Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I don't think you have your facts straight.>> <But you don't know, do you?> Do you? You made the original assertion that marriage and co-habitation was made "equal" in the Netherlands in the 80's. Can you show me this is so? <<I think marriage should remain distinct, but that gay citizens ought to be accorded equal access to it.>> <Then you should work toward changing the law via the democratic process, rather than on overturning the law via the courts.> I am working in that direction, actually, as I have no court case pending and am doing my small part to elect pro-equality candidates, etc. But the courts have often goosed the law along in areas of civil rights, as you well know. <<And where did those stats come from?>> <I've posted Stanley Kurtz articles where he clearly states where they come from, as well as how he has come to the conclusions he has.> I don't ever remember Kurtz specifically addressing the question of "Places that have recognized gay marriages and have experienced a drop in church going have seen a greater decrease in marriage and a greater increase in out-of-wedlock births than those places that have experienced a drop in church going but not recognized gay marriage." Show me where, please, if you're going to present it as fact. <<I think the out of wedlock birth rate is considerably lower in Spain, which has gay marriage, than in the US which doesn't. Which would pretty much ruin your attempt to link the two.>> <Of course it doesn't, because we're talking about changes in rates, not overall rates.> So you're saying there has been a change in rates? In Spain? You're certainly inferring you know of this. <<But you haven't shown a shred of causation.>> <Sure I have. I'm beginning to think you haven't bothered reading any of the articles I've linked to over the years.> I've read them. And they don't show a shred of causation. They claim to, and you buy it (quel surprise) but all they show is correlation. You and I are the only ones on this thread right now, but on the earlier threads I was not the only person to point this out. You (and Beau, quel surprise again) were the only ones who bought that they showed causation; they didn't. <<What was the "no" supposed to mean if you weren't disagreeing with my assertion that it was a change in the law?>> <I was disagreeing with your assertion that I ever claimed it wasn't a change in the law as a whole. What I said was that it wasn't a change in the definition of marriage.> Except it was. Virginia defined (valid) marriage as being between two persons of the same race only. <<You love to say things like that, and hope that counts as a rebuttal, but it doesn't because you can't back it up.>> <Just as you can't back up your original statement.> Sure I can. <You want to prove me wrong, show me what the Virgina law was that defined marriage before Loving, and what it was afterward.> <a href="http://www.marriageequality.org/meusa/facts.shtml?historical-look" target="_blank">http://www.marriageequality.or g/meusa/facts.shtml?historical-look</a> "Virginia's anti-miscegenation law read: "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process." In 1967, the United States Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws across the country and declared that the "freedom to marry" belongs to all Americans. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). The Court described marriage as one of our "vital personal rights" which is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people". Click here for the Loving v. Virginia decision. " Even if I hadn't found this, the proof is in the practice. Interracial couples who dared apply for marriage licenses before Loving were denied. It was illegal to grant them. After Loving, it was illegal NOT to grant them. That is a change in the law, and because the definition of a valid marriage was changed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You made the original assertion that marriage and co-habitation was made "equal" in the Netherlands in the 80's. Can you show me this is so?> It's right here: <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/126qodro.asp" target="_blank">http://www.weeklystandard.com/ Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/126qodro.asp</a> <Show me where, please, if you're going to present it as fact.> He alludes to it in multiple places. Here's one such place: "In the past seven years, however, the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has been moving up at the strikingly high rate of two-percentage points per year. It needs to be emphasized that it is comparatively rare (although not unheard of) for a Western country's out-of-wedlock birthrate to sustain a 2-percentage-point-per-year increase for seven consecutive years. Every year the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate continues to rise at a two-percent rate is a surprise. In the '90s, only two European countries — Finland and Ireland — even approached such a rise (without achieving it)." <So you're saying there has been a change in rates?> In places that have recognized gay marriage, yes. It's probably too early to detect a trend in Spain, but it's quite likely it will occur. <And they don't show a shred of causation. They claim to, and you buy it (quel surprise) but all they show is correlation.> I disagree. <Virginia's anti-miscegenation law read: "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process."> That's their anti-miscegenation law. What did their marriage law say, before Loving? And what did it say afterwards?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You made the original assertion that marriage and co-habitation was made "equal" in the Netherlands in the 80's. Can you show me this is so?