proven

However, due to the precautionary principle, the burden of proof falls on those advocating change. So regardless of weather the premise of children suffering due to gay marriage can be proven true, the fact that it can't be proven false means that those advocating gay marriage need to rationally address this issue. Not downplay and disregard it, as you are attempting to do.
Agin I will have to tell you it can not be proven one way or the other untill it happens
Besides, it isn't as if the this issue is unfounded and hasn't been proven, as you claim. Again, if you had done your homework and actually read the article at the beginning of this thread, you would know that.
Again that article proves nothing

We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage. ​

Its a streach to blame gays for that seeing how they cant have kids again blaming same-sex marriage for marriage becoming outdated in Norway



Is this a joke?
Citing the title of the article somehow changes the burden of proof? can you say red herring?
Red herring ....straw man come on shag you need to get some new stuff

Did you see how I phrased the title of the thread? With a question mark and a exclamation mark at the end? On the surface, it is a very bold statement, which is why I phrased it like that.

I am really wondering if you even look at the rest of this thread, because if you did, you would realize that is was simply a reprint of the title of the original article that started this thread. It wasn't my place to prove or disprove that claim, it was the authors. He proceeded to do so in his article. That article set up the rest of the discussion here on gay marriage.

The discussion in this thread now has nothing to do with weather or not liberals think gay marriage is bad; it is about gay marriage. Don't try to distract from the debate, please.
But thats what I am here for



Anybody who has had a marriage fail and end in divorce due to infidelity would probably disagree with that statement, I imagine.

In general, I would agree with your statement to degree.

This is my lucky day are you giving me some ground shag ?


Sex is ultimately the icing on the cake in a good relationship and not what that relationship is built on. However, IMO, we have seen a rise in the number of divorces in this country in large part because people put too much emphasis on sex and get married due to those superficial reasons, and not due to substantive reasons. Again, IMO.

However, none of that dispels the fact that the traditional purpose of marriage is about much more then just the relationship between the two people (love) and exclusivity in sexual activity: namely marriage is about procreation and the raising of children. To repeat a quote from Bill Bennet I posted in post # 10 of this thread:

Based as it is on the principle of complementarity, marriage is also about a great deal more than love. That "great deal" encompasses, above all, procreation. The timeless function of marriage is childbearing and child-rearing, and the best arrangement ever developed to that end is the marital union between one man and one woman.​

The op-ed article you cite is very biased in its presentation. All it says is the following:

Opponents of same-sex marriage often deplore this expansion of the meaning of marriage because they view it as threatening to traditional unions. As they use this day as a rallying point for a proposed amendment to the state Constitution to ban such marriages, it's time to ask them directly: How does marriage of one type threaten others? Why do many heterosexuals feel that the beauty of their own marriage vows is in no way changed by today's weddings, while others feel theirs have somehow been diminished?​

This fallaciously attempts to shift the burden of proof to those opposed to gay marriage, while acting as if these concerns are unfounded. It asks leading and misleading questions of the opposing point of view that serve as a red herring and ultimately sets up a strawman mischaracterization.

Red herring ....straw man here we go again

It you have followed this thread, you have seen that there are some very strong foundations for opposition to gay marriage, but the author of the article can't be expected to actually be familiar with and reasonable counter the substance of any opposing point of view, right?

The article also makes a false analogy between gay marriage and interracial marriage which has already been discussed in this thread and shown to be a false analogy that serves as a red herring.
Red red herring....OMG
Also...


He provided all he had to. There doesn't need to be anything more in the article to back that claim up. It is on you to disprove it. You are simply trying to raise the burden of proof.
Its ten years old and proves nothing its up to halo001 to prove his statements not yours or mine

Off topic:
If you are going to make posts arguing certian positions in this thread, please have the courtesy to familiarize yourself with what has been discussed before (especially in regards to the opposing point of view) and take that into account before you post. Please don't make us retread old ground unnecessarily. Thanks.

Shag my boy I know every inch of this thread thank you.
IMHO it would help ALOT if you could shorten up your replies you try to beat somebody into submission with your spaming of threads, and come up with some new material. thanks

 

[shagdrum]

Link please [for proof that society has voted consistently voted against gay marriage when allowed to do so]

Did you not watch the 2004 and 2006 elections? Every initiative across the country up for a vote dealing with gay marriage came down against gay marriage.

