The definitive word on "gay"marriage

[ScreamingEagle]

http://www.marriagedebate.com/2004/07/scandinavia-and-netherlands-m.htm

I can't find the exact article I read before but this one parallels the concept.

M.V. Lee Badgett (who you are quoting) is a gay marriage advocate.
This is part of Stanley Kurtz's reply to her:

Dutch Debate
Despite a challenge, the evidence stands: Marriage is in decline in the Netherlands.
July 21, 2004


Undeniable Decline
During last week's Federal Marriage Amendment debate, many senators referred to the Dutch scholars' statement, and to marital decline in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Of course, you probably haven't heard about that, because, for the most part, the American press has refused to report the story.

Even so, gay-marriage advocates are worried. M. V. Lee Badgett, research director for the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, has issued a new critique of my work on Scandinavia and the Netherlands. In "Unhealthy Half-Truths," I refuted Badgett's first attack. Now she's back. Badgett's critique of my work is long on statistical tricks and short on engagement with my actual argument.

The bottom line is the neither Badgett nor anyone else has been able to get around the fact that marriage in both Scandinavia and the Netherlands is in deep decline. In Scandinavia, that decline began before same-sex registered partnerships were established, but has continued apace ever since. In the Netherlands, marital decline accelerated dramatically, in tandem with the growing campaign for gay marriage.

The strategies for evading these hard truths don't work. Gay-marriage advocates regularly cite steady or improving rates of marriage and divorce in Scandinavian countries to prove that all is well. I've shown repeatedly that these numbers are misleading. Scandinavian marriage numbers are inflated by remarriages among the large number of divorced, for example. Scandinavian divorce numbers omit legally unrecorded breakups among the ever-increasing number of cohabiting parents. Total family dissolution rates in Scandinavia are actually up. I've made these points before, but Badgett and others just keep citing the misleading numbers.

European demographers know perfectly well that marriage in Scandinavia is in deep trouble. British demographer David Coleman and senior Dutch demographer Joop Garssen have written that "marriage is becoming a minority status" in Scandinavia. In Denmark, a slight majority of all children are still born within marriage. Yet citing the 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate for firstborn children, Danish demographers Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson argue that marriage has ceased to be the normative setting for Danish family life.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzAzM2Y2ZTY3MzhmYjhjY2NkYTQ0YzAyNmY5NGFiYTk=

 

[mattskramer]

Liberals or progressives or whatever are essentially communist-lites. They basically spout Marxist and socialist philosophy. They advocate control of the economy. They support the destruction of the family.

What makes you think gay marriage won't lead to polyamory or polygamy? The arguments for them are basically the same as the arguments for gay marriage. Would you deny a bisexual the right to marry one of each sex?

People are still allowed to smoke cigarettes even though cigarettes are dangerous. People want to be allowed to smoke marijuana. We still don’t allow people to smoke marijuana. We allow people who reach a certain age to drink alcohol though alcohol used to be outlawed for people at any age. Why not allow people one year younger to drink alcohol. We set what we consider to be reasonable limits. We allow people to choose to engage in some risky behaviors but not in other risky behaviors. As I said before, so much of this is so relative. There are few, if any, absolutes. Is there a slippery slope from Vietnam to Asia for the Communists? Is there a slippery slope from cigarettes to marijuana or from marijuana to cocaine? Is there a slippery slope form one minimum age to an age 1 year younger - I doubt it or, at least, I don’t see the significance?

Gay marriage definitely has an effect on marriage and children because it changes the focus of marriage away from the children.

Is this just speculation on your part? Do you have access to any actual statistical research concerning gay marriage and children?

 

[Kagom]

Liberals or progressives or whatever are essentially communist-lites. They basically spout Marxist and socialist philosophy. They advocate control of the economy. They support the destruction of the family.

What makes you think gay marriage won't lead to polyamory or polygamy? The arguments for them are basically the same as the arguments for gay marriage. Would you deny a bisexual the right to marry one of each sex?

Gay marriage definitely has an effect on marriage and children because it changes the focus of marriage away from the children.