>> <It's right here: <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/" target="_blank">http://www.weeklystandard.com/</a> Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/126qodro.asp> That's one little sentence where he asserts it is so, but gives no details. I'd like to see the actual law. <<Show me where, please, if you're going to present it as fact.>> <He alludes to it in multiple places. Here's one such place: "In the past seven years, however, the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has been moving up at the strikingly high rate of two-percentage points per year. It needs to be emphasized that it is comparatively rare (although not unheard of) for a Western country's out-of-wedlock birthrate to sustain a 2-percentage-point-per-year increase for seven consecutive years. Every year the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate continues to rise at a two-percent rate is a surprise. In the '90s, only two European countries — Finland and Ireland — even approached such a rise (without achieving it)."> That simply doesn't say what you claimed before. Which was that "Places that have recognized gay marriages and have experienced a drop in church going have seen a greater decrease in marriage and a greater increase in out-of-wedlock births than those places that have experienced a drop in church going but not recognized gay marriage." First, note "places" plural - one country does not a trend make. Second, he admits subtly that other countries HAVE sustained as great a rise in out-of-wedlock births (by saying it was relatively rare but not unheard of), though not in the 90's. (Which leads to the question, if it happened in other countries before the 90's - and thus before gay marriage - what caused it THEN?) But more to the point, he doesn't address church going at all there, let alone compare countries where church-going dropped and did institute gay marriage to countries where church-going dropped that did not. So he simply does not back up your claim at all. <<So you're saying there has been a change in rates?>> <In places that have recognized gay marriage, yes. > And in countries that have not. <It's probably too early to detect a trend in Spain, but it's quite likely it will occur.> I'm sure you believe that. <<And they don't show a shred of causation. They claim to, and you buy it (quel surprise) but all they show is correlation.>> <I disagree.> Stop the presses. But you haven't convinced anyone here. <<Virginia's anti-miscegenation law read: "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process.">> <That's their anti-miscegenation law. What did their marriage law say, before Loving? And what did it say afterwards?> Did you not notice: it said "all MARRIAGES between..." That WAS their marriage law. That was struck down, which meant that marriages between whites and non-whites were no longer void. The law didn't have to say explicitly "it's now legal;" the striking of the "no whites can marry non-whites" part meant it was now legal.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'd like to see the actual law.> Me too. Why don't you look for it and post a link? <Which leads to the question, if it happened in other countries before the 90's - and thus before gay marriage - what caused it THEN?> If you'd bother reading the articles, you'd see that he points to other things that have caused decreases in marriage and increases in out-of-wedlock births. <But you haven't convinced anyone here.> Well, I haven't convinced you. But it's hard to convince anyone who won't honestly examine the evidence. <Did you not notice: it said "all MARRIAGES between..." That WAS their marriage law.> No, it wasn't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I'd like to see the actual law.>> <Me too. Why don't you look for it and post a link?> Why don't you? It's key to your point, not mine. <<Which leads to the question, if it happened in other countries before the 90's - and thus before gay marriage - what caused it THEN?>> <If you'd bother reading the articles, you'd see that he points to other things that have caused decreases in marriage and increases in out-of-wedlock births.> Yet still insists that gay marriage is the primary cause in the Netherlands - which tells you that logic is not his strong suit. (And I did read the articles - it was a rhetorical question). <<But you haven't convinced anyone here.>> <Well, I haven't convinced you. But it's hard to convince anyone who won't honestly examine the evidence.> I have done so. I took quite a bit of time out of my day to read them just to see if there was anything in there I had missed. And I just don't find him convincing at all. He confuses correlation with causation, which is a classic logical fallacy. In earlier threads on the subject, other people pointed this out as well. <<Did you not notice: it said "all MARRIAGES between..." That WAS their marriage law.>> <No, it wasn't. > So a law that outlines what a legal marriage is and what it isn't is not a marriage law? That's a leap of logic even for you. Surely you're not trying to hide behind the semantics that it was called an "anti-miscegenation law" and therefore is not a marriage law?? If you are, know this: anti-miscegenation includes marriage. The fact that it says "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process." should have been your first clue. But just look in the dictionary: miscegenation is defined as "marriage or cohabitation between a man and woman of different races." The Virginia law covered both bases. First, they would not issue licenses to native VA interracial couples, thus denying them the ability to legally marry. Next, it said that cohabitation was illegal for an interracial couple. Next, because other states did marry interracial couples, VA declared that such marriages were void in VA, and no divorce was necessary for them to view it that way. So they had all their bases covered, and of course it very much had to do with marriage. Oh, and thanks for the tacit admission that Kurtz didn't back up your unsubstantiated claim that ""Places that have recognized gay marriages and have experienced a drop in church going have seen a greater decrease in marriage and a greater increase in out-of-wedlock births than those places that have experienced a drop in church going but not recognized gay marriage."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why don't you? It's key to your point, not mine.> I disagree that it is key to my point <Yet still insists that gay marriage is the primary cause in the Netherlands - which tells you that logic is not his strong suit.> He's never insisted it was the primary cause. Like I said, it doesn't appear that you've bothered reading the articles. Doing so would probably, I imagine, make it harder to dismiss them out of hand. <So a law that outlines what a legal marriage is and what it isn't is not a marriage law?> That's a mischaracterization of what it was. <Oh, and thanks for the tacit admission that Kurtz didn't back up your unsubstantiated claim> I've made no such admission. I'm simply unwilling to go through all of his articles to find some phrase that will meet your criteria, when you won't accept the conclusion anyway.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Why don't you? It's key to your point, not mine.>> <I disagree that it is key to my point> Whatever. It's your point, so if you want to make it with some backup, as opposed to just throwing it out there, it's up to you to find it. <<Yet still insists that gay marriage is the primary cause in the Netherlands - which tells you that logic is not his strong suit.>> <He's never insisted it was the primary cause. Like I said, it doesn't appear that you've bothered reading the articles. Doing so would probably, I imagine, make it harder to dismiss them out of hand.> You're simply wrong when you assume I didn't read the articles. Sorry. And his whole POINT in writing them is to argue against equalizing marriage in the US. To do so, he shows correlation (and claims to show causation) between the adoption of gay marriage, a decline in straight marriage, and a rise in out of wedlock births. He acknowledges there are other reasons those two things may have happened (which is known as CYA), yet argues that gay marriage is the thing we must avoid. If he didn't consider it primary, why even write it as an argument against gay marriage? Why not write is as an argument against blurring straight marriage and straight co-habitation? You're hiding in semantics again. <<So a law that outlines what a legal marriage is and what it isn't is not a marriage law?>> <That's a mischaracterization of what it was.> No it isn't. But here's a novel idea. Why don't you tell us what you think what "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process." referred to, if not marriage. <<Oh, and thanks for the tacit admission that Kurtz didn't back up your unsubstantiated claim>> <I've made no such admission. I'm simply unwilling to go through all of his articles to find some phrase that will meet your criteria, when you won't accept the conclusion anyway. > I certainly would if you could show me you were right. Once again, you claimed - pretty much out of the air - that "Places that have recognized gay marriages and have experienced a drop in church going have seen a greater decrease in marriage and a greater increase in out-of-wedlock births than those places that have experienced a drop in church going but not recognized gay marriage." And presented absolutely nothing to back that claim up. Go ahead, show me. You've already claimed he "alluded" to it in a place where church-going wasn't even mentioned, so you'll have to do better than that. It seems to me another one of those things that either you would LIKE to be so, or assume is so, but when pressed to back it up, you can't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's your point, so if you want to make it with some backup, as opposed to just throwing it out there, it's up to you to find it.> I did provide backup. I quoted where Kurtz said it. If you want to find an expert who's looked and says different, be my guest. <You're simply wrong when you assume I didn't read the articles.> I guess there's some other explanation for your continued misrepresentation of them. <He acknowledges there are other reasons those two things may have happened (which is known as CYA), yet argues that gay marriage is the thing we must avoid.> I'm pretty sure he'd like to avoid the other things as well. It's just that they are more difficult to, probably because they are already happening here. His argument is mostly that we should not make a bad situation worse, and that recognizing gay marriages does more harm than good. <Why don't you tell us what you think what "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process." referred to, if not marriage.> Of course the anti-miscegenation law referred to marriage. It just didn't define it. <And presented absolutely nothing to back that claim up.> Of course I did. The passage I quoted obviously implies that places that have that have recognized gay marriages and have experienced a drop in church going have seen a greater decrease in marriage and a greater increase in out-of-wedlock births than those places that have experienced a drop in church going but not recognized gay marriage. All of western Europe has seen a drop in church going, but not all of western Europe has seen as great an increase in out-of-wedlock births as those places which have recognized gay marriages.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It's your point, so if you want to make it with some backup, as opposed to just throwing it out there, it's up to you to find it.>> <I did provide backup. I quoted where Kurtz said it. If you want to find an expert who's looked and says different, be my guest.> Frankly, Kurtz hasn't proven reliable enough for me to just take his word for it, and blithely assume that "equalization" means what you're assuming it means. Did it happen all at once? It is complete equalization? He doesn't say. <<You're simply wrong when you assume I didn't read the articles.