|
|
| |||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
rmannstaedt 21-Feb-13, 00:53 |
 billThe quotes you so readily lift from my post, as arguments that I am wrong, are clearly and obviously marked and used as quotes from sources in YOUR earlier posts. Or, cut down to bite-sized packages of logic, just for you: - The quotes you take from my posts are, verbatim, quotes that I have extracted from one of the sources you refer to in your earlier posts. - You then add in some other quotes from another source in your earlier post. - You conclude that your sources agree each other. - Based on the fact that your sources agree with each other, you conclude that I agree with you. Conclusion: - You mistook quotes from your sources - even though clearly labeled and used as such - as statements from me. - You completely ignored all the logical arguments I made in my post. - You totally ignored the conclusion based on those arguments. As I said: If you don't want to sound ignorant then don't talk about things which obviously you know very little about. In this case: logical arguments and text analysis. Read my post again. If you find it too difficult to understand, just say so and I will be happy to make it a bit simpler for you. |
||||||||
|
rmannstaedt 21-Feb-13, 01:23 |
by the way ... You may rely on what you consider common knowledge; I prefer to actually verify my facts before using them. |
||||||||
|
Damm RSM |
||||||||
|
Lets review... shall we? RMS: No, "dismantled" as in .. - The "European Studies" you referred to in your 05-Feb-13, 10:13 post do not, in fact, logically support the conclusion they purport to do. As proved, conclusively, in my 17-Feb-13, 10:29 and 17-Feb-13, 14:17 posts. -------------------------- Of really… this is rich. Here is part of your 17-Feb-13, 10:29 Post: "This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with." This is the important part of my first post to this thread "The breakdown of marriage in America has already had devastating effects on society, especially on children, without delivering yet another blow to this most fundamental structure of society by eliminating it entirely. If heterosexual marriage is protected, children will at least have the benefits of its stabilizing influence in their surrounding familial relationships. " www.catholiceducation.org Your sources conclusion: “It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with." My sources conclusion: “If heterosexual marriage is protected, children will at least have the benefits of its stabilizing influence in their surrounding familial relationships. " That is essentially the same thing: Gay marriage means you sever the link between marriage and childbirth. Is that the way you “dismantle” arguments in Denmark… by agreeing with them….LOL |
||||||||
|
rmannstaedt 21-Feb-13, 09:30 |
IN YOUR POST "pecosbill 05-Feb-13, 10:13" you write (abbreviated for clarity): ------------ “These studies also show " ... "same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage. gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable." ========================================== To support this, YOU give a link and your opinion of it: ------------ www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066349/posts That last study is a little old, but sure hit’s the nail on the head. ========================================== Because I am actually interested in understanding why you think like you do, I take the time to look at the paper you are quoting from. Specifically: reading all of it, thinking about it, and finally analyzing its logic. The result is my "rmannstaedt 17-Feb-13, 10:29" post. In that post I start with a short explanation of what your source, Stanley Kurtz, writes about. WRITING ABOUT YOUR source: ------------ In your original source, www.freerepublic.com, Stanley Kurtz writes about family trends in Scandinavia, with reference to a number of studies. He does a good job in drawing in a number of sources, analyzing and debating them, and generally seems quite competent. It would be easier to debate his conclusions if we had actual access to the reports and data he refers to, but that is not actually the point I want to make here. Read on. ========================================== The above, short abstract of your source was given, so that other people reading this thread will have a better chance of understanding and following our arguments. I then dive into your source and quote directly from it. QUOTING from YOUR source: ------------ A: "In the early nineties, gay marriage came to the Nordic countries, where the out-of-wedlock birthrate was already high. Ten years later, out-of-wedlock birth rates have risen significantly in the middle group of nations. Not coincidentally, nearly every country in that middle group has recently either legalized some form of gay marriage, or is seriously considering doing so. Only in the group with low out-of-wedlock birthrates has the gay marriage movement achieved relatively little success." ========================================== The logical argument I am constructing is based on two, central quotes. Both are taken, verbatim from your source. Both are at the very core of the argument that he makes. And together they highlight the logical flaw in his - and your - argument. I give the second part immediately following the first. QUOTING from YOUR source: ------------ B: "This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with." ========================================== That quote, exhibit "B" - my quote from YOUR source - is the quote which you then take from my post to claim that I actually agree with you. Yes, it sounds surreal, but the surreal part is what you do, not what I write. After giving both quotes - exhibits "A" and "B" - I make a short and logical, analytic summary of them: SUMMARIZING the QUOTES from YOUR source: ------------ 1. The numbers I have suggest that he is entirely correct in what he states in paragraph "A". 