And I have answered that this is not what it has been in the past, and asked why you think this is what it should be now.
Upvote
0
"Gathering Storm" Ad in Iowa
- Thread starter Maren
- Start date
- Status
And I have answered that this is not what it has been in the past, and asked why you think this is what it should be now.
David Brider
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2004
- 6,513
- 700
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Greens
It's what it has been for most married couples in the recent past. Certainly in my lifetime (and, since you're only a couple of years older than me, in your lifetime) in European and American culture, that would, I think, be most people's expectations of marriage.
Outside of the recent past and European and American culture, it may have been many other things (for example, arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, marriages where the man is under no obligation to marry only one wife), but the little potted summary I offered certainly seems to be what marriage is right here and right now (not what I think it should be - what it is). It's certainly what I hope that my (scarily imminent) marriage will be.
David.
Upvote
0
The original mother and father even of an adopted child are still their family. They are often referred to as the "biological" parents. I am well aware of the benefits of adoption.
Gay marriage activists are not arguing for adoption reform. They are not arguing for family law reform. They are demanding a right to take a position within family legal considerations that they simply cannot fulfill. It's the same point I have made over and over here for months now. No one else can present a cogent argument as to what the purpose of marriage is if not to deal with the very obvious and unique situation that occurs when men and women get together to physically form an actual family -- the foundational organizational unit for all of society and all of humanity.
Gay marriage activists are not arguing for adoption reform. They are not arguing for family law reform. They are demanding a right to take a position within family legal considerations that they simply cannot fulfill. It's the same point I have made over and over here for months now. No one else can present a cogent argument as to what the purpose of marriage is if not to deal with the very obvious and unique situation that occurs when men and women get together to physically form an actual family -- the foundational organizational unit for all of society and all of humanity.
Upvote
0
No it's not what it is now, much less in the recent past. If this were true we would already have gay marriage.
It is not what you are saying, and it never has been what you are saying. So, where did it really come from, I have to ask myself?
I am convinced it had to do with men and women and the babies that so often result from their union.
Upvote
0
And, full circle, this is what happens as people continue to pound and pouind and pound on the instituttion of marriage. It slowly breaks down, and there are consequences -- measurable conseuquences -- for our children and our societies.
The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
The only thing any of the gay activists have done with these facts so far is attempt to distort them or make personal attacks against the author and anyone who agrees.
The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
The only thing any of the gay activists have done with these facts so far is attempt to distort them or make personal attacks against the author and anyone who agrees.
Upvote
0
Jane_the_Bane
Gaia's godchild
- Feb 11, 2004
- 19,359
- 3,426
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Oh, you do a pretty good job at that yourself... see below.
How does accomodating same-sex couples under a law that deals primarily with inheritance rights and the legal links between married partners "undermine the intent of marriage"?
How is the framework "troubled"? Seems pretty straightforward to me: a couple marries, and they are henceforth treated as close relations, (mostly) sharing a family name, having the right to visit each other in the hospital, to inherit etc.pp.
Your post about Scandinavia seems to suggest that you seek to blame homosexuality for high divorce rates - which, frankly, is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. And I've heard LOTS of absurd stuff since I first joined this forum, right down to the secret mexican polygamist invasion of the United States.
Culturally speaking, I'd say that we're in a transitory period (well, that's what *every* period is, basically, but you get my drift). The zenith of middle class morality has passed a long time ago, and pretty much crumbles just like others before it. (Note that the rise of middle class morality lies no further than two hundred years in the past, reached its climax in the Victorian age and then gradually started to dwindle throughout the 20th century.) In itself, that's neither a good nor a bad thing (although I won't shed too many tears to see that musty, stuffy, choking bourgeois spirit evaporate at last). I'd just like to see to it that whatever rises to replace it will be worth all the trouble. If the Randroid Objectivists managed to gain ascendancy, for example, I'd be more than a little worried.
Upvote
0
IzzyPop
I wear my sunglasses at night...
No.
The question you asked was about marriage law, not divorce. While they may be connected, divorce is not required of marriage so arguments dealing with divorce are separate from marriage.
Convenience.
For the protections and rights granted for the purposes of inheritance and property rights in the eventual passing of one of the signatories.
I don't know. I'm sure that it has happened.
Upvote
0
Except, again, Scandinavia in 2004 (when the report was written) did not have same-sex marriage anywhere. Same-sex marriage is only becoming legal this year with two countries finally legalizing it. Further, marriage, as you and your sources point out, "bottomed out" actually prior to civil unions for gays becoming legal in those countries. Not to mention, marriage over the last decade seems to have "bottomed out" in the United States as well in the last decade. Sorry, the only thing your link does is try to use correlation fallacies (cherry picking data to make an argument) and blame it on a form of marriage that didn't exist in those countries.
Upvote
0
Except, again, the paper said gay unions, calling it a precursor. We're only now seeing our first gay unions, and the argument is we should progress from there to gay marriage and that it will have no effect on marriage, when in fact we see that the deterioration of marriage is indeed associated with gay unions and marriage, even if we do not assume that gay marriage causes the deterioration of marriage.
It is an indication that the deterioration of marriage and the motivation for gay unions are related in some underlying way.
Please stop doing this "you're cherry picking" and so on. I am not, nor are others. You simply are not addressing the data, and are making distinctions without any relevancy to the issue and then accusing people of untoward things. I've presented you my concerns over and again. I am cherry picking nothing, nor have you demonstrated anything of the sort. In fact I posted something that BigBadWlf accused of being a lie no fewer than three times despite me posting the original study proving him wrong.
People supporting your viewpoint certainly are not demonstrating to me personally any particular devotion to truth or to careful inspection of data, given that instance. He has done that also with at least one Bible verse I can remember which he stated was about rape that had nothing to do with rape.
You should long since have stopped concentrating on people's supposed personal shortcomings and started addressing the root concern of people who fear gay marriages and the deterioration we have already seen in families, and also the damage we have already seen that is done even apart from anything applicable to simple economics, such as the need for role models and the effect of lacking a father or a mother has been shown to have on children.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Nice one sentence retorts without any backing, even in the sense of explaining why you believe these things. I can't even imagine where you get these ideas from.
This sort of terse verbal repartee is not convincing to me. Sorry.
Upvote
0
tcampen
Veteran
Traditionally, marriage was a property transaction, with the bride being the property exchanged between families for valuable consideration. What we consider "traditional" marriage today is a relatively recent change in marriage law and what marriage is when compared to the institution of marriage over the last 5,000 years.
So, if you clearly don't mind redefining marriage from how it has been traditionally defined as for thousands of years, change can't really be the issue.
And what is so wrong about change in and of itself?
Upvote
0
Asked and answered a hundred times. Kids. Pregnant women. Birth. Life. Death.
The future of humanity,
or a rare sexual practice?
Which is more important? Which needs legal regulation and which is merely recreational?
No, I did not read your whole post because the highlighted portion of the above forewarned me that it would probably just feel like another personal slight. I hope you'll forgive me. If you have things to say to me please feel free, but I am not going to keep digging through all the little jibes folks around here seem to think are so keen.
Upvote
0
Again, nice assertion without support. The Bible does not support your statement, and even if it is nothing else, it is most assuredly a little piece of history containing a lot of stuff about marriage.
Sure, there was financial consideration all across cultures and through history, but why? Why was it specifically to do with men and women? Think about it.
Change is fine with me. I have no problem with marriage reform. In fact I think it is desperately needed. I just don't think we need marriage destruction.
Upvote
0
David Brider
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2004
- 6,513
- 700
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Greens
So if you don't think that marriage is, essentially, two people making a commitment to spending their lives together because they love each other/have fallen in love with each...then what on earth do you think it is?
We already do in many nations.
David.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
tcampen
Veteran
Dude, do 2 seconds of research on this. Here's a really quick read:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050506-000006.html
The bible is not the only "history" book out there. And look at the marriage of Mary and Joseph...arranged. Sorry, but modern marriage is not nearly as traditional as you might like to think.
There was also financial consideration all across cultures and through history for cattle. Why was is specifically to do wth men and cows? Think about it.
If you can point to me how MY marriage, or YOUR marriage will be destroyed by gay marriage, then lets finally hear it. You're making a bold claim here, now back it up.
Upvote
0
B
BigBadWlf
Guest
Um no you engage in special pleading which is a logical fallacy. Meaning that your reasons dont stand up to scrutiny.
On the one hand you wish to use the inability to procreate to justify discrimination against a minority. But at the same time you dont want the justification of the inability to procreate to apply to anybody but the minority you want to discriminate against meaning that your only reason for discriminating is the fact that gays and lesbians are gays and lesbians. This makes your reasons no different from justifying discrimination based on skin color or religion
this same tactic is and has been used by racists for generations. A racist will compare a person of color to a criminal, substance abuser or as a sexual deviant in order to try to justify their own petty personal prejudices and hatreds.