>> <I guess there's some other explanation for your continued misrepresentation of them.> I'm not misrepresenting them. I'm simply not falling for them. <<He acknowledges there are other reasons those two things may have happened (which is known as CYA), yet argues that gay marriage is the thing we must avoid.>> <I'm pretty sure he'd like to avoid the other things as well. It's just that they are more difficult to, probably because they are already happening here. > Nonsense. Marriage currently has over 1,000 rights and responsibilities that do not apply to people who simply cohabit. It would be perfectly doable to allow gay people into marriage, but keep the states of marriage and cohabitation distinct. In fact, it's what I favor. <His argument is mostly that we should not make a bad situation worse, and that recognizing gay marriages does more harm than good.> And he has nothing but correlation and his own bias to back that up. But some people with that same bias fall for it. <<Why don't you tell us what you think what "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process." referred to, if not marriage.>> <Of course the anti-miscegenation law referred to marriage. It just didn't define it.> Hiding in semantics again. It said that marriages between whites and non-whites were not valid. That IS defining what is a valid marriage and what is not, no matter how you try to spin it. <<And presented absolutely nothing to back that claim up.>> <Of course I did. The passage I quoted obviously implies that places that have that have recognized gay marriages and have experienced a drop in church going have seen a greater decrease in marriage and a greater increase in out-of-wedlock births than those places that have experienced a drop in church going but not recognized gay marriage. All of western Europe has seen a drop in church going, but not all of western Europe has seen as great an increase in out-of-wedlock births as those places which have recognized gay marriages.> Boy, that's desperate. It makes NO reference to church-going at all, but it Dougworld it "obviously implies it." LOL! Care to present the stats on declining marriage rates and out of wedlock births in various Euro countries - and you'd pretty much have to present all of them, and not just the ones that fit your thesis? And if you can't, you shouldn't make the claim.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Frankly, Kurtz hasn't proven reliable enough for me to just take his word for it, and blithely assume that "equalization" means what you're assuming it means. Did it happen all at once? It is complete equalization?> Like I said, you're welcome to look it up yourself, or provide your own expert. <I'm not misrepresenting them.> I disagree. <Marriage currently has over 1,000 rights and responsibilities that do not apply to people who simply cohabit. It would be perfectly doable to allow gay people into marriage, but keep the states of marriage and cohabitation distinct.> Maybe, but that has nothing to do with the quote of mine you were responding to. <And he has nothing but correlation and his own bias to back that up.> I disagree. And I think that if he was so wrong, you could point out specific faults in his arguments, instead of issuing blanket denials. <Hiding in semantics again.> Of course I'm not. <Care to present the stats on declining marriage rates and out of wedlock births in various Euro countries - and you'd pretty much have to present all of them, and not just the ones that fit your thesis?> I've presented Kurtz arguments. You've failed to refute them with any coherence or specificity. You're free not to believe them, but if you want to convince anyone that Kurtz is wrong, you're going to have to do better than repeat self-serving mantras.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Frankly, Kurtz hasn't proven reliable enough for me to just take his word for it, and blithely assume that "equalization" means what you're assuming it means. Did it happen all at once? It is complete equalization?>> <Like I said, you're welcome to look it up yourself, or provide your own expert.> And like I said, it's part of your argument, not mine. <<I'm not misrepresenting them. I'm simply not falling for them.>> <I disagree.> You're cute when you're predictible. <<Marriage currently has over 1,000 rights and responsibilities that do not apply to people who simply cohabit. It would be perfectly doable to allow gay people into marriage, but keep the states of marriage and cohabitation distinct.>> <Maybe, but that has nothing to do with the quote of mine you were responding to.> Sure it does. You were talking about the "other things" that were "already happening" here. One of the other things we were talking about most was the near-equalization of marriage and straight cohabitation in Euro countries. I was pointing out that that really isn't happening over here. <<And he has nothing but correlation and his own bias to back that up.>> <I disagree. And I think that if he was so wrong, you could point out specific faults in his arguments, instead of issuing blanket denials.> It's not necessary. He gives the stats for marriage rates and out of wedlock births, and the dates for gay marriage being adopted, and calls it causative. But that's no more convincing than, say, noting that teen births declined in the US in the 90's (which they did) at the same time the stock market went up. Therefore, a good stock market causes out of wedlock births to go down. It correlates, but it doesn't show causation. It's a classic logical fallacy. <<Hiding in semantics again.>> <Of course I'm not.> Of course you are. You're trying to say that the VA anti-miscegenation law didn't define what a valid marriage was. <<Care to present the stats on declining marriage rates and out of wedlock births in various Euro countries - and you'd pretty much have to present all of them, and not just the ones that fit your thesis?