2. The conclusion he draws in paragraph "B" is specious and based on personal belief rather than hard data. 3. He is quite aware of that, or else he would not prepend paragraph "B" with the words "This suggests...". As I stated in my earlier post: the numbers show a correlation between an increase in gay marriage and a decline in heterosexual marriage. They do NOT show a cause-and-effect relation. ========================================== This is not enough, of course. There is another way of showing the error of his (your source, Stanley Kurtz) logic, and that is to rewrite his conclusion as it should have been - if he actually had been honest about the facts and his analysis of them. I do that too. REWRITING the CONCLUSION as YOUR source should have made it: ------------ This shows that gay marriage is tolerated and accepted more in those countries, where the traditional, heterosexual marriage has declined as a cultural force. Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that the acceptance of gay marriage in a society depends on how traditional and conservative that society is vis-a-vis heterosexual marriage. ========================================== The rewrite is entirely honest to the data he has, is objective and is very clear in its message. MY CONCLUSION (based on YOUR source): ------------ This suggests that the decline of heterosexual marriage, as a cultural institution, leads to a greater acceptance of homosexual marriage, not the other way round. ========================================== |
||||||||
|
RMS... Blah, blah, blah... From my previous post: <Your sources conclusion: “It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with." My sources conclusion: “If heterosexual marriage is protected, children will at least have the benefits of its stabilizing influence in their surrounding familial relationships. " That is essentially the same thing: Gay marriage means you sever the link between marriage and childbirth. Is that the way you “dismantle” arguments in Denmark… by agreeing with them….LOL> You then address my post by issuing a broad review of our entire exchange without ever addressing the fact that both our sources come to the same conclusion. What is your game here? To make such long and boring posts that others stop following this thread? Lol. |
||||||||
|
rmannstaedt 24-Feb-13, 07:12 |
Deleted by rmannstaedt on 24-Feb-13, 09:40.
|
||||||||
|
rmannstaedt 24-Feb-13, 09:56 |
Yes, you do make a very specific comparison. And yes, those two quotes do agree with each other. Anything else would be beyond weird - for both of them are from your own sources. The quote you take from my post: “It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with." - that is a verbatim quote from: www.freerepublic.com Do you recognize it now? It is the exact source which YOU give in your "05-Feb-13, 10:13" post (gameknot.com) All that you are actually doing is: comparing YOUR own opinion against the opinion of one of YOUR sources and saying: "oh wow, they agree!" Which of course they do. Or would you actually give, as a validation for your own arguments, a source which really disagreed with you? But then again, you did give a source which was obviously wrong, drew unwarranted conclusions and tried to manipulate the reader to agree with him. Much as you are, actually. So maybe I am wrong about you. In my previous (21-Feb-13, 09:30) post, which you so tellingly label "bla bla bla...", I laid out the facts of this clearly, simply, and thoroughly. I thought maybe you would be able to understand it then. But did you? Nope, it was still just "bla bla bla" to you. Are you sure English is actually your native language? I am sorry if I am being a bit too complex for you to follow; I will try to be simpler and briefer in the future. And by the way, speaking of quoting: in addition to misquoting me, you are also bringing the quote out of context. You deliberately quote only part of that paragraph and ignore the rest of my post entirely. This is how I gave it in my previous post: > > QUOTING from YOUR source: > ------------ > B: "This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing > separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates > disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If > marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected > to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once > marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock > in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes > gay marriage conceivable to begin with." > ========================================== > The important part here is right at the start, where YOUR source writes the words "This suggests..." Taken in context with the other quote from your source, which I also brought both originally and in my last post (labeled exhibit "A"), it becomes rather damning. Or, as I state it in my post (quoting myself now): > > SUMMARIZING the QUOTES from YOUR source: > ------------ > 1. The numbers I have suggest that he is entirely correct in what he states in paragraph "A". > 