But they're different nonetheless. They encourage it to a much lesser extent than their more extreme brethern (I've done some reasearch, so I retract all commentary about the political spectrum).

I can't be for sure that it won't other than what I believe on a personal level. And there are no statistics to back that polygamy comes with acceptance of homosexuality. As long as we don't allow polygamy: yes. I'm for polygamy if it's permitted in one's religion, by the way.

Yeah, sure. Whatever. You must remember that marriage in the legal terms isn't aimed at whether the couples have children or not and if it were, then we'd need to make those couples who are infertile, incapable of having children, or who don't want children.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Liberalism: The political philosophy which centers around the preservation of the liberties of an individual, as opposed to the centralized federalist state.

I need a link for this definition. I have my own though:

Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
- lib·er·al·ist /-b(&-)r&-list/ noun or adjective
- lib·er·al·is·tic /"li-b(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Liberalism

No where does it say anything about being opposed to a centralized federalist state. Ask Hillary Clinton if she is opposed to a centralized federalist state. Bet she isn't, considering that would mean she can't have all those social programs that are run by that centralized federalist state.

The spectrum, for the purposes of this thread, is this:

Communist(USSR)--->Liberal--->Democrat--->Centrist--->GOP--->Conservative--->Facist(NAZI)

While the actual spectrum would be:

Communism----->Socialism----->Liberalism----->Capitalism----->Facism

 

[musicman]

Re: the political spectrum - it's interesting, isn't it, that if one follows man's governmental schemes far enough to either the left or right, the end result is the same: tyranny? Seems our founding fathers knew something about human nature that has escaped most of the rest of the world (along with plenty of modern-day Americans), to wit: man is inherently, fundamentally flawed; his governments MUST, therefore - left unchecked - lead to tyranny. So, check government he must, if he is to remain free. All pipe dreams rooted in anything less than this basic human truth doom their populations to slavery - of one stripe or another.

 

[nt250]

Yep. The old slippery slope fallacy.

There is no better example of the slippery slope than the gay rights movement. It's a not a fallacy in this case. It's true.

The gay rights movement started out arguing that they just wanted to be left alone. They weren't breaking any laws in most cases, and in some cases the laws they were breaking were a gross invasion of privacy and were blatantly unconstitutional. They were right about that.

Once they got past the whole invasion of privacy issue, then they started on the fairness issue. Gay people shouldn't be discriminated in cases of medical decisions and inheritance rights. How many stories were told about "life long" homosexual partners being frozen out of medical decisions by the sick partners homophobic blood relatives? How many stories were told about how one "life long" partner had died and how the surviving partner got thrown out of their own house because the house was in the name of the dead gay, and their homophobic blood relatives threw them out on the street. They were right about that concept, too, no matter how exaggerated it was, and now everyone is much more aware of living wills and making sure you leave a valid will for when you die.

Then came AIDS and all bets were off. There is no better example of gays demanding and getting special rights than the AIDS crisis. Gay activists demanded that AIDS be treated like a privacy issue with medical concerns, rather than a medical issue with privacy concerns.

Never before had a fatal sexually transmitted desease been treated as such.

Once they won that battle, they went after the Boy Scouts. They wanted, and got, gay/straight student alliances in public schools. They demanded that the media show gays in a favorable light, and loudly complained at any perceived slight to the point that they called any straight celebrity who had the nerve to deny being gay a homophobe. Ask Tom Selleck, Tom Cruise, and Richard Gere. Now they want gay marriage.

Slippery slope? It's no fallacy when it comes to gay rights.

 

[nt250]

Okay, so, we should totally ostracize gay people if they want to actually follow the pursuit of happiness, as we're allowed to do within the Constitution and only because there are people who don't like homosexuality and don't think homosexuals should be allowed to try and bring about the point that you should be tolerant of them and that they should be allowed to get some benefits that heterosexual couples do.

And don't throw the "But they want more" bullshit at me. Last I checked, most gays I know just want to be able to get a legal marriage/civil union and nothing greater.

Don't be so melodramatic. Many people have no problem with the concept of gay sex. I do. I think it's gross and disgusting and I think anyone who does it is gross and disgusting. And I should have the right to judge people based on their behavior.