The only way gay marriage has become allowable by law in the U.S. is through judicial activism.

Most of the country is against gay marriage.

You can find some info on same-sex marriage state legislation here.

Sure it does if you are going to make any point you should try to prove it with facts

You can't ignore where the burden of proof is (though you seem to want to).

because of the placement of the burden of proof, the claims of opponents to gay marriage don't need to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they only need to be reasonably viable and possible. The burden of proof in regards to gay marriage (as with all change at the national level) is not neutral and is against that change to avoid reckless change.

According to the placement of the burden of proof you are assuming (neutral), a man would not be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. he would not be assumed to be anything by the legal system, so the jury, being human, would assume he was guilty. Effectively, the burden of proof gets shifted against the defendant.

Kind of a catch 22 isn't it shag?

Not really. Every Constitutional amendment had to meet that burden of proof as well as every conviction in criminal court.

It is necessary to avoid irreversible damage caused by reckless change. That is the way the constitution was set up. Show me where you have had a net benefit in this country due to change that circumvented the constitutionally mandated precautionary principle.

The high costs of health care, high gas prices, high poverty and illegitimacy rates in the black community and a large number of other national problems can be attributed to programs that circumvented the precautionary principle and caused reckless change.

Any and every change at a governmental level has the potential for both positive and negative consequences; both foreseeable and unforeseeable. You logically should only enact change when there is a net benefit (after a cost/benefit analysis). Due to the fact that all consequences cannot be foreseen, you should exercise caution when enacting change to avoid emotional and irrational decisions. That is why it is only logical to place the burden of proof on those proposing change, as the precautionary principle dictates. That is why the Framers set the constitution up the way they did.

Go back to that example of not being innocent until proven guilty. If you don't make the burden of proof on the prosecution, it effectively gets shifted in favor of the prosecution and against the defendant due to human nature.

The same is true when it comes to societal change on the governmental level (local, state or federal). If the burden of proof is not set against change, it would effectively be in favor of change (again, due to human nature) and you would end up with reckless change that would have many negative and irreversible consequences.

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

Stanly Kurtz is involved with a conservative think tank...so that makes whatever he has to say irrelevant. That is some blatant ad homenim reasoning. You should know better then that.

If you are going to be consistent and ruling any argument created by Kurtz because of his ties, then you would logically have to invalidate your LA times op-ed article due to extreme liberal bias there. Unless you have a dishonest double standard...

He doesn't "just link it to gay marriage" as you put it. There is a very logical linkage there that I will get into in a minute...

religion... no which one would be used ?

Whichever you want. It is your opinion and your ideals.

Putting words in my mouth shag. You should read your own link I never claimed that a premise is true I just claimed it has not been proven

I am not putting words in your mouth. You used the word "proven" as a means to counter the given claim. It is rather clear you were implying that the claim needs to be proven either false or true. Considering that you are trying to discredit that claim, it is only logical to conclude that you are claiming that the premise must be proven true for it to be valid.

Again I will have to tell you it cannot be proven one way or the other until it happens

Your argument is still assuming a neutral burden of proof. You haven't provided any justification for that. You can't just place the burden of proof where you like. There is a logical place to put it and illogical places to put it.

Again that article proves nothing

Justify that. The only reasoning you have given for that claim is ad homenim; fallacious and thus invalid.

Its a streach to blame gays for that seeing how they cant have kids. Again blaming same-sex marriage for marriage becoming outdated in Norway

Now I will get to that logical connection between gay marriage and the devaluing of marriage....

You can rather easily statistically connect gay marriage (specifically in Norway) with higher divorce rates and higher illegitimacy rates, as the article in post # 1 does.

That article, in quoting David Blankenhorn, shows the logical connection between marriage and the devaluing of marriage:

Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.​

Basically, redefining gay marriage has been statistically shown to effectively separate the idea of marriage from parenthood. Consider the Bill Bennet quote:

Based as it is on the principle of complementarity, marriage is also about a great deal more than love. That "great deal" encompasses, above all, procreation. The timeless function of marriage is childbearing and child-rearing, and the best arrangement ever developed to that end is the marital union between one man and one woman​

redefining marriage effectively takes away the primary purpose of marriage; an institution for the procreation and raising of children. With that gone, marriage is devalued a great deal. Marriage effectively only has an abstract benefit to anyone (psychological and/or philosophical). It slowly loses meaning. You see this in the increase in illegitimacy and divorce after redefining marriage to allow for gay marriage.

Here is another good article on this issue.

Red herring ....straw man come on shag you need to get some new stuff

Red herring ....straw man here we go again

Red red herring....OMG

I need to get some new stuff? How about this, stop making fallacious arguments! Try making a valid argument, instead.

I hope you are being facetious here. Because intentionally trying to downplay the fallacious nature of some of your arguments by mocking my pointing out the fallacies in your arguments, suggests a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. It is also a fallacious appeal to ridicule.

Its ten years old and proves nothing its up to halo001 to prove his statements not yours or mine

Just because you claim it "proves nothing" doesn't make it true. It very well does prove something. The fact that it is ten years old doesn't make it irrelevant. You are simply trying to raise the bar here, which suggests to me that you cannot disprove it but still don't wanna accept it.

Shag my boy I know every inch of this thread thank you.

You sure don't demonstrate that you have.

IMHO it would help ALOT if you could shorten up your replies you try to beat somebody into submission with your spaming of threads, and come up with some new material. thanks

Spamming?! What spamming?

Here is the wikipedia definition of forum spamming:

Spam is the posting of advertisements, abusive, or unneeded messages on Internet forums.​

Now, how I am doin that? Cite examples please.

I am not trying to "beat someone into submission", as you claim. I am being thorough. I can be a little "long winded" at times, sorry 'bout that. But I know no other way to make my thoughts, ideas and arguments as clear as I feel they should be.

 

[fossten]

Shag my boy I know every inch of this thread thank you.
IMHO it would help ALOT if you could shorten up your replies you try to beat somebody into submission with your spaming of threads, and come up with some new material. thanks

Those are desperate words.

Shag is simply producing well thought out replies to the haphazard, idle statements of others including you. The problem is that you (and others) throw out these generalized, flawed one-liner talking points that are supposed to pass for OMGWTFBBQPWN arguments, and Shag isn't having any of it.

As I've said and he's said, if you don't like getting your arguments critiqued, work on your ability to argue. I admit I could use a bit of work on my own arguments. Shag is literally doing us all a favor by keeping us accountable for the way we present our points.

 

[ford nut]

Did you not watch the 2004 and 2006 elections? Every initiative across the country up for a vote dealing with gay marriage came down against gay marriage.

The only way gay marriage has become allowable by law in the U.S. is through judicial activism.

Most of the country is against gay marriage.

You can find some info on same-sex marriage state legislation here.
Nice links I just wanted you to post it.


You can't ignore where the burden of proof is (though you seem to want to).

because of the placement of the burden of proof, the claims of opponents to gay marriage don't need to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they only need to be reasonably viable and possible. The burden of proof in regards to gay marriage (as with all change at the national level) is not neutral and is against that change to avoid reckless change.

According to the placement of the burden of proof you are assuming (neutral), a man would not be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. he would not be assumed to be anything by the legal system, so the jury, being human, would assume he was guilty. Effectively, the burden of proof gets shifted against the defendant.


Not really. Every Constitutional amendment had to meet that burden of proof as well as every conviction in criminal court.

There is no burden of proof Shag we are on LVC I am not a defendant We are expressing views on Gay marriage

It is necessary to avoid irreversible damage caused by reckless change. That is the way the constitution was set up. Show me where you have had a net benefit in this country due to change that circumvented the constitutionally mandated precautionary principle.

The high costs of health care, high gas prices, high poverty and illegitimacy rates in the black community and a large number of other national problems can be attributed to programs that circumvented the precautionary principle and caused reckless change.
Links please
Any and every change at a governmental level has the potential for both positive and negative consequences; both foreseeable and unforeseeable.
ah something we can agree on I see you do get what I am trying to point out

You logically should only enact change when there is a net benefit (after a cost/benefit analysis). Due to the fact that all consequences cannot be foreseen, you should exercise caution when enacting change to avoid emotional and irrational decisions. That is why it is only logical to place the burden of proof on those proposing change, as the precautionary principle dictates. That is why the Framers set the constitution up the way they did.
How will you do a cost/benefit analysis on Gay marriage ?

