Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<<Does he not tie two things together as "causal" that don't necessarily go together?>>>> <<<Where have they not gone together?>>> <<Massachusetts.>> <We don't know how the change in law has affected Massachusetts yet. There's a very good chance that marriage rates will show a sharper decline after the judges overruled the existing law then it was before.> But we weren't talking about marriage rates. We were talking about changing laws to make straight marriage and straight cohabitation nearly indistinguishable, as was done in Sweden, but has NOT been done in Massachusetts. So in answer to your question, "where have they not gone together?" the answer is: Massachusetts. And that is obviously a much more likely path for the rest of the nation than Sweden. <<It is likewise flawed. It is you who won't admit the flaws, even in the Swedish case.>> <No, it's not, and no, I'm not.> And the Argument Clinic begins. LOL!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So in answer to your question, "where have they not gone together?" the answer is: Massachusetts.> Again, we don't know that they won't. And that assumption doesn't apply to the Netherlands and Norway, where marriage rates declined more after gay marriage was recognized. <And the Argument Clinic begins.> It began with your post.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<So in answer to your question, "where have they not gone together?" the answer is: Massachusetts.>> <Again, we don't know that they won't.> What an argument. (!) We don't know they will, either. We know they haven't so far. And I know of no movement in Mass. to virtually equalize straight marriage and staight cohabitation. <And that assumption doesn't apply to the Netherlands and Norway, where marriage rates declined more after gay marriage was recognized.> First of all, I believe they also have policies for straight cohabitation that are dissimilar to those we have here. If most of the legal benefits of marriage come with registering your cohabitation, obviously a lot of straight people are thinking "why get married?" That would have much more to do with their thinking than the fact that the gay couple next door did get married. But even if that were not so, your logic is a classic example of "Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc" (after this, therefore because of this.) Marriage rates in Norway went down after they hosted the winter Olympics in '94. But was that the REASON? Kurtz strains to show a causal relationship, but he can't. <<And the Argument Clinic begins.>> <It began with your post.> No it didn't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I love how you pretend that Mr Kurtz doesn't address the problems of causality, when he does, and destroys your arguments to boot. "What would a best-case scenario for isolating the causal effect of same-sex marriage look like? Well, the clearest case would be a Western country in which marital decline actually accelerated after the introduction of same-sex marriage, or its near equivalent. The accelerated rate of decline would be sharper than in comparably situated countries without gay marriage during the same period. Analysis of social and legal changes would show that alternative causes were unlikely to account for the decline. And a qualitative cultural analysis would point to specific reasons why the idea of same-sex marriage might lead to broader marital decline. The Dutch case is important because it meets all of these criteria." <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODcyNzgxNGNkMzEwMDZhNmQzYzhjZDU4MDcwOWRmODA=" target="_blank">http://article.nationalreview. com/?q=ODcyNzgxNGNkMzEwMDZhNmQzYzhjZDU4MDcwOWRmODA=</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I love how you pretend that Mr Kurtz doesn't address the problems of causality, when he does, and destroys your arguments to boot.> Oh, hardly. <"What would a best-case scenario for isolating the causal effect of same-sex marriage look like? Well, the clearest case would be a Western country in which marital decline actually accelerated after the introduction of same-sex marriage, or its near equivalent.> This is classic logical fallacy. Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc. <The accelerated rate of decline would be sharper than in comparably situated countries without gay marriage during the same period. Analysis of social and legal changes would show that alternative causes were unlikely to account for the decline.> Here, he fails to mention the far more likely factor of changing laws regarding straight cohabitation. If the rate declined faster in a country that changed THOSE laws than a country that did not (the UK, let's say), that would make far more sense, though even that doesn't necessarily follow. <And a qualitative cultural analysis would point to specific reasons why the idea of same-sex marriage might lead to broader marital decline.> And here he substitutes his biases for any semblance of unbiased analysis. HE knows why he thinks same-sex marriage might lead to broader marital decline, but he confuses that with objectivity. <The Dutch case is important because it meets all of these criteria."> Nope. His case is flawed all the way through. But keep believing it if you like.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I will stop believing it when you present some actual arguments and facts, rather than hand-waving and dismissals.
Originally Posted By mele People who decide that marriage is a waste of time just because icky gay people are doing it are a waste of space anyway. Why should I care how people like that feel? They certainly abandon their values easily. They are hateful AND it's highly doubtful that they even valued the institute of marriage at all. Why is it again that heteros get the right to twist marriage into a million ugly ways without question but homosexuals just don't even get the right to be married at all? Oh yeah, that's right, cos we treat them equally. Right. I don't value and respect marriage because only straight people get do it and they will have babies and because the government encourages it to make a stronger America. NO ONE thinks about that when they are pondering marriage. They think of the romance of committing to the one person they love and dreaming of the family they will create (which can be just two adults, adopted children, children born of surrogate mothers-all types of families). Gays who get married are absolutely NO different. Society SHOULD change if it hates gay people enough to abandon marriage simply because gay people are now allowed to participate. Society should change if it delights in denying someone the stability of marriage simply because they are gay. It still comes down to inequality and the belief that there is something wrong with homosexuals. Only a bigot would want to hold on to such "values".
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I will stop believing it when you present some actual arguments and facts, rather than hand-waving and dismissals.> Nice try. I'm refuting Kurtz' "argument," that's all. I don't have to present facts that gay marriage wouldn't hurt traditional marriage, when there's no legitimate research to show that it would.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Nice try. I'm refuting Kurtz' "argument," that's all. I don't have to present facts that gay marriage wouldn't hurt traditional marriage, when there's no legitimate research to show that it would.>> Sorry Dabob, but Kurtz did the research, he backs it up and his findings are hard to doubt. YOu notice you don't really have any hard numbers like Kurtz does. You only have a desperate attempt to keep saying gay marriage is harmless to society.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm refuting Kurtz' "argument," that's all.> No, you're handwaving.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Mele--IMHO Beau is right on the morality thing i.e. everyone has the right to have the feelings be them religious or whatever without being labeled a hateful person. I think Beau is a very loving person. He was the only one to wish my son Brad a happy birthday and he is ALWAYS throwing personal happy remarks to people. Read his posts. He says "Good morning" and all those people skill loving things that I do all the time here at the insurance agency. Sure he says things that "sound" hateful but they're USUALLY directed against Muslims or people who attack him> I know that one. So Mele and others, let's not LABEL people if they have different morals than us especially when 78% or whatever of the people agree with him. P.S. Mele--You are very loving too FTR
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy So all the people who vote against gay marriage are bigots RoadTrip? That makes some states 78% bigots if you take your nutty logic.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Good question Beau? RT--I am staunchly pro civil unions and staunchly anti gay marriage. Are we all bigots?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By mele joe, I would say that they dozens of people who have commented that they would never post in WE and have complained about the hateful things Beau says here would disagree with you about what a great fella he is. He thinks everyone who doesn't think exactly as he does beneath contempt. Apparently that's not hateful to you but to the rest of us, it is.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF ^^^ Thank you for saying in one single post everything I've tried to say in heaven-knows-how-many posts.
