W
WinterBorn
Guest
Since the Dutch study provides no real data, but only works based on a logical fallacy, I would suggest we don't.
Since the Dutch study provides no real data, but only works based on a logical fallacy, I would suggest we don't.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
No, I define it based on the emotions used, as well as rambling.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
no, it just means the other conservatives fucked up.....I've already told you what the change is....I would have a law requiring me to accept their private choice as binding upon all of society.....that is an infringement upon my rights....fuck em......
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
why?....the only reason you've given me is that he wants money.....why should we change society just to give somebody money after he makes a lifestyle choice......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
because my kids are adults.....
W
WinterBorn
Guest
What evidence is there in the dutch study? Even they admitted there was none.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
It is absolutely not an infringement on your rights. As an example, two lesbians are living together. You are not forced to accept that. And if they get married, nothing changes except they gain the benefits that all married couples get for getting married.
You can still not accept it. You can still believe that they are sinners, perverts, and will burn in hell for an eternity. No one is saying you have to accept a damn thing. No one will be infringing on your rights at all.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Is that the only thing you gain by being married?
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Well then there you go. Not getting money for child care when you have no dependent children is not unfair at all.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
precisely....they have now imposed their choice in lifestyle upon all of society.....they have required everyone to treat them equally to married persons.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
except for being required by the law to treat their relationship as if it were the equivalent of a marriage.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
irrelevant.....YOU said that was the reason they wanted "marriage"......you can't have it both ways......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
and not getting marriage benefits when you aren't married isn't unfair at all....
W
WinterBorn
Guest
No, they are not requiring you to treat them in any way. They are only requiring the gov't to give them the same benefits as all married couples.
How is it that you treat married people? I don't treat married people any certain way. I base my treatment of people on the individuals.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I agree with that. I am arguing that gay marriage SHOULD be allowed. Until it is, gay couples shouldn't get the benefits.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Just exactly how is it that you "treat married people"?
Do you give them more respect than single people?
Do you offer them friendship more readily than you do single people?
Suppose Adam & Steve live in your neighborhood. They are gay, and they live together. Is anyone forcing you to accept that?
Suppose they get married. What changes in the way you treat them?
The answer is that nothing changes.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
It is not a matter of being greedy. It is a matter of wanting to keep more of the money you earn. Why should one couple be allowed to keep more of their money when the gov't will not allow the other couple to marry.
And actually, there are other things gained from being married.
There are over 1400 legal rights given to a married couple that an unrecognized partnership does not offer.
And 1,000 of those are federal rights. Some could be gained with proper contracts, but that costs time and money. One group gets them all for the cost of a licence, and the other group doesn't?
Some cannot be gained by contracts or similar agreements. It is not just about money.
If your wife is sick or dies, you get sick leave to care for them or bereavement leave. And you get that the minute you get married. A lesbian couple can be in a monogamous relationship for 30 years and not be able to get it, even if you and they work for the same company.
If you and your wife adopt, and then later divorce, the custodial parent has the protections of joint responsibility for the child. The gay couple would have no such protections. There are no studies showing any detrimental effects of being raised by gay parents, but there are plenty that show detrimental effects of one parent abandoning another and not paying child support.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Not what I read and quoted.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Here is what you quoted:
"The question is, of course, what are the root causes of this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalizing same-sex marriage it must be observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest that the long campaign for the legalization of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to believe that the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in the Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favor of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.
In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid ‘lifestyle choices’ has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors that have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.
Of more immediate importance than the debate about causality is the question what we in our country can do in order to reverse this harmful development. We call upon politicians, academics, and opinion leaders to acknowledge the facts that marriage in the Netherlands is now an endangered institution and that the many children born out of wedlock are likely to suffer the consequences of that development. A national debate about how we might strengthen marriage is now clearly in order."
Nothing there is anything resembling concrete evidence. "good reason to believe" is not even close. It simply says that since they happened at the same time, those people believe. And "believe" is not evidence in any way shape or form. And another point was "may be connected". It may be and it may not be. But they even said there was "no definitive scientific evidence to suggest" that one caused the other.
The only they did was suggest that further study is in order.
Last edited: