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

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

According to President Hinckley, it was almost half in 1990.

"Some of you within the sound of my voice could recount family sorrows in your own experience. But among the greatest of tragedies, and I think the most common, is divorce. It has become as a great scourge. The most recent issue of the World Almanac says that in the United States during the twelve months ending with March 1990, an estimated 2,423,000 couples married. During this same period, an estimated 1,177,000 couples divorced. (See The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1991, New York: World Almanac, 1990, p. 834.)

This means that in the United States almost one divorce occurred for every two marriages."

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vg...____&hideNav=1


It may be lower today, but the discussion here is about the "overwhelming success" of marriage in US society. Even at 1/3, can you really call it an overwhelming success? What percentage of marriages suffer infidelity? This is a bit of a different discussion than the focus of the thread, however.

Read again what Pres. Hinckley says, Cali. He actually speaks very accurately and clearly, but unfortunately, people hear (and read) it incorrectly. He doesn't say, or even imply, that half of all marriages end in divorce. He says that during the stated period, there was almost one divorce for every two marriages. What he said is a true statement, but the "half of all marriages end in divorce" is not true, and it is not what he said.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

...

I have no problem with you following the counsel of the church in the Proclamation to the World. But I think your efforts would be best directed towards researching secular reasons for marriage to be confined to the definition of one man/one woman so you can respond with an answer better than "tradition" or "religion" when asked why marriage should be so restricted in scope.

I did. Read the link.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

the problem is you have to explain why gay marriage makes tradtional marriage less strong.

marriage is a binding contract with responsibilities. you have to argue that society is beter off with gays not being to make these marriage contracts with their attendant responsibilities.

I've mentioned this before, the thing I don't understand about the church's take on all this, is why is it so important? What about abortion (millions and millions dead)? I don't understand why this isue is the one that gets the GAs worked up.

Sorry to have to repeat myself, but here goes...

"Interestingly, the impact of all of this on children has been the subject of many studies. Keep in mind that academic research deals in objective statistics and trends, not exceptions. Some families and marriages are destructive and unsuccessful, but that does not invalidate the overall tendencies. This research overwhelmingly shows the harmful effects of de-coupling marriage and parenting. In the interest of space, let me provide just a few examples demonstrating this. One researcher, R.J. Shapiro, summarized his findings by saying “it is no exaggeration to say that a stable, two-parent family is an American child’s best protection against poverty.” Separate studies by G.T. Stanton, Steven Nock, and Linda Waite demonstrated that children of cohabiting couples are much more likely to be abused. British scholar Duncan Timms conducted long-term research on the lives of all children born in Stockholm, Sweden in 1953. The clear, unambiguous conclusion was that parental breakup has negative effects on the mental health of children, particularly boys."

'Stanley Kurtz notes that “gay marriage is both an effect and a reinforcing cause of the separation of marriage and parenthood. In states like Sweden and Denmark, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were already very high, and the public favored gay marriage, gay unions were an effect of earlier changes. Once in place, gay marriage symbolically ratified the separation of marriage and parenthood. And once established, gay marriage became one of several factors contributing to further increases in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birthrates, as well as to early divorce. But in Norway, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were lower, religion stronger, and the public opposed same-sex unions, gay marriage had an even greater role in precipitating marital decline”'.

[MikeWaters]

Minn-stat, from what I can see, your quote argues FOR gay marriage. It says that co-habiting adults are more destructive. Therefore, gay marriage would be more stable and better for kids than just two gays living together.

The Kurtz article isn't very scientific. I am not seeing any evidence of cause and effect.

If you want to know what has separated marriage and parenthood I suggest you turn to birth control.

The church used to be rabidly against birth control. Perhaps it would be more effective to adopt the Catholic stance, if you want to preserve parenthood.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

I did. Read the link.

No, you didn't. Your first 2.3 posts in that thread were just you pontificating for a very long time. 2/3 of your third post was discussing a study regarding Scandinavia and the increase in childbirth outside of marriage following acceptance of gay marriage. The data: 1) didn't have any link; and 2) doesn't appear to have any correlation to gay marriage. The fact that gay marriage may have been permitted during the time period when out of wedlock childbirth increased is hardly evidence that gay marriage was the cause of the out of wedlock childbirth.

