Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I don't like to throw the "l" word out casually, but here you're simply lying (or more charitably, misremembering). Because that's exactly what you said.> No, it wasn't. You've shown many times that you remember things how you want to remember them, and not as they actually happened. You should not be telling people they are lying.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The "study" in question is idiotic on the face of it, as Dabob points out.> What "study" are you referring to? <Given that fact, would you be in favor of fertility testing as a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license?> No, and if you go back a few posts from where you posted this, you'll see I already explained why.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Meanwhile, as SPP noted, the case in Massachusetts (certainly a better indication of how the rest of US society might go) shows none of Kurtz's predicted effects.> Maybe, maybe not. We'd have to look at all the data, and not just a couple picked out by a proponent, to be sure. <He chalks it up to gay marriage, of course, as a causative factor. Classic logical fallacy, but wait, it gets better.> Why is it a logical fallacy? Because you say so? And he doesn't "chalk it up" to gay marriage. He clearly states that gay marriage is only one factor contributing to the Netherland's out of wedlock birth rate. <And then he ignores the fact that out-of-wedlock births have increased steadily in the Netherlands since 1995, before EITHER the change in legal status for co-habiting straights OR gay marriage went into effect.> Again, no he doesn't. What he notes is that the rate was going up about 1% per year prior to gay marriage, and started going up 2% per year thereafter. You really don't appear to understand what you are reading. Or are you purposely distorting what he said?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I say that with complete conviction. If there really is a god, He will really be angry about this.> What arrogance. Do you really presume to know what God feels?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Well no, they didn't concluded that. That you claim so means you really didn't understand what you read." If someone said this to you, you'd be whining about personal attacks.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If someone said this to you, you'd be whining about personal attacks.> One, I don't whine. Two, I wouldn't have called the person a liar in the post before it. As I've stated before, I'm not the one that swings first, but I might jab back.
Originally Posted By X-san ***What arrogance. Do you really presume to know what God feels?*** Why not? They do. Actually don't really presume such a thing cause god doesn't exist. But if he did I'm certain, no doubt whatsoever, that he wouldn't care for people excusing racism as "god's will". You disagree with that?
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Unless a penis goes into a vagina, it's not marriage: <a href="http://www.examiner.com/a-1397986~Melanie_Scarborough__Gay_marriage_not_physically_possible.html" target="_blank">http://www.examiner.com/a-1397...ble.html</a> "So regarding marriage, why wouldn’t it be a reasonable solution simply to apply the same rules to all couples -- to say that unless a relationship can be consummated by a specific act, it cannot qualify as marriage?"
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So regarding marriage, why wouldn’t it be a reasonable solution simply to apply the same rules to all couples -- to say that unless a relationship can be consummated by a specific act, it cannot qualify as marriage?" Well, for starters, because courts are beginning to recognize that gay marriages (in this case, lesbians) CAN produce offspring) and that's what people like Scarborough are really getting at when saying things like this. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:8uE2fWWO7NwJ:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A108213.DOC+Charisma+R.+v.+Kristina+S.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?q...=1&gl=us</a>
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Unless a penis goes into a vagina, it's not marriage:<< Marriage as defined by what a church says, should not matter for our country, remember seperation of Church and state?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You disagree with that?> Yes. I don't pretend to know the will of God.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<He says his experts (and who's to say he didn't find experts friendly to his point of view?) are "stumped." Yet they conclude it must be the gay marriages.>> <Well no, they didn't concluded that. That you claim so means you really didn't understand what you read.> More semantics, Doug? Okay, his experts were stumped, then HE (Kurtz) concluded it must be gay marriages. <<I don't like to throw the "l" word out casually, but here you're simply lying (or more charitably, misremembering). Because that's exactly what you said.>> <No, it wasn't.> Oh yes. Yes, it was. <You've shown many times that you remember things how you want to remember them, and not as they actually happened.> You're projecting. That's your M.O., not mine. <You should not be telling people they are lying.> Misremembering at best. I know what you said, because it was so outrageous, it was impossible to forget. We don't disallow post-menopausal women from marrying because we can't tell by looking if they're post-menopausal? That's what you said. It was outrageous, and unforgettable. I wasn't the only one who took you to task for it, either. I'm not surprised you're trying to deny you ever said it, but you did. Live with it. <<Meanwhile, as SPP noted, the case in Massachusetts (certainly a better indication of how the rest of US society might go) shows none of Kurtz's predicted effects.>> <Maybe, maybe not. We'd have to look at all the data, and not just a couple picked out by a proponent, to be sure.