Go back to that example of not being innocent until proven guilty. If you don't make the burden of proof on the prosecution, it effectively gets shifted in favor of the prosecution and against the defendant due to human nature.

The same is true when it comes to societal change on the governmental level (local, state or federal). If the burden of proof is not set against change, it would effectively be in favor of change (again, due to human nature) and you would end up with reckless change that would have many negative and irreversible consequences.
The only burden of proof I would think is when you make a statement back it up with link again we are on LVC sharing opinions on gay marriage, dont try to make this harder then it needs to be.

Stanly Kurtz is involved with a conservative think tank...so that makes whatever he has to say irrelevant. That is some blatant ad homenim reasoning. You should know better then that.
Ah I was waiting for the ad homenim :bowrofl: lets get this one right...to me what ever Stanly Kurtz has to say means nothing you can spam it post it 100 times .

If you are going to be consistent and ruling any argument created by Kurtz because of his ties, then you would logically have to invalidate your LA times op-ed article due to extreme liberal bias there. Unless you have a dishonest double standard...
The only reason the LA times article was posted was for halo001 I would hope he would read it and think just a little bit... if you go back to the article it clearly states Opinion
He doesn't "just link it to gay marriage" as you put it. There is a very logical linkage there that I will get into in a minute...



Whichever you want. It is your opinion and your ideals.



I am not putting words in your mouth. You used the word "proven" as a means to counter the given claim. It is rather clear you were implying that the claim needs to be proven either false or true. Considering that you are trying to discredit that claim, it is only logical to conclude that you are claiming that the premise must be proven true for it to be valid.



Your argument is still assuming a neutral burden of proof. You haven't provided any justification for that. You can't just place the burden of proof where you like. There is a logical place to put it and illogical places to put it.



Justify that. The only reasoning you have given for that claim is ad homenim; fallacious and thus invalid.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/

But Kurtz's smoking gun is really just smoke and mirrors. Reports of the death of marriage in Scandinavia are greatly exaggerated; giving gay couples the right to wed did not lead to massive matrimonial flight by heterosexuals.

Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples. In Scandinavia, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996) pioneered a separate-and-not-quite-equal status for same-sex couples called "registered partnership." (When they register, same-sex couples receive most of the financial and legal rights of marriage, other than the right to marry in a state church and the right to adopt children.) Since 2001, the Netherlands and Belgium have opened marriage to same-sex couples.
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.

Kurtz is a joke



Now I will get to that logical connection between gay marriage and the devaluing of marriage....

You can rather easily statistically connect gay marriage (specifically in Norway) with higher divorce rates and higher illegitimacy rates, as the article in post # 1 does.

That article, in quoting David Blankenhorn, shows the logical connection between marriage and the devaluing of marriage:

Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.​

Basically, redefining gay marriage has been statistically shown to effectively separate the idea of marriage from parenthood. Consider the Bill Bennet quote:

Based as it is on the principle of complementarity, marriage is also about a great deal more than love. That "great deal" encompasses, above all, procreation. The timeless function of marriage is childbearing and child-rearing, and the best arrangement ever developed to that end is the marital union between one man and one woman​

redefining marriage effectively takes away the primary purpose of marriage; an institution for the procreation and raising of children. With that gone, marriage is devalued a great deal. Marriage effectively only has an abstract benefit to anyone (psychological and/or philosophical). It slowly loses meaning. You see this in the increase in illegitimacy and divorce after redefining marriage to allow for gay marriage.

Here is another good article on this issue.
I see this as an Opinion just like the LA Times article no facts just Opinion.



I need to get some new stuff? How about this, stop making fallacious arguments! Try making a valid argument, instead.

I like that that is new and shows just a little bit of frustration on your part

I hope you are being facetious here. Because intentionally trying to downplay the fallacious nature of some of your arguments by mocking my pointing out the fallacies in your arguments, suggests a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. It is also a fallacious appeal to ridicule.
Now this is a cheap shot your better then this Shag just remember WWJD


Just because you claim it "proves nothing" doesn't make it true. It very well does prove something. The fact that it is ten years old doesn't make it irrelevant. You are simply trying to raise the bar here, which suggests to me that you cannot disprove it but still don't wanna accept it.
Again this is not your ball to run with its halo001 he made the statement he didn't even provide the link...I did, and its old and there is no facts just one man's Opinion.
If halo001 is going to post here let him do his own bidding. or he can just go away like so many drive by posters have.


You sure don't demonstrate that you have.


Spamming?! What spamming?

Here is the wikipedia definition of forum spamming:

Spam is the posting of advertisements, abusive, or unneeded messages on Internet forums.​

Now, how I am doin that? Cite examples please.
Kurtz You spam it and assume it as fact then claim Its not read
I am not trying to "beat someone into submission", as you claim. I am being thorough. I can be a little "long winded" at times, sorry 'bout that. But I know no other way to make my thoughts, ideas and arguments as clear as I feel they should be.

I enjoy reading your thoughts and ideas, it gives me food for thought and I thank you for it

 

[fossten]

Kurtz is a joke

Slate is a joke

 

[ford nut]

Those are desperate words.

Shag is simply producing well thought out replies to the haphazard, idle statements of others including you. The problem is that you (and others) throw out these generalized, flawed one-liner talking points that are supposed to pass for OMGWTFBBQPWN arguments, and Shag isn't having any of it.

As I've said and he's said, if you don't like getting your arguments critiqued, work on your ability to argue. I admit I could use a bit of work on my own arguments. Shag is literally doing us all a favor by keeping us accountable for the way we present our points.

No they are words of frustration... its easy to just blow him off because his posts are long winded and take a long time to reach a point IMHO.

Slate is a joke

christianity is a joke

 

[fossten]

No they are words of frustration... its easy to just blow him off because his posts are long winded and take a long time to reach a point IMHO.

Most of his posts are busy countering the bullcrap spewed by you and hrmwrm. I have yet to see any of your posts in this thread actually reach a point, let alone prove one.

You should be thankful for his posts. You might learn something if you actually read them with an open mind. Your posts, on the other hand, are too short winded, and light on facts and logic.

Oh, and Christianity may be a joke to you. It's your prerogative to think so. I will leave you with this to consider - whether you believe it or not, this will happen one day:

Revelation 20:11-15

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Philippians 2: 9-11

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[ford nut]

Most of his posts are busy countering the bullcrap spewed by you and hrmwrm. I have yet to see any of your posts in this thread actually reach a point, let alone prove one.

You should be thankful for his posts. You might learn something if you actually read them with an open mind. Your posts, on the other hand, are too short winded, and light on facts and logic.

Oh, and Christianity may be a joke to you. It's your prerogative to think so. I will leave you with this to consider - whether you believe it or not, this will happen one day:

Revelation 20:11-15

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Philippians 2: 9-11

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

If you would read you would see that I did thank Shag for his posts they are food for thought.

You see I have a open mind were you on the other hand have a closed mind, like most good christains I know.
There are points made but guess what your closed mind can not see them.
And yes fossten you can say your prayers tonight as you go to bed and be happy knowing that I will forever burn in hell.

You are doing what you do best.....taking a thread and sending it to a place far from were it started.

 

[fossten]

If you would read you would see that I did thank Shag for his posts they are food for thought.

You see I have a open mind were you on the other hand have a closed mind, like most good christains I know.
There are points made but guess what your closed mind can not see them.
And yes fossten you can say your prayers tonight as you go to bed and be happy knowing that I will forever burn in hell.

You are doing what you do best.....taking a thread and sending it to a place far from were it started.

Pot, meet kettle. You started the thread derailment with "Christianity is a joke." Off topic much?

And by the way, I have no desire to see you burning in hell. That would be a total tragedy. If I truly wanted you in hell I wouldn't warn you about it. But we're all destined for hell regardless of whether we want each other there or not.

 

[shagdrum]

There is no burden of proof Shag we are on LVC I am not a defendant. We are expressing views on Gay marriage

I assume you are trying to imply that my argument is a false analogy. However that is not the case in regards to my argument to counter your claim that the burden of proof dictated by the precautionary principle is a "catch 22".

My argument assumes that you were claiming that that the burden of proof I justified through the precautionary principle in regards to gay marriage was basically impossible to meet.