Again and again we see this attempt to de-humanize a minority from those trying to justify discrimination. By claiming a minority is diseased or degenerate, or obsessed with sex, or any other number of hate based claims then it reduces that minority (and everyone else) and supposedly makes discrimination somehow justified.
Such horrible claims were made against blacks and Jews and the handicapped and even though the target minority has changed little else has
Upvote
0
But the argument is that gay marriage destroys marriage, the marriage laws were not changed in any of those countries. Rather, separate laws were set up (as you've stated should happen) to cover the legal issues of same sex couples. Sure, the paper claims 'marriage like' but they never show how these civil unions are actually responsible for the Scandinavian marriage problems. All they show is a correlation of certain events and then state that proves correlation -- which is a logical fallacy. Worse, the paper even admits that marriage had bottomed out around the same time that civil unions became legal -- if these civil unions were causing the breakdown of marriage, and not other societal factors, there would be far more correlation between the breakdown, and not the bottoming out, of marriage in these countries.
Sorry, this isn't true. In fact, gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands and Belgium for about as long a period as civil unions had been legal in Sweden when this paper was written. The problem is that the the same correlation doesn't exist between the marriage numbers and same-sex marriage in those countries.
So you and the paper try to claim but neither of you every show how it causes it, you merely use the number to claim a correlation.
I never said that you are, I said the study is. It is quite apparent to most of us that read the paper that he went in with the conclusion, that same-sex unions destroy marriage, and then picked the data to support his conclusion. In fact, it is interesting he talks about Scandinavia in general (and Finland had civil unions for less than ten years when he wrote this) but then goes to one individual country to make specific points rather than showing how these same effects happened in every couple equally -- yet another sign that he was cherry picking the data to make his point. A good example of this is how he explains a leveling off of birth rate in the 90s in Denmark (older couples having kids) while Sweden's and Norway's birth rates were still declining somewhat -- he tries claiming that both the leveling off and the declining birth rates provide his "proof" against gay marriage, despite the fact in declined in a country that didn't have civil unions until the second half of the 90s while the country with civil unions the number leveled off. He can't have it both ways or simply wave away differences in the numbers.
And again, he claims the declining birth rates and unmarried first births being at record levels is "proof", but again we see the same type of records being set in the US where gay relationships are prohibited from being recognized by federal law and by constitutional amendment in roughly 30 states. If these were truly caused by legalizing same-sex relationships, the "records" would only be seen in those countries that have legally recognized gay relationships. Instead, since we see it in most countries regardless of the legal rights of same-sex couples, it shows that these rates are unrelated to same-sex marriage but rather caused by other factors.
Again, I've not accused you of cherry picking anything or of anything "untoward". In other threads I've accused you of using logical fallacies but that is not a personal attack, rather showing the flaws in your arguments.
The problem is that the data does not show any correlation to the data he is attempting to present. First, he is stating this proves how bad "same-sex marriage" is (and that is largely the use you are putting it toward) when, in fact, these countries did not have same-sex marriage and there were differences in Scandinavian civil union laws and marriage -- particularly when it came to children. Since you continue to claim the main purpose for marriage is children/procreation, these laws actually were more along the lines of what you say should happen (give gays protections for their partners for medical/inheritance issues) while keeping marriage what you say it should be about.
As for the data, the data shows that marriage was already "destroyed" in Scandinavia. The fact is, he gives us no reason to think that the current numbers (especially since they are echoed in many Western Countries that do not recognize gay relationships) have anything to do with gay marriage/civil unions. In fact, the paper would be much more convincing if he would have shown that in Western nations that had not allowed civil unions these problems were also not happening -- but of course he couldn't because we could dig up similar trends as to marriage in other Western countries (like the US, where the birth rate for single mothers is also the worst ever) that does not recognize same-sex relationships. And these are the points that you continue to ignore.
Another personal attack? Again, where have I focused on your (or others) personal shortcomings. Instead, I have addressed the claims made and the logic used without attacking the person (and if I made a mistake where I attacked someone in a post, let me know so I can apologize).
The fact remains that the damage we have seen are clearly and demonstrably related to heterosexuals and how they treat marriage -- and has nothing to do with same-sex couples becoming legally recognized. These problems you want to address are at least 40 years in the making. I'm not sure how trying to scapegoat gays for these problems (as the Scandinavian paper attempts to do) helps solve these problems.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B
BigBadWlf
Guest
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argument ad logicam. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