That's a special right. As I said on the thread that got locked, if you pick your nose and eat it, it's not enough that I never see you do it. I don't want to know that you have ever done it because I think it's a disgusting personal habit and I don't want to associate with you. I should have that right.

By the way, the United States Constitution protects citizens from the government, not from each other. I can hate you all I want and there's not a damn thing you can do about it legally.

 

[Kagom]

Being melodramatic is what I'm best at.

 

[sitarro]

Don't be so melodramatic. Many people have no problem with the concept of gay sex. I do. I think it's gross and disgusting and I think anyone who does it is gross and disgusting. And I should have the right to judge people based ontheir behavior.

That's a special right. As I said on the thread that got locked, if you pick your nose and eat it, it's not enough that I never see you do it. I don't want to know that you have ever done it because I think it's a disguting personal habit and I don't want to associate with you. I should have that right.

By the way, the United States Constitution protects citizens from the government, not from each other. I can hate you all I want and there's not a damn thing you can do about it legally.

I like the way you took in all the bullshit from this thread and in these last two posts analyzed the subject perfectly(funny how that word has anal in it) ..... I tried to rep you on both and I am forced to find someone else to rep before I can give you what is definitely due you.

Outstanding NT! The nose picking analogy is perfect!!! Even better than cutting toenails in public, some things do need to stay behind closed doors.

 

[MissileMan]

M.V. Lee Badgett (who you are quoting) is a gay marriage advocate.
This is part of Stanley Kurtz's reply to her:

Contradictive opinions about the situation over there. This is why I prefer to apply common sense to topics like these. IMO, the marriage rates and divorce rates of one group are not affected by the rates of another group. And to try to blame an increase in the number of children born out of wedlock on gay marriage is as farsical as it gets. You might as well try to blame gay marriage for global-warming, the increase in obesity, or the myriad of other non-related problems in society.

 

[nt250]

I like the way you took in all the bullshit from this thread and in these last two posts analyzed the subject perfectly(funny how that word has anal in it) ..... I tried to rep you on both and I am forced to find someone else to rep before I can give you what is definitely due you.

Outstanding NT! The nose picking analogy is perfect!!! Even better than cutting toenails in public, some things do need to stay behind closed doors.

You know what's really comical? Two things:

Whenever I argue my position on gay rights I get two responses, always. It never fails. I'm an atheist, so if people don't know that when they reply to me, they always use religion as a comparison to my argument that I should have the right decide how to judge people based on their behavior when it comes to gays. They are always liberals and they are the first to criticize religion in any other context, and they assume I'm a Christian. It's hysterical. The same posters who will, on a another thread at the same time, trash religion (except Islam, of course) will then tell me that gays rights are no different than religious rights.

If, however, the poster knows I'm not a Christian and am not arguing from that view point, they always say that being gay has nothing to do with sex. See? They can't get past my nose picking and eating it analogy any other way.

Not only is gay sex gross, it makes no sense at all. What the fuck to Lesbians need strap-on's for?

 

[Gunny]

Don't be so melodramatic. Many people have no problem with the concept of gay sex. I do. I think it's gross and disgusting and I think anyone who does it is gross and disgusting. And I should have the right to judge people based on their behavior.

That's a special right. As I said on the thread that got locked, if you pick your nose and eat it, it's not enough that I never see you do it. I don't want to know that you have ever done it because I think it's a disgusting personal habit and I don't want to associate with you. I should have that right.

By the way, the United States Constitution protects citizens from the government, not from each other. I can hate you all I want and there's not a damn thing you can do about it legally.

Be prepared to continue to say the same thing. Their arguments have been repeatedly shot down at every level and they just run off to another thread as if it never happened and parrot their same old garbage.

Typical liberal tactic. Attempt to perpetuate a lie until it becomes truth. It amounts to nothing more.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Re: the political spectrum - it's interesting, isn't it, that if one follows man's governmental schemes far enough to either the left or right, the end result is the same: tyranny? Seems our founding fathers knew something about human nature that has escaped most of the rest of the world (along with plenty of modern-day Americans), to wit: man is inherently, fundamentally flawed; his governments MUST, therefore - left unchecked - lead to tyranny. So, check government he must, if he is to remain free. All pipe dreams rooted in anything less than this basic human truth doom their populations to slavery - of one stripe or another.