Take for example the US in the 1980s (when gay marriage wasn't allowed anywhere). According to the CDC, the percent of out of wedlock births in the US in 1980 was 18.4. In 1990, it was 28.0 (a 9.6% increase which is GREATER than the increase in Sweden you attributed to gay marriage during the '90's and only a bit more than 1% lower than the increase in Norway you cited).

In 1999, the percentage in the US was 33.0%, and in 2005 it was 38%. Gay marriage was first allowed in the US in Massachussets in a court decision in February 2004. In 2003, the percentage of children born to unmarried women was 34.6%. In 2004, it was 35.8% (basically on par with the rate acceleration seen during the '90's and from 2000-2003).

Your fourth post didn't say much of anything secular that would be of help.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, you didn't. Your first 2.3 posts in that thread were just you pontificating for a very long time. 2/3 of your third post was discussing a study regarding Scandinavia and the increase in childbirth outside of marriage following acceptance of gay marriage. The data: 1) didn't have any link; and 2) doesn't appear to have any correlation to gay marriage. The fact that gay marriage may have been permitted during the time period when out of wedlock childbirth increased is hardly evidence that gay marriage was the cause of the out of wedlock childbirth.
...

You originally said, "What I have asked for are the legitimate reasons the government has for prohibiting gay marriage (I think I have asked enough now- I will assume the people here just don't have an answer)."

I then replied, "I made the secular argument on this board some time ago - the first four posts of this thread:
http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17211"

Your response was "I think your efforts would be best directed towards researching secular reasons for marriage to be confined to the definition of one man/one woman so you can respond with an answer better than "tradition" or "religion" when asked why marriage should be so restricted in scope."

So I rightfully respond "I did. Read the link."

Your response now is "No, you didn't."

Wrong response. Yes, I did.Don't try to change the meaning of words on me, it is dishonest and doesn't become you, Cali. Saying "no, you didn't", just shows your ignorance of "secular argument". What I wrote was a secular argument, except for the one section so indicated. You may not like it, you may think it is weak reasoning, but it is a secular argument. It appears not to be data driven enough for you, or not rigorous enough logically, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a secular argument. "Secular" does not mean "data only", it means "not specifically religious".

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

Don't try to change the meaning of words on me, it is dishonest and doesn't become you, Cali. Saying "no, you didn't", just shows your ignorance of "secular argument". What I wrote was a secular argument, except for the one section so indicated. You may not like it, you may think it is weak reasoning, but it is a secular argument. It appears not to be data driven enough for you, or not rigorous enough logically, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a secular argument. "Secular" does not mean "data only", it means "not specifically religious".

Welcome to the futility of trying to communicate with Cali.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

Wrong response. Yes, I did. Don't try to change the meaning of words on me, it is dishonest and doesn't become you, Cali. ...

LOL.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Welcome to the futility of trying to communicate with Cali.

You never forget your first time.

[Mars]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

bravo! you equated Gay marriage with bestiality and statutory rape. Well done! I am sure you helped your cause.

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?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

You originally said, "What I have asked for are the legitimate reasons the government has for prohibiting gay marriage (I think I have asked enough now- I will assume the people here just don't have an answer)."

I then replied, "I made the secular argument on this board some time ago - the first four posts of this thread:
http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17211"

Your response was "I think your efforts would be best directed towards researching secular reasons for marriage to be confined to the definition of one man/one woman so you can respond with an answer better than "tradition" or "religion" when asked why marriage should be so restricted in scope."

So I rightfully respond "I did. Read the link."

Your response now is "No, you didn't."

Wrong response. Yes, I did.Don't try to change the meaning of words on me, it is dishonest and doesn't become you, Cali. Saying "no, you didn't", just shows your ignorance of "secular argument". What I wrote was a secular argument, except for the one section so indicated. You may not like it, you may think it is weak reasoning, but it is a secular argument. It appears not to be data driven enough for you, or not rigorous enough logically, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a secular argument. "Secular" does not mean "data only", it means "not specifically religious".

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.