NationStates Jolt Archive

1 Kings 18: 17-18
When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, "Is that you, you destroyer of Israel?"
He replied, "I have not destroyed Israel, but you and your father's house have, because you have abandoned the Lord's commandments and followed the Baals.

Civilization can only exist if there is a degree of order, voluntarily accepted, and if people are willing to co-operate with one another and make prudent provision for future generations. This requires a measure of self-restraint. But, as the great Russian writer, Dostoyevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted".

The English writer G.K. Chesterton put it another way. "Once men stop believing in God", he said, "they do not believe in nothing. They start believing in anything".

It is no wonder that the man who wrote the "Wealth of Nations" - which provides the theoretical basis for the free market - Adam Smith, wrote a second book entitled the "Theory of Moral Sentiments". He realized that, unless people have certain shared moral sentiments on the basis of which they are prepared to put chains on their appetites, the free exchange of goods and services, which he favored, would become impossible.

Before we are to take the far lefts advice, we should examine the Scandinavian experiment.

In addition to cataloging the economic decline resulting from the rise in the Swedish welfare state, Mr. Karlson (Swedish economist, Nils Karlson) argues that perhaps the most damaging consequence of the "third way" is the loss of "dignity" among the Swedish people. Mr. Karlson takes a classical approach and argues every individual has a "unique value" and a "good society" requires individual liberty, personal responsibility and respect for the liberty of others.

As the welfare state undermines the ability to engage in productive activity to support oneself, and individual liberty and responsibility, there will be a corresponding loss in dignity. This loss of dignity debilitates both the individual and society.

The Swedish model teaches us good intentions are not enough when trying to create a humane, compassionate and prosperous society. Failure to fully understand the economic and social consequences of policies that increasingly regulate and tax productive activity was the Swedish model's fatal flaw.
http://www.stockholm-network.org/pubs/SNupdate66.htm


In regards to people that have assured me that religous people will always be allowed to worship in peace and disagree with protection, that they won't be forced to recognize the immoral (In their opinion) situation around them and they won't be 'shut-up' by a liberal governmnet or neighbors that don't like what they say... The intolerance in Sweden is so strong now, that the minister below is 'evil' for having mentioned it (no one claims he's lying, only that he worded it 'evilly' and in a derogatory way). The attack against Christians in Sweden seems self evident and this site shows how strongly they (the Conservative Christians) are opposed when they do speak up.
Celebrity evangelist preacher Runar Sogaard, in a sermon at Filadelfia church in Stockholm on March 20, repeated claims against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) - whose Birthday Muslims worldwide celebrated Thursday - saying the Seal of Prophets was "a confused pedophile" since his wives included a girl aged nine years old, alluding to the Prophet's wife `Aisha.

No Comment

The Muslim imam said that although Sogaard's comments "injured millions of Muslims all over the world, but they must not lead to violence like the murder last year of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh who was critical of Islam," Reuters said.

"We assure all honest Swedes that the tragic developments we witnessed in Holland will not take place here."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005852.php


Here, we see that other Christians actually feel the need to treat Sweden like a place requiring and in need of Christian missionaries, including Ministers from Sweden...

Bishop Walter Obare of Kenya has struck a blow against the liberal, theologically bankrupt state church of Sweden by consecrating a bishop for a new more conservative mission within the Swedish Lutheran Church. He did so in spite of threats and protests from the Swedish church and the Lutheran World Federation.

Obare is to be congratulated for his determination to oppose the false doctrine of the Swedish state church and to support those who are rying to be and remain genuinely Lutheran. It may be difficult for American Lutherans to appreciate the office of bishop, but the Lutheran Confessions support such as an office as long as bishops themselves support the pure doctrine and administration of sacraments. As all Lutherans have experienced, in various ways, there is no church polity that guarantees orthodoxy, but only faithfulness to the Word of God and our Lutheran Confessions, which may be the case regardless of an Episcopal, consistorial or synodical form of church polity.
http://paulmccain.worldmagblog.com/paulmccain/archives/012473.html

What the real goal is, should be discussed and in the open, so that no one misunderstands...