The analogy of a criminal court is valid because the area where the two are being compared is similar. Namely, in regards to the burden of proof both are required to meet, and how human nature can effect that burden of proof, necessitating a much higher burden of proof in the opposite direction. That is the key area where both parts of the analogy need to be similar for the analogy to be valid, and they are. Any other similarities or lack thereof are irrelevant to the validity of the analogy.

And how can you claim that there is "no burden of proof"?! If there is no burden of proof then there is no argument or debate. A burden of proof is inherent and implied in any debatable disagreement.

The question then comes down to where the burden of proof should lay. Both sides want the burden of proof in their favor, but there is a logical place for the burden of proof and illogical places for that burden.

ah something we can agree on [That any change at a governmental level has the potential for both positive and negative consequences; both foreseeable and unforeseeable.]

Then how can you not logically put the burden of proof against change in order to avoid unnecessary reckless change that causes irreversible and severe damage to society?

How will you do a cost/benefit analysis on Gay marriage?

That is part of my point; you can't do a full cost/benefit analysis on a proposed change at this level (maybe I didn't make that clear, sorry). That is why you approach that change with caution and logically set the burden of proof against that change.

You can look at some of the potential costs and benefits, but not all. That is why places where that proposed change has been tried are very relevant to the discussion.

The only burden of proof I would think is when you make a statement back it up with link. Again, we are on LVC sharing opinions on gay marriage, dont try to make this harder then it needs to be.

I am not trying to make anything harder. I am trying to keep it as rational and reasonable as possible; keeping out emotional thinking and irrational fallacious arguments.

You can't demand a link for every statement a person makes that you don't agree with. No one is that fastidious (and this is coming from one of the most fastidious people on this forum).

Besides, what if they got their info from a book, or other non-internet source? They cannot meet your demand for a link, and thus cannot meet the artificially high burden of proof you impose on opposing points of view.

If you wanna challenge a claim it is one thing, but demanding a link is something else.

In demanding a link for every statement or claim you disagree with, you are the one making this harder then it needs to be by disingenuously and illogically raising the burden of proof to an absurd level.

Ah I was waiting for the ad homenim...

So...you intentionally chose to use an ad homenim argument?

lets get this one right...to me what ever Stanly Kurtz has to say means nothing you can spam it post it 100 times

A: There is no spamming being done by me. You have yet to show any examples that meet the definition of forum spamming.

B: You still haven't shown a logical reason for your irrational disregard of Kurtz. If you are going to hold that position, even in the face of the fact that it is a fallacious and invalid reason to disregard Kurtz, then it is obvious that you cannot be reasoned with and expected to hold a rational discussion.

Kurtz is a joke

So, you will disregard Kurtz for ad homenim reasons, but you won't disregard Slate?! Slate has been shown to be very biased in there reporting; cherry picking information and what not. This article you cite is a prime example. It is very apparent you have an unjustifiable double standard here.

The claims in the article you cite are fully explainable by Kurtz from the article I cited.

Here is what Kurtz said:

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.​

The Slate article doesn't account for the unique circumstances in these countries. It effectively takes the statistics out of context and, by implication, places them in the context of American society and societal norms.

Kurtz makes an effort to place the statistics in the context of the country from where the statistics are from. Now who is showing a lack of intellectual integrity; Kurtz or Slate?

The Slate article is also vague on where it is getting its statistics from, while Kurtz spells out in the article where his info comes from. By your own standard of demanding a source be cited for a claim (usually in the form of a link), Slate is discredited and Kurtz is not.

It is also rather apparent that Slate is cherry picking it's info. Slate is intentionally taking stats out of context, and only citing cherry picked stats to paint a picture that fits their agenda. Not empirically drawing a conclusion based on an full and accurate representation of the facts in context. Kurtz, on the other hand appears to be doing just that.

I see this as an Opinion just like the LA Times article no facts just Opinion.

If both are substance-less opinions, as you imply, then why even cite the LA Times op-ed? It has no substance. This further strengthens the impression of an unjustified double standard on your part.

The view I spelled out is very logically connected and based on facts (in context and accurately represented).

It also nullifies and dispels your claim that there is no logical connection between gay marriage and marriage becoming outdated.

Now this is a cheap shot your better then this Shag...

