If a man has the right to marry a man...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Mars

Sure. If we're going totally non-religious here, feel free to tar and feather me for my "outrageous" question. Many would claim it to be so. Though it is still a fair question and has gone completely unanswered to this point (which shows just how weak Cali's argument is).

But if we ARE allowing religion into the debate, then my question to you is "Do you know what my 3 examples all have in common with each other?" Then you would know why I picked them. And the answer isn't just an LDS one, but Christian, Jew, and Muslim.

Answer: In the Law of Moses, which God gave to his Prophet Moses on Mount Sinai, he declared that all 3 of those examples (along with adultery) would be punishable by death. Period.

Adultery is no longer illegal, and doesn't even factor into divorce proceedings nearly as much as it used to. And none of them are punishable by death in this country any more (though some are still in the Middle East). But bestiality and statutory rape (can anyone say "Karl Malone"?) are still illegal. Homosexuality is legal, but gay marriage is hotly debated.

So the question is, why have these laws changed? Why have some become more acceptable than others? And is there really a solid argument for any of them?

Are you asking why statutory rape and bestiality should be illegal but not homosexuality? First of all, it is ridiculous that you would make such a comparison. Homosexual sex is between two consenting adults (and you are now talking about sex versus marriage). Bestiality is between one adult and one animal, and it would constitute abuse of the animal, creates the possibility of all kinds of transfer of diseases that may not otherwise be possible, etc. Statutory rape is an act where one party cannot possibly give consent, because the law provides that the minor is incapable of consenting. To say that there are zero differences between the acts of statutory rape, bestiality and homosexual sex is silly, and I think you know it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Are you asking why statutory rape and bestiality should be illegal but not homosexuality? First of all, it is ridiculous that you would make such a comparison. Homosexual sex is between two consenting adults (and you are now talking about sex versus marriage). Bestiality is between one adult and one animal, and it would constitute abuse of the animal, creates the possibility of all kinds of transfer of diseases that may not otherwise be possible, etc. Statutory rape is an act where one party cannot possibly give consent, because the law provides that the minor is incapable of consenting. To say that there are zero differences between the acts of statutory rape, bestiality and homosexual sex is silly, and I think you know it.

But slavery was a GREAT comparison!

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Then let me rephrase- provide a GOOD secular argument. Were you of the impression that any secular argument would be helpful?

Why didn't you just throw out "Cows eat grass and have big poop." It IS secular, afterall.

Oh, so what you were REALLY saying when I made a secular argument is "I don't like your argument, so I'm going to tell you you haven't produced what I originally asked for (a secular argument)." And when I don't put up with your changing the meaning of words, you say it isn't a GOOD secular argument. Again, not very honest of you, Cali.

I'm not presenting a three-year researched, thoroughly exhaustive and logically airtight, fully data-driven treatise. (These don't exist in the real world when it comes to social sciences, BTW). And I think in the end, that is what you are going to require to satisfy your now-changing definition of what you are asking for. Because I suspect you have made up your mind already that no "GOOD" secular arguments exist for not allowing homosexual marriage, and thus, any argument I put forth isn't "GOOD".

What I HAVE presented is an argument that lays the basic logical and philosophical groundwork, as well as a few data points, that provide the framework for understanding why gay marriage might well be destructive and undesirable. Everyone can recite the reasons why we ought to have gay marriage, because the media harps on them incessantly. But the reaction of most people who I have given this argument to say something like "I've never thought of it that way, but it makes sense." They seem to think it is a good argument, so I don't buy your "provide a GOOD secular argument" comeback. (Almost all of them are college-educated, BTW - but obviously, not as educated as Cali).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

But slavery was a GREAT comparison!

What was wrong with it? I am not comparing slavery and marriage. I am comparing the use of the argument of tradition as a defense of slavery and as a defense of marriage. Seriously- you can't deal in analogies.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

Oh, so what you were REALLY saying when I made a secular argument is "I don't like your argument, so I'm going to tell you you haven't produced what I originally asked for (a secular argument)." And when I don't put up with your changing the meaning of words, you say it isn't a GOOD secular argument. Again, not very honest of you, Cali.