2. The conclusion he draws in paragraph "B" is specious and based on personal belief rather > than hard data. > 3. He is quite aware of that, or else he would not prepend paragraph "B" with the words > "This suggests...". > > As I stated in my earlier post: the numbers show a correlation between an increase in gay > marriage and a decline in heterosexual marriage. They do NOT show a cause-and-effect > relation. > ========================================== > If your source had been fair and reasonably objective, then he would have written a rather different conclusion than the one he did. Like this (quoting myself now): > > REWRITING the CONCLUSION as YOUR source should have made it: > ------------ > This shows that gay marriage is tolerated and accepted more in those countries, where > the traditional, heterosexual marriage has declined as a cultural force. Which leads to the > inescapable conclusion that the acceptance of gay marriage in a society depends on how > traditional and conservative that society is vis-a-vis heterosexual marriage. >========================================== > And, just for you, an even shorter conclusion: > > MY CONCLUSION (based on YOUR source): > ------------ > This suggests that the decline of heterosexual marriage, as a cultural institution, leads to > a greater acceptance of homosexual marriage, not the other way round. > ========================================== > Brief enough for you yet? No? Ok. Put shortly and brutally: your sources do not validate your beliefs. |
||||||||
|
Origins of marriage thought this article was interesting..... source:theweekmagazine.com The origins of marriage The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why? How old is the institution? The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion. What was it about, then? Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else. When did religion become involved? As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law. Did this change the nature of marriage? Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that “the twain shall be one flesh,” giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes. When did love enter the picture? Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was “invented” by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else’s wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote “Advice on Love,” in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—“anything but a frank and open entreaty.” Did love change marriage? It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship. How did this tradition change? Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband “owned” his wife’s sexuality. “The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new,” said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. “Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.” Men who married men Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.” |
||||||||
|
rmannstaedt 24-Feb-13, 10:52 |
tjinwa Thank you. Very interesting article. I have noticed your posts before; I will make sure to read them in the future. As a side note, supplementing your text: I believe that even though the church did not generally accept the concept of "divorce" in general, it was still possible to be divorced in certain cases. Most notable, if the wife was "barren". I am not sure any commoner could claim a divorce for this reason - I rather doubt it actually - but I know for sure that it was used as a reason by the medieval nobility - though for how long I am not sure. There are also several biblical references to this concept. |
||||||||
|
Rmann We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. |
||||||||
|
On the lighter side - actual advice given to women 1950 - high school Home-Ec textbook on treatment of a husband 1. Have dinner ready: Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal — on time. This is a way of letting him know that you have been thinking about him, and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they come home and the prospects of a good meal are part of the warm welcome needed. 2. Prepare yourself: Take 15 minutes to rest so you will be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your makeup, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people. Be a little gay and a little more interesting. His boring day may need a lift. 3. Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives, gathering up school books, toys, paper, etc. Then run a dust cloth over the tables. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift, too. 4. Prepare the children: Take a few minutes to wash the children's hands and faces if they are small, comb their hair, and if necessary, change their clothes. They are little treasures and he would like to see them playing the part. 5. Minimize the noise: At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of washer, dryer, dishwasher or vacuum. Try to encourage the children to be quiet. Be happy to see him. Greet him with a warm smile and be glad to see him. 6. Some Don'ts: Don't greet him with problems or complaints. Don't complain if he's late for dinner. Count this as minor compared with what he might have gone through that day. 7. Make him comfortable: Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or suggest he lie down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him. Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soft, soothing and pleasant voice. Allow him to relax and unwind. 