It wasn't a cheap shot. It was an appeal to your intellectual integrity (and by extension, your character) to stop making fallacious arguments.

However, unless you are being facetious (and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one), your continued seemingly intentional and habitual use of fallacious arguments and reasoning is suggesting that you have no intellectual integrity to appeal to, at least in the area of gay marriage.

FYI; that is not a cheap shot. That is a reasonable conclusion drawn from the actions you have taken in this thread.

Fossten is correct in characterizing my pointing out of fallacious arguments as an attempt to keep people honest and make for a better and more reasonable debate. I don't think that most people make fallacious arguments intentionally; it is simply an easy trap to fall into, myself included. When you realize what arguments are fallacious and what to watch out for, you can make better arguments.

When people continue making the same argument after it has been shown to be fallacious and invalid, I start to think they are making it intentionally and have a total disregard for the fallacious nature of their arguments. This suggests to me that they lack intellectual integrity.

Your intentional and habitual disregard of Kurtz due solely to ad homenim reasoning, and your continued attempts to shift or obfuscate the burden of proof fall under that view, at the moment.

Again this is not your ball to run with its halo001 he made the statement he didn't even provide the link...I did, and its old and there is no facts just one man's Opinion.

So I can't inject myself into your debate with halo001, but you can inject yourself into the debate between myself and hrmwrm; as you did in post number 160 (which was the same post you responded to halo001 in)? Another unjustified double standard, it seems.

FYI; halo001's quote from that article did provide a fact. he responded to your question of "Do you have any proof ? What percent of marriages are held in a church?" with the quote of, ""All of this in a nation where 74 percent of marriages still occur in church," pondered syndicated New York Times ethics and religion columnist Mike McManus."

He provided all he needed to. Your response was to ignore the fact he provided and refuse to acknowledge it. you simply chose to fallaciously raise the burden of proof to an absurd level by saying, "Its ten years old and nothing there to back up the claim keep looking." The fact that it is ten years old doesn't discredit it, and you are trying to shift the burden of proof to an absurd level.

Yet you cite a Slate article that cites statistics for over ten years ago (at points) as well as not citing the study(s) from where they got there information. But when Kurtz does meet the burden of proof you made up to counter halo001's fact, you disregard him in favor of an article that can't meet your burden of proof.

It is rather obvious that you just disingenuously and intentionally chose to fallaciously raise the burden of proof on halo001 so you could disregard it because you didn't want to accept it. You did the same thing with Kurtz but don't hold any article you cite to the same standard.

I enjoy reading your thoughts and ideas, it gives me food for thought and I thank you for it

It's what I am here for...

 

[fossten]

^^^^^^*owned*

 

[halo001]

christianity is a joke

It may be a joke to you, but at least it gives me hope of seeing my dead brother again, and its better than just thinking that when you die, POOF, all it for not, you just lived to die. Whoa, that's something to look forward to. I know that there is something past this, and that someone had to have created all this, it didn't just happen by accident.

I you can answer this question, I will give you a cookie. What makes gays just as worthy for marriage as a regular couple? What makes them the same when they say they are different and proud of it. I'm straight, I like girls, at 17 I have had the realization,.......that I like women. These things don't make sense to me, about why gays are so proud to be gay, why they want to marry when they know that it is reserved for normal couple?

All of what you have provided in favor of gay marriage only goes to disprove any reseasons to not have it, I have seen no real evidence to allow it. We are at current at a stalemate, all the rest is but opinion. In America, majority rules, and though 54% of California may support gay marriage, 48 other states don't, the fact remains the same, GAYS ONLY WANT TO GET MARRIED SO THEY SEEM MORE NORMAL, and the little secret here is, they are not normal, when it goes against instinct, it is not normal. Humans have the instinct to improve upon their surrondings, eat, sleep, and reproduce. What doesn't match here? They go against one of our base instincts, and fall outside the norm. Gay marriage is not the same, and though I may not have provided much concrete evidence, this atleast gives you something to think about.

 

[halo001]

I failed to clarify what exactly I wanted in my last post, to answer these questions, questions that everyone has, that is your burden of proof, to prove to me, that something I and my wife can have, can be just as easily gained by him and his husband, that he and him are the same as me and her.