"The Swedish National Association for Sexual Education once declared: 'Our aim is to encourage liberation through sex.' This pronouncement proved indeed to be one of the cleverest, most successful methods ever used to create acceptance of the policies of the top-down State and lure the populace into a kind of civil docility. In his book The New Totalitarians, Roland Huntford details the insidious manner in which a populace can be duped by the exchange of countless personal, political, and moral freedoms for the illusory right to sexual freedom. He quotes this chilling statement made by Mr. Ingvar Carlson, Sweden's former minister of education: 'The state is concerned with mortality from a desire to change society.”

If it is so fine to live without religion, and to allow children to be raised in a society full of divorce (64%) and told that marriage doesn't matter (the government recognized civil unions, not marriages, same sex unions or otherwise is irrelevant)... These next few links show you what happens.

The number of rape charges per capita in Malmö is 5—6 times that of Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen is a larger city, but the percentage of immigrants is much lower. And it’s not just the rape statistics that reveal a scary increase in Malmö or Sweden. Virtually every kind of violent crime is on the rise. Robberies have increased with 50 % in Malmö only during the fall of 2004. Threats against witnesses in Swedish court cases have quadrupled between 2000 and 2003. During the past few decades, massive immigration has changed the face of Sweden’s major cities, as well as challenged the viability of the welfare state. In 1970 Sweden had the fourth highest GDP per capita among developed countries with income about 6% above the OECD average. By 1997 it was at fifteenth place with an average GDP per capita 14% below average. Malmö has a heavy concentration of Muslim immigrants in particular. According to some estimates, it will be a Muslim majority city in no more then 10 years. Crime is rampant in the growing ghettos:

Kids in Single-Parent Homes Have Worse Health
At higher risk for mental illness, substance abuse and suicide
http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/511438.html

Single-Parent Kids More At Risk
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/04/health/main539283.shtml

Broken homes take huge toll on kids, major study finds
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828886/posts

And before you run off thinking, two mothers are as good as a mother and a father read these reports showing the specifics that men/Fathers bring to a child’s development ~ (I’m not even going to argue about the idea of two fathers being able to replace a single mother, anyone that thinks that’s even worthy of assumption that it might be better is a waste of my effort to debate with, they are essentially insane in their delusion and beyond my concern). Research on the importance of the role of fathers in the lives of their children is a long ignored, but rapidly growing area of research.

Indeed, fathers appear to play a crucial role in three important areas of their children’s lives:
• Cognitive abilities
• Behavior
• General health and well-being
http://www.swedish.org/16917.cfm

It is generally agreed that men and women should no longer be regarded as 'opposites'. The important thing to remember is that mothers and fathers often bring different strengths and styles to their parenting roles. These roles complement each other, meaning that they are not interchangeable and are each necessary for healthy childrearing.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/fathers.php

At age 33, men from disrupted family backgrounds were twice as likely to be unemployed (14% compared with 7%), and 1.6 times as likely to have experienced more than one bout of unemployment since leaving school (23% compared with 14%). Again, the reasons for the differences in these risk levels are complicated. Some of the difference seems to be due to poverty and behavior problems that existed before the divorce and persisted or deepened afterward. However, even after controlling for these factors, men whose parents divorced were still 1.4 times as likely to be unemployed and 1.3 times as likely to have experienced more than one bout of unemployment during adulthood.

An American study found that juvenile offending was affected not just by whether a particular child’s parents were married, but also by the prevalent family structures in his neighborhood.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A2530441

"Without God, everything is permitted".

The English writer G.K. Chesterton put it another way. "Once men stop believing in God", he said, "they do not believe in nothing. They start believing in anything".

I don't think so. I can decide to treat other people and their property with respect because I feel it is right. I don't need the perpetual threat of eternal damnation to convince me that im acting in the right way.

Couldnt be arsed to read the rest, but im sure its fantastic.

Must be... I didn't get past the 5th paragraph, though. Who the hell is "Mr Karlson"?
The only "Mr Karlson" I know is from a children's book by Astrid Lindgren, and this guy has a little propellor on his back to fly around with...

Must be... I didn't get past the 5th paragraph, though. Who the hell is "Mr Karlson"?
The only "Mr Karlson" I know is from a children's book by Astrid Lindgren, and this guy has a little propellor on his back to fly around with...

You didn't miss much. Its a bunch of fundie garbage.