>> <I've presented Kurtz arguments. You've failed to refute them with any coherence or specificity.> That's not true. I've noted that HE hasn't made his case. And he didn't address church-going at all. <You're free not to believe them, but if you want to convince anyone that Kurtz is wrong, you're going to have to do better than repeat self-serving mantras.> And you'll have to do better than simply telling us once again that you've fallen for them. In earlier threads, you were the only one who did. Oh, and nice attempt to deflect from the fact that I called you out for making a blanket statement as though it were a fact that you couldn't back up. ("Places that have recognized gay marriages and have experienced a drop in church going have seen a greater decrease in marriage and a greater increase in out-of-wedlock births than those places that have experienced a drop in church going but not recognized gay marriage.")
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He gives the stats for marriage rates and out of wedlock births, and the dates for gay marriage being adopted, and calls it causative.> He does far more than that. But I understand why you won't go into specifics. <You're trying to say that the VA anti-miscegenation law didn't define what a valid marriage was.> I said that the VA anti-miscegenation law didn't define what a marriage was. I said that because it's true.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<He gives the stats for marriage rates and out of wedlock births, and the dates for gay marriage being adopted, and calls it causative.>> <He does far more than that. But I understand why you won't go into specifics.> He certainly does not. We've been through the specifics months ago, and they're simply not convincing. I understand you fell for a weak argument, but that doesn't mean anyone else needs to. <<You're trying to say that the VA anti-miscegenation law didn't define what a valid marriage was.>> <I said that the VA anti-miscegenation law didn't define what a marriage was. I said that because it's true.> No, you're wrong. It defines what a valid marriage is. The rest is semantics, but as so often before, that's all you're left with.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We've been through the specifics months ago, and they're simply not convincing.> Whenever you've tried to bring up specifics, you've been wrong. <No, you're wrong. It defines what a valid marriage is.> Of course it doesn't. It doesn't say how old one has to be to be married, whether one can marry a relative, or if two men or two women can get married, or if a person currently married can marry a second person. <The rest is semantics, but as so often before, that's all you're left with.> Now you're projecting.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<We've been through the specifics months ago, and they're simply not convincing.>> <Whenever you've tried to bring up specifics, you've been wrong.> Just the opposite. <<No, you're wrong. It defines what a valid marriage is.>> <Of course it doesn't. It doesn't say how old one has to be to be married, whether one can marry a relative, or if two men or two women can get married, or if a person currently married can marry a second person.> Nice try. Obviously, this is a larger subset; but the anti-miscegenation law is part of the marriage law (or was). <<The rest is semantics, but as so often before, that's all you're left with.>> <Now you're projecting.> Golly, you're even cuter when you're desperate than when you're predictible. Will you marry me?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Obviously, this is a larger subset; but the anti-miscegenation law is part of the marriage law (or was).> Or not. <Golly, you're even cuter when you're desperate than when you're predictible.> I'm not desperate, and I'm only predictible in that I keep correcting you when you get things wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Obviously, this is a larger subset; but the anti-miscegenation law is part of the marriage law (or was).>> <Or not.> Of course it was. You're starting to look silly in denying it. <<Golly, you're even cuter when you're desperate than when you're predictible.>> <I'm not desperate, and I'm only predictible in that I keep correcting you when you get things wrong. > Except it's you that's wrong. You can keep saying I am, but the evidence is otherwise. And the proof is in the ultimate reality; who could get married legally in VA changed after this decision.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Of course it was. You're starting to look silly in denying it.> Because you've repeated posted your opinion that it was? Because you tried to claim that it defined marriage when it clearly didn't? Why would that make me look silly? <Except it's you that's wrong. You can keep saying I am, but the evidence is otherwise.> Except it's not.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Of course it was. You're starting to look silly in denying it.>> <Because you've repeated posted your opinion that it was? Because you tried to claim that it defined marriage when it clearly didn't? Why would that make me look silly?> Because it does define marriage. Not in its totality, which I never claimed. But it does define marriage as only valid between people of the same race. <<Except it's you that's wrong. You can keep saying I am, but the evidence is otherwise.>> <Except it's not.> There you go, being cute in your cluelessness again. Dang, I could almost fall for you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Because it does define marriage. Not in its totality, which I never claimed.> If it doesn't define marriage in its totality, it doesn't define marriage. <There you go, being cute in your cluelessness again.> There's nothing clueless about me. Sorry.