8. Listen to him: You may have a dozen things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first. 9. Make the evening his: Never complain if he does not take you out to dinner or to other places of entertainment; instead, try to understand his world of strain and pressure, his need to be home and relax. 10. The goal: Try to make your home a place of peace and order where your husband can relax. ____________________________________________________ 1894 INSTRUCTION AND ADVICE FOR THE YOUNG BRIDE To the sensitive young woman who has had the benefits of proper upbringing, the wedding day is, ironically, both the happiest and most terrifying day of her life. On the positive side, there is the wedding itself, in which the bride is the central attraction in a beautiful and inspiring ceremony, symbolizing her triumph in securing a male to provide for all her needs for the rest of her life. On the negative side, there is the wedding night, during which the bride must pay the piper, so to speak, by facing for the first time the terrible experience of sex. At this point, dear reader, let me concede one shocking truth. Some young women actually anticipate the wedding night ordeal with curiosity and pleasure! Beware such an attitude! A selfish and sensual husband can easily take advantage of such a bride. One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE, GIVE SELDOM, AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. Otherwise what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust. On the other hand, the bride's terror need not be extreme. While sex is at best revolting and at worse rather painful, it has to be endured, and has been by women since the beginning of time, and is compensated for by the monogamous home and by the children produced through it. It is useless, in most cases, for the bride to prevail upon the groom to forego the sexual initiation. While the ideal husband would be one who would approach his bride only at her request and only for the purpose of begetting offspring, such nobility and unselfishness cannot be expected from the average man. Most men, if not denied, would demand sex almost every day. The wise bride will permit a maximum of two brief sexual experiences weekly during the first months of marriage. As time goes by she should make every effort to reduce this frequency. Feigned illness, sleepiness, and headaches are among the wife's best friends in this matter. Arguments, nagging, scolding, and bickering also prove very effective, if used in the late evening about an hour before the husband would normally commence his seduction. Clever wives are ever on the alert for new and better methods of denying and discouraging the amorous overtures of the husband. A good wife should expect to have reduced sexual contacts to once a week by the end of the first year of marriage and to once a month by the end of the fifth year of marriage. By their tenth anniversary many wives have managed to complete their child bearing and have achieved the ultimate goal of terminating all sexual contacts with the husband. By this time she can depend upon his love for the children and social pressures to hold the husband in the home. Just as she should be ever alert to keep the quantity of sex as low as possible, the wise bride will pay equal attention to limiting the kind and degree of sexual contacts. Most men are by nature rather perverted, and if given half a chance, would engage in quite a variety of the most revolting practices. These practices include among others performing the normal act in abnormal positions; mouthing the female body; and offering their own vile bodies to be mouthed in turn. |
||||||||
|
RMS ---------------------------- Ok… I see that now. I honestly thought that was your quote. I clearly acknowledge my mistake. RMS: <In my previous (21-Feb-13, 09:30) post, which you so tellingly label "bla bla bla...", I laid out the facts of this clearly, simply, and thoroughly.> ---------------------------- You might have been thorough, but as to being clear and simple I have never read a post so awkwardly constructed. RSM: <I thought maybe you would be able to understand it then. But did you? Nope, it was still just "bla bla bla" to you.> -------------------------- I spend time here to exchange ideas that are clearly articulated and well organized. I have no interest spending my time deciphering the posts of others that have their own unique and confusing method of conveying what they said, what they are saying, what I said, and what my source said. RSM: <Are you sure English is actually your native language?> ------------------------ Oh, so now I see how it is: if someone has difficulty understanding what you are trying to explain then they have a problem with English… lol. RMS: <I am sorry if I am being a bit too complex for you to follow; I will try to be simpler and briefer in the future.> ---------------------------- You are being too complex for me to want to spend the time to follow. Additionally you might consider that others might be reading your posts. How well do you think they will understand what you are trying to say? RMS: <And by the way, speaking of quoting: in addition to misquoting me….> ---------------------------------- Misquote you? Where did I do that? I freely admit that I misattributed one of my sources quotes as one of your sources quotes, but where did I “misquote” you? RMS: <…you are also bringing the quote out of context. You deliberately quote only part of that paragraph and ignore the rest of my post entirely. > ------------------------------------ I did not repost all of your post that is true. That is because we have already gone round and round on that issue: it is virtually impossible to demonstrate causation in the social science sphere. I deleted it then as I do now in the interests of keeping my posts reasonably short and readable. BTW: In order to take “a quote out of context” you have to change the meaning of that which was originally intended. RMS: <If your source had been fair and reasonably objective, then he would have written a rather different conclusion than the one he did. Like this (quoting myself now): REWRITING the CONCLUSION as YOUR source should have made it: “This shows that gay marriage is tolerated and accepted more in those countries, where the traditional, heterosexual marriage has declined as a cultural force. Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that the acceptance of gay marriage in a society depends on how traditional and conservative that society is vis-a-vis heterosexual marriage.”> ------------------------------------ I agree that is probably true insofar as society is concerned. However, as far as being “fair and reasonably objective” is concerned your conclusion is ignoring another, even more obvious conclusion, in the name of political correctness. Namely that by allowing homosexuals to marry you are changing the definition of marriage away from childbirth to just about how two people feel about each other. It is as if overeaters anonymous demanded the right to attend alcoholics anonymous meetings to discuss their issues. They both have to do with addictions, but in doing so you necessarily devalue the importance of having a place for an alcoholic to go for support. RMS: <And, just for you, an even shorter conclusion: MY CONCLUSION (based on YOUR source): This suggests that the decline of heterosexual marriage, as a cultural institution, leads to a greater acceptance of homosexual marriage, not the other way round. > ---------------------------- Explaining this to someone with no experience in formal debate is a bit tricky, but I will try. In formal oxford/LD debate the affirmative has two different responsibilities: 1) Identify a problem; 2) propose a solution. You are talking about the causes of the problem while I am talking about what will prohibit the solution. In other words, I don’t care why there are so many single mothers out there, I just know that devaluing the link between marriage and childbirth moves us in the wrong direction when it comes to solving the problem. Interestingly enough, I was arguing the same thing exactly one year ago today on this very board: gameknot.com RMS: <Brief enough for you yet? No? Ok. Put shortly and brutally: your sources do not validate your beliefs.> ------------------------------ You are welcome to your own opinion. For those newly following this thread I will simply post what my source has to say and they can compare it to what I just said: “It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with." www.freerepublic.com |
||||||||
|
pb “It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with." |
||||||||
|
tj |
||||||||
|
pb |
||||||||
|
tj ------------------- I discuss issues here in the abstract... that does not mean I would ever say or do anything to someone personally. tj: <Correction, not just "about" but "when". There are men and women in this world that do not see having children as a requirement. There are also women who cannot have children. It is absolutely ridiculous to continue with the "go forth and multiply" mentality - we are not in danger of going extinct.> ------------------- I agree... overpopulation is a HUGE problem... I just think society should make more of an effort to encourage young women to engage in a stable relationship before they have a child. It is better for them and it is better for the child. |
||||||||
|
tj |
||||||||
|
pb Other than some very strange girls making a pact, most young women do not want to "ruin" their life by having a baby at a young age. I use "ruin" euphemistically for better or worse. We fail our youth when we do not engage in honest dialogue about sex and all of its ramifications. |
||||||||
|
tj -------------------- I don't mind teaching older children the basics, however I don't think it should be used to push a political agenda. Condoms being provided? -------------------- I personally don't mind making them available, but I understand how some would so it would be best to find some other to way to allow sexually active teen's access to them. Planned Parenthood access for teens? -------------------- Leave abortion issues up to the state and local level. Birth control for teens? -------------------- I don't think parents need to be notified. Other than some very strange girls making a pact, most young women do not want to "ruin" their life by having a baby at a young age. I use "ruin" euphemistically for better or worse. -------------------- I don't think many are able to grasp the consequences: "Giedd and his colleagues found that in an area of the brain called the prefrontal cortex, the brain appeared to be growing again just before puberty. The prefrontal cortex sits just behind the forehead. It is particularly interesting to scientists because it acts as the CEO of the brain, controlling planning, working memory, organization, and modulating mood. As the prefrontal cortex matures, teenagers can reason better, develop more control over impulses and make judgments better. In fact, this part of the brain has been dubbed "the area of sober second thought." www.pbs.org We fail our youth when we do not engage in honest dialogue about sex and all of its ramifications. -------------------- I think we need to do a better job of explaining to young people that they do a great disservice to themselves and their children when they have children too young or out of wedlock. |