Must be... I didn't get past the 5th paragraph, though. Who the hell is "Mr Karlson"?
The only "Mr Karlson" I know is from a children's book by Astrid Lindgren, and this guy has a little propellor on his back to fly around with...
You sure it wasn't Longstocking's monkey..? No, wait, it WAS Karlson auf dem Dach!
(Have I mentioned that I've met Astrid Lindgren?)

So.... are you saying that we who do not believe in God are doomed? Bring the Dome

When Ahab saw Jonas, he said to "Yarr, get off me white whale"

You sure it wasn't Longstocking's monkey..? No, wait, it WAS Karlson auf dem Dach!
(Have I mentioned that I've met Astrid Lindgren?)

The monkey was Mr Nilson.
No you didn't! You did? When? How? Where? What was she like?

You are going to be bashed for what you know to be true by every fag and godless scum in the forum. You have my endosement in game when you go to the UN. Don't listen and stick to your guns, have faith.

Well, regarding your statements, I honestly have to say that I could not car...
*breaks out into song*
Zweimal drei macht vier,
Widde widde witt und drei macht neune,
Ich mach mir die Welt,
Widde widde wie sie mir gefällt.

Hey Pippi Langstrumpf...!

You are going to be bashed for what you know to be true by every fag and godless scum in the forum. You have my endosement in game when you go to the UN. Don't listen and stick to your guns, have faith.

Im not sure he'd want your endorsement. Kind of like getting endorsed by Mugabwe or some other hippocritical gimmer. I know i wouldnt.

You are going to be bashed for what you know to be true by every fag and godless scum in the forum. You have my endosement in game when you go to the UN. Don't listen and stick to your guns, have faith.

:D

Well, regarding your statements, I honestly have to say that I could not car...
*breaks out into song*
Zweimal drei macht vier,
Widde widde witt und drei macht neune,
Ich mach mir die Welt,
Widde widde wie sie mir gefällt.

Hey Pippi Langstrumpf...!

Stompy Kittens! I think, what was the band Laibach?

You are going to be bashed for what you know to be true by every fag and godless scum in the forum. You have my endosement in game when you go to the UN. Don't listen and stick to your guns, have faith.

Yer goin' tah hell, boy. Th' Good Lohd 'imself'd come down an' smack ya for speakin' bout others that way! Love thy neighbo', ain't that right? Hate th' sin, not th' sinner? Hell! HELL fo' you, boy!

Now c'mere and bring me my grits!

Stompy Kittens! I think, what was the band Laibach?
Uh, call me a subcultural cretin, but I don't know 'em.
The little girl in me was just singing the title song to the Pippi Longstocking series, German dub.
Ich will auch ein kunterbuntes Haus, ein Äffchen und ein Pferd...

The English writer G.K. Chesterton put it another way. "Once men stop believing in God", he said, "they do not believe in nothing. They start believing in anything".
First off, I'm not going to take the word of an English author who uses double negatives.
Secondly, we're not lost without God. What makes you think it is religion that is what gives people a sense of morality or values? Do you not think that other things can play the same role as religion that we all naturally have - things like a conscience or a sense of morality? And if you think morality comes from the Church you are dead wrong - we all know how immoral the Church has and can be.
What makes you think that without God we would actually be lost? After all, it isn't as though Christianity is the only religion out there - it's human nature to worship and wonder about the origins of life and we have thousands of other religions and deities. And many religions don't even preach the morality that you are acting like only comes from the Church. For instance, Hinduism approaches life from the 'balance' angle; you live a balanced life of good and evil for Nirvana. So essentially, your argument has been disproven through India itself.

Secondly, you -are- right. Kids need to have a father and mother figure in their lives. It's important. I know how important it is to me - I grew up with an unattentive single mother and a father who calls me once a year to talk to me awkwardly. But I also know that you can find a father figure or mother figure in other people. I found a father figure in a close family friend who was a woman, and I found a mother figure in several male teachers who helped me through tough times. You'd be surprised what can nurture you.

Isn't it really just about the parents themselves and how they teach the kids? I mean, surely being a single parent doesn't leave you much time to look after the children, so that makes it much harder to teach them core values and inevitably brings up the higher rates of suicide and substance abuse (although mental illness is quite often heriditary - it's nature for the most part, not nurture). But what makes you think that two fathers, with one being the motherly figure (and trust me, a father can be a motherly figure and give you that warmth and support) and another being the father figure, couldn't teach children core values such as respect and politeness?