 

[mattskramer]

I like the way you took in all the bullshit from this thread and in these last two posts analyzed the subject perfectly(funny how that word has anal in it) ..... I tried to rep you on both and I am forced to find someone else to rep before I can give you what is definitely due you.

Outstanding NT! The nose picking analogy is perfect!!! Even better than cutting toenails in public, some things do need to stay behind closed doors.

Some people are easily amused. I’m unimpressed. I could say the same about heterosexuals kissing in public or smoking, or a wide variety of other behaviors.

 

[Gunny]

Some people are easily amused. I’m unimpressed. I could say the same about heterosexuals kissing in public or smoking, or a wide variety of other behaviors.

Yeah, if you wanted to make your usual, relativist argument that is nothing but an attempted dodge because quite simply, you have no REAL argument. Typical ploy of the ignoramus who thinks he an intellectual.

 

[nt250]

Some people are easily amused. I’m unimpressed. I could say the same about heterosexuals kissing in public or smoking, or a wide variety of other behaviors.

I feel the same way about hetrosexual public displays. I've met many people who have an affliction called Too Much Information Syndrome. I don't want to hear about your orgasms or how great your boyfriend was in bed last night. At least not while I'm eating my lunch at work, I don't.

The problem with gays is that they as soon as they present themselves as gay they are telling everyone in earshot that they have sex with someone of their own gender. Yes, they are. This notion that being homosexual is nothing more than a desire or an attraction, and is not based on the act of sex is ridiculous. Sorry, but if you even desire to have homosexual sex, but never act on it, you're still weirdo in my book. Yuk.

And no, hetrosexuals who hold hands and kiss, get married and have babies, are NOT "flaunting" their sexuality. I am one of six kids and my parents NEVER had sex. EVER. It's simply not possible. I was hatched. From an egg. There is no way my parents ever did that.

See, we straight people don't define ourselves by our sex lives. Gays do.

Don't even get me started on smoking.

 

[mattskramer]

I am one of six kids and my parents NEVER had sex. EVER. It's simply not possible. I was hatched. From an egg. There is no way my parents ever did that.

Uh. Okay. Tale Biology 101. I guess that I’m just too logical and factual to debate you.

 

[Said1]

Uh. Ok. Nt tells joke, Matt no get. Duh.

 

[nt250]

Uh. Okay. Tale Biology 101. I guess that I’m just too logical and factual to debate you.

No, what it means is that you have no sense of humor.

The point I was making is that when it comes to hetrosexual couples, no one thinks about the fact that they are having sex with each other. Are they? Who knows? I've known many married couples who don't have sex.

Gays and their defenders always come back with the argument that heterosexuals also "flaunt" their sexuality by such innocuous things as having pictures of our kids on our desks at work. It's ridiculous argument and they only resort to it when they are arguing with people like me who solely base our objection to gay rights on the Ick factor.

I like sex. I wish I was getting some. But heterosexual sex doesn't gross me out because it's....OMIGOD! I'M GONNA SAY IT...... NORMAL.

 

[mattskramer]

No, what it means is that you have no sense of humor.

The point I was making is that when it comes to hetrosexual couples, no one thinks about the fact that they are having sex with each other. Are they? Who knows? I've known many married couples who don't have sex.

Gays and their defenders always come back with the argument that heterosexuals also "flaunt" their sexuality by such innocuous things as having pictures of our kids on our desks at work. It's ridiculous argument and they only resort to it when they are arguing with people like me who solely base our objection to gay rights on the Ick factor.

I like sex. I wish I was getting some. But heterosexual sex doesn't gross me out because it's....OMIGOD! I'M GONNA SAY IT...... NORMAL.

Okay. Now I think that I see your point. Once I saw a couple of men walking close together, hand-in-hand. I did a double take just because you don’t see such behavior very often. Then I simply shrugged my shoulders and walked on. It is simply no bid deal.