> Okay. Please show me some data from MA that shows us how gay marriage has hurt anything there. We'll wait. <<He chalks it up to gay marriage, of course, as a causative factor. Classic logical fallacy, but wait, it gets better.>> <Why is it a logical fallacy? Because you say so? > No, because the idea that correlation equals causation is a logical fallacy. And just because he addresses it and says "I'm not doing that. Really." doesn't mean he isn't doing that. He is. <And he doesn't "chalk it up" to gay marriage. He clearly states that gay marriage is only one factor contributing to the Netherland's out of wedlock birth rate.> There's the rub. He can't show that it is, even in part. He offers his OPINION that it has contributed to some vague mindset in Holland that marriage isn't as important as it used to be. But that's it. That's all he's got. And that dog won't hunt. You're confusing your agreement with his opinion for proof. <<And then he ignores the fact that out-of-wedlock births have increased steadily in the Netherlands since 1995, before EITHER the change in legal status for co-habiting straights OR gay marriage went into effect.>> <Again, no he doesn't. What he notes is that the rate was going up about 1% per year prior to gay marriage, and started going up 2% per year thereafter. You really don't appear to understand what you are reading. Or are you purposely distorting what he said?> You could also say that it started going up faster after the change in legal status for non-married straights. Which would make more sense. Even THAT would be correlation rather than any proved causation, though. He simply can't prove causation here. Sorry, but he can't.
Originally Posted By alexbook Meanwhile... The latest Field Poll says that California voters are currently running 51%-43% *against* the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. <a href="http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2268.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.field.com/fieldpoll...2268.pdf</a> On a side note, I find it fascinating how the numbers vary depending on how the question is asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them?" 51% approve, 42% disappove "Do you approve or disapprove of the recent California State Supreme Court ruling declaring the state's ban on same-sex marriage as being unconstitutional, thus allowing same-sex couples to marry?" 48% approve, 46% disapprove “Do you favor or oppose changing the California State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus barring marriage between gay and lesbian couples?†54% no, 40% yes “There may be a vote on this issue in the November election. Would you favor or oppose having the state constitution prohibit same-sex marriage, by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?†51% no, 43% yes "Which best represents your views about what state laws should be regarding same-sex relationships?" 45% allow to marry, 32% allow civil unions, 19% no legal recognition
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"Which best represents your views about what state laws should be regarding same-sex relationships?" 45% allow to marry, 32% allow civil unions, 19% no legal recognition> Wow, that's the highest percentage I've seen outside of Massachusetts. We're moving!
Originally Posted By Elderp "Marriage as defined by what a church says, should not matter for our country, remember seperation of Church and state? " This is why the state needs to get out of the marriage game. The fact is that we are all bouncing off different views of what marriage is and I can't really argue with what someone "thinks" marriage is. To me that is really just your opinion. There are tons of other legal remedies to handle the intricacies of what happens when two people are living together. Not to mention the fact that there are several situations that are not at all sexual in nature that need legal remedies as well. I am more and more coming to the conclusion that we need a lot more seperation of church and state.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <This is why the state needs to get out of the marriage game. > What about the non-religious? How do they get married? Or the religious who can't for some reason get married in their church (divorced Catholics not granted an annulment, for instance). One has always been able to get married at the courthouse in the US if desired.
Originally Posted By Elderp "What about the non-religious? How do they get married? " If your not religious then why do you care? Have a party, print off a certificate on publisher,and away you go. If your Catholic you shouldn't be getting married again. Marriage in the civil arena has proven not to mean much. I blame society for that. The only meaning left in a marriage is what you give it, to me that is a religious contract, but not everyone shares my religious views. Besides, why should I have to compare my idea of marriage to anyone else's idea of marriage?
Originally Posted By ecdc I actually agree that marriage is ultimately just a religious ceremony. Call social "marriage" a civil union and then let whatever organizations want to have a "marriage" recognized by god, snakes, or Yoda. But don't let that marriage have any kind of social or government benefits. For example: If I want to enjoy the benefits of social or government relationship, call it a civil union. I get a piece of paper from the government that tells them my partner and I are together. If I die unexpectedly, she's the beneficiary. If she needs to make a medical decision on my behalf, she can do it. We can file taxes jointly, etc., etc. But if I'm also a member of a church, then let me go to the church and have the pomp and the ceremony and have it be on the church records. But it doesn't change a thing about my civil relationship. If I choose not to have a civil relationship but get married in a church, then in the eyes of the government I'm still single. I think it's kinda lame that it has to be this way, but it seems like the only really fair thing to do.