After all, that's really what it comes down to - teaching your children how to be respectful and polite to everyone. And much of this is done through school, not exclusively parents. Hell, I still whistle a song I learned in Kindergarten called 'The Golden Rule'. It comes down to Nurture - how you teach your kids and the children you are involved with - not nature, which you suggest it is since you seem to think that only a natural pairing for parents can develop stable children.

Personally, I think your argument regarding Sweden is unfounded. Show me more examples, show me every secular state that doesn't suffer radical crime, unemployment, communist regimes and low education and cite examples similar to these in Sweden, and perhaps you could sway me. But otherwise, you just come off as holding on to your one example as if it were all that was needed to justify your theory.

Copy and paste is someone's friend! haha. What a lame topic. Religion doesn't give people a sense of morality, trust me. Some of the least moral people I know are religious.

Who the hell is "Mr Karlson"?


The terminally unhip manager of WKRP in Cincinatti, of course. The one with the blonde bombshell secretary. You know.

Ironically enough, my experience has been quite the opposite. The fundamentalists, Christian or otherwise, tend to take a "kill 'em all, let God/Allah/Kali/etc. sort 'em out" attitude. It's the atheists who generally work for the betterment of life here on earth -- because they believe it's all we've got.

Quite a few of my fellow Christians could learn a lot from the atheists...

First off, I'm not going to take the word of an English author who uses double negatives.

Whoa, whoa. Before we go any further, let's stop badmouthing Chesterton, who was generally a good writer. He summed up most religion very nicely when he said "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." Ain't that always the way? The flesh is weak...

Ironically enough, my experience has been quite the opposite. The fundamentalists, Christian or otherwise, tend to take a "kill 'em all, let God/Allah/Kali/etc. sort 'em out" attitude. It's the atheists who generally work for the betterment of life here on earth -- because they believe it's all we've got.

Quite a few of my fellow Christians could learn a lot from the atheists...


Exactly.

I don't understand the skewed focus on Sweden. It's very bizarre reading, as it makes no sense. It's just one loony thing copy&pasted to the other loony, misrepresented thing.

Weird.

No point in debating with someone who just ducks and runs once his theories are thoroughly debunked in one thread just to create a new thread about the same thing.

If you could just past that equal rights under the law thing and that studies have a requirement to meet certain scientific methods, you'd have a great argument. Really, you would.

*snipped not needing God stuff*
... For instance, Hinduism approaches life from the 'balance' angle; you live a balanced life of good and evil for Nirvana. So essentially, your argument has been disproven through India itself.

Really? Have you looked at India lately? Do you really] want to say the state of affairs of India is what the world should aspire to? :)



Secondly, you -are- right. Kids need to have a father and mother figure in their lives. It's important. I know how important it is to me - I grew up with an unattentive single mother and a father who calls me once a year to talk to me awkwardly. But I also know that you can find a father figure or mother figure in other people. I found a father figure in a close family friend who was a woman, and I found a mother figure in several male teachers who helped me through tough times. You'd be surprised what can nurture you.

Isn't it really just about the parents themselves and how they teach the kids? I mean, surely being a single parent doesn't leave you much time to look after the children, so that makes it much harder to teach them core values and inevitably brings up the higher rates of suicide and substance abuse (although mental illness is quite often heriditary - it's nature for the most part, not nurture). But what makes you think that two fathers, with one being the motherly figure (and trust me, a father can be a motherly figure and give you that warmth and support) and another being the father figure, couldn't teach children core values such as respect and politeness?

After all, that's really what it comes down to - teaching your children how to be respectful and polite to everyone. And much of this is done through school, not exclusively parents. Hell, I still whistle a song I learned in Kindergarten called 'The Golden Rule'. It comes down to Nurture - how you teach your kids and the children you are involved with - not nature, which you suggest it is since you seem to think that only a natural pairing for parents can develop stable children.

Very good stuff about the two parents, very good points, I won't argue at all. I agree way more than I disagree... Nicely said. The mother missing stuff, I didn't go into that, I don't think I need to. Lets take a poll about missing mothers.

God is dead. And has been for a while. And without god making you feel all guilty, the sex is SO much better!

No point in debating with someone who just ducks and runs once his theories are thoroughly debunked in one thread just