Quote:
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"?