||||||||
|
pb - some info on PP >-------------------- >Leave abortion issues up to the state and local level. Who said anything about abortion? This is just a small outtake of the "Info for teens" on the Planned Parenthood website. ------------------------------------------------------------- Am I Ready for Sex? Choosing to be in a sexual relationship is a big decision. There’s a lot to think about. Expand All + +- How can I know when I’m ready? There are many important things to consider when deciding whether you’re ready for sex, including your personal values and goals your feelings about the kinds of emotional and physical risks you are willing to take whether this is something you really want to do or if it's something your partner is pushing you into what sort of relationship you want to have with the person you have sex with +- How do my personal values and goals fit in? When it comes to making decisions about sex, answer these questions about what you value: What messages have you gotten from your family about sex? What are your religious, spiritual, or moral views on sex? Do you want to be in a committed relationship before you have sex? If having sex supports your personal values and goals — rather than conflicts with them — you may be ready. +- What physical risks am I ready to take? Having sex with a partner can be a meaningful way to express yourself. But there are two important physical risks — sexually transmitted infection and unintended pregnancy. Ask yourself these questions about the risks: Do I know how to reduce the risk of infection with safer sex? Do I have condoms — and know how to use them? Do I know how to prevent pregnancy? Do I have reliable birth control and know how to use it? Do I know how I would handle an infection or unintended pregnancy? Do I know how my partner would feel about an unintended pregnancy? Will I go for checkups for sexually transmitted infections every year and whenever I take risks? Have I discussed these issues with my partner? If you’re willing and able to protect yourself and your partner from physical risks, you may be ready. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From article in The Washington Post Feb 2012 - couldn't put in the chart but the percentages are in the article With Planned Parenthood being either the major obstacle to a budget deal or one of the major obstacles to a budget deal, it’s worth taking a minute explaining what they do — and what they don’t do. As you can see in the chart atop this post, abortion services account for about 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s activities. That’s less than cancer screening and prevention (16 percent), STD testing for both men and women (35 percent), and contraception (also 35 percent). About 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s users are over age 20, and 75 percent have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line. Planned Parenthood itself estimates it prevents more than 620,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and 220,000 abortions. It’s also worth noting that federal law already forbids Planned Parenthood from using the funds it receives from the government for abortions. So though the fight over Planned Parenthood might be about abortion, Planned Parenthood itself isn’t about abortion. It’s primarily about contraception and reproductive health. And if Planned Parenthood loses funding, what will mainly happen is that cancer screenings and contraception and STD testing will become less available to poorer people. Folks with more money, of course, have many other ways to receive all these services, and tend to get them elsewhere already. The fight also isn’t about cutting spending. The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money. It’s somewhat cold to put it in these terms, but taxpayers end up bearing a lot of the expense for unintended pregnancies among people without the means to care for their children. The same goes for preventable cancers and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS. You can find a lot more information about Planned Parenthood and its services here. |
||||||||
|
TJ PB: Leave abortion issues up to the state and local level. TJ: Who said anything about abortion? -------------------- Your own source says Planned Parenthood preforms abortions. If it makes you feel any better, of course I am for all the other good things they do. And I personally support a woman's limited and responsible access to abortion. I even physically defended a clinic years ago.* But I also recognize that in some communities abortion is viewed as murder, and that is a reasonable interpretation if you believe life starts at conception. *It was on Mothers Day. A group of pro-life mothers blocked access to an abortion clinic in Redwood City, CA. A group of us started slowly pushing up against them (back-first) until we had them pinned against the clinic. After a few minutes they started asking if they could get out. I didn't start out as the lead pusher but I was probably the biggest guy there so quickly gravitated to the front of the scrum. I found it very therapeutic! |
||||||||
| |||||||||