I'm not presenting a three-year researched, thoroughly exhaustive and logically airtight, fully data-driven treatise. (These don't exist in the real world when it comes to social sciences, BTW). And I think in the end, that is what you are going to require to satisfy your now-changing definition of what you are asking for. Because I suspect you have made up your mind already that no "GOOD" secular arguments exist for not allowing homosexual marriage, and thus, any argument I put forth isn't "GOOD".

What I HAVE presented is an argument that lays the basic logical and philosophical groundwork, as well as a few data points, that provide the framework for understanding why gay marriage might well be destructive and undesirable. Everyone can recite the reasons why we ought to have gay marriage, because the media harps on them incessantly. But the reaction of most people who I have given this argument to say something like "I've never thought of it that way, but it makes sense." They seem to think it is a good argument, so I don't buy your "provide a GOOD secular argument" comeback. (Almost all of them are college-educated, BTW - but obviously, not as educated as Cali).

lol! No, it isn't a bad argument because I say so. It is a bad argument for the very specific reasons I presented (which I note you haven't even attempted to address). This post of yours is the equivalent of saying "my argument about cows eating grass is only a bad argument because you said so." That isn't the case at all. It is a bad argument because it is logically deficient, assumes causation without any evidence that gay marriage is the causitive effect, etc. I would assume from your board name that you are a statistician. Can you honestly not see the very clear flaws of the "evidence" you presented?

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

lol! No, it isn't a bad argument because I say so. It is a bad argument for the very specific reasons I presented (which I note you haven't even attempted to address). This post of yours is the equivalent of saying "my argument about cows eating grass is only a bad argument because you said so." That isn't the case at all. It is a bad argument because it is logically deficient, assumes causation without any evidence that gay marriage is the causitive effect, etc. I would assume from your board name that you are a statistician. Can you honestly not see the very clear flaws of the "evidence" you presented?

I haven't attempted to address your "very specific reasons" yet because I'm still trying to get you to admit your earlier misstatements and errors, which when confronted about, you simply change the subject. Why would I want to do the work to dig up papers I researched several years ago when your modus operandi indicates you'll just conveniently change the subject?

The "half of all marriages end in divorce" false statistic, for example. It is demonstrably false. Yet you just change the subject. Oh, and here's a link for you on it.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm

But to address, at least in a limited way, your "very specific reasons" - the data don't have a link because I researched the information primarily the old fashioned way, at a university library. And I didn't keep real good track of my sources because it wasn't for a scholarly paper - I simply had engaged in conversation with an individual who liked what I had said and asked me to write it down for him. So I went to the library to get some sources to tie things together a bit more rigorously than I had been in conversation. I have since wished I had been more rigorous still. So I'd have to do much of the legwork again, and although that has some appeal to me, I don't realistically see me doing that other than making some attempt to see if I can find some of the sources on the internet.

You seem obsessed with numbers, and so I assume you overlooked Kiernan's discussion on the four stages of modern society. Norway, the United States, France, Spain, and others are all transitioning through these stages. All of these stages after stage 1 impact families and more specifically, out of wedlock birth rates. So the United States doesn't act as the control sample that you seem to think it does. According to Kiernan's model, our out-of-wedlock rate is skyrocketing because it is going through similar social transitions to those that raised Norway's 1990 rate to 39% in the first place, before homosexual marriage became legal there.

So the logic and the data you are employing to make your oh-so-smart-and-clever critique of my writing is in itself an atrocious misuse of logic and data, Cali. I have seen it fairly regularly in my career, people who take whatever data they can find and draw conclusions, thinking that the fact that they employ data makes their findings more valid and more impressive.

It is interesting to note that the United States' rate in 2005 was 38%, about the same that Norway's was when homosexual marriage was legalized. Do you have any evidence to show that we aren't just following the same path as Norway, and that legalizing homosexual marriage won't lead to the same rise in out-of-wedlock birth rates in the United States as we saw in Norway? If there is even a, say, 25% chance that a significant portion of such an increase is tied to the legalization of homosexual marriage, would you be willing to say that we at least ought to do more research and move more slowly, given the clear negative effects on children? Or do you say, "Damn the children, the homosexuals have rights"?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

I haven't attempted to address your "very specific reasons" yet because I'm still trying to get you to admit your earlier misstatements and errors, which when confronted about, you simply change the subject. Why would I want to do the work to dig up papers I researched several years ago when your modus operandi indicates you'll just conveniently change the subject?

The "half of all marriages end in divorce" false statistic, for example. It is demonstrably false. Yet you just change the subject. Oh, and here's a link for you on it.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm

But to address, at least in a limited way, your "very specific reasons" - the data don't have a link because I researched the information primarily the old fashioned way, at a university library. And I didn't keep real good track of my sources because it wasn't for a scholarly paper - I simply had engaged in conversation with an individual who liked what I had said and asked me to write it down for him. So I went to the library to get some sources to tie things together a bit more rigorously than I had been in conversation. I have since wished I had been more rigorous still. So I'd have to do much of the legwork again, and although that has some appeal to me, I don't realistically see me doing that other than making some attempt to see if I can find some of the sources on the internet.

You seem obsessed with numbers, and so I assume you overlooked Kiernan's discussion on the four stages of modern society. Norway, the United States, France, Spain, and others are all transitioning through these stages. All of these stages after stage 1 impact families and more specifically, out of wedlock birth rates. So the United States doesn't act as the control sample that you seem to think it does. According to Kiernan's model, our out-of-wedlock rate is skyrocketing because it is going through similar social transitions to those that raised Norway's 1990 rate to 39% in the first place, before homosexual marriage became legal there.

So the logic and the data you are employing to make your oh-so-smart-and-clever critique of my writing is in itself an atrocious misuse of logic and data, Cali. I have seen it fairly regularly in my career, people who take whatever data they can find and draw conclusions, thinking that the fact that they employ data makes their findings more valid and more impressive.

It is interesting to note that the United States' rate in 2005 was 38%, about the same that Norway's was when homosexual marriage was legalized. Do you have any evidence to show that we aren't just following the same path as Norway, and that legalizing homosexual marriage won't lead to the same rise in out-of-wedlock birth rates in the United States as we saw in Norway? If there is even a, say, 25% chance that a significant portion of such an increase is tied to the legalization of homosexual marriage, would you be willing to say that we at least ought to do more research and move more slowly, given the clear negative effects on children? Or do you say, "Damn the children, the homosexuals have rights"?

You may be right that not half of all marriages end in divorce. I can't say for sure. I can say it is a statistic I have heard repeatedly, and your only citation to the contrary is a webpage I haven't ever heard of. According to the CDC, it was almost half for the years 2003-2005.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_20.pdf

It certainly appears from the reputable data I have seen (and now posted) that the number is very close to 50%, if just below. You can argue it is at 33% which is clearly better than 50%, and I would be happy if it were that low. Of course, we are talking about whether or not marriage is a huge success (that was the debate, the rest of this is evidence supporting a position in that debate). Assuming 33% divorce rate (which doesn't take into consideration marriages that suffer from infidelity, people who split up without filing for divorce, spousal abuse that doesn't end in divorce, etc). Are you comfortable stating that marriage is an overwhelming success right now?

I didn't overlook the information you provided on "stages," but I didn't find it particularly helpful either. You noted that the stages were tied to liberalization of divorce laws and the use of contraceptives. Divorce and contraceptives apparently got the Scandinavian countries to Stage 3 in the model you cited, and you think gay marriage pushed them into Stage 4. So why aren't you proposing the elimination of divorce and contraceptives? It would seem in your model they are responsible for 75% of the problem.

I don't know how you measure the stages a nation as a whole are in, nor do I see how you can attribute gay marriage to the progression from one stage to another, particularly since the US rate of children born out of wedlock has been at a steady progression for decades now. The legality of gay marriage doesn't appear to have done anything to increase that rate in the US. It seems to be continuing just as before. You don't even bother to attempt to show causation, and when presented with evidence that there isn't similar causation in the US, you simply say "the US isn't a great control sample."

Perhaps Scandinavia isn't a great comparison, then (which your model also assumes- that all nations will progress exactly as Scandinavia has which also assumes that the stages are valid which also assumes that we can measure which stage a nation is in which also assumes we can statistically track the changes in stages through history which also assumes... you get the point).

Finally, you are also assuming that there is some difference between the effect on children born out of wedlock due to gay marriage that wouldn't otherwise be present due to homosexual cohabitation, civil unions, or homosexual sex in general. Why?

And of course I don't just say "damn the children." Please. What I do say is you haven't presented anything remotely compelling to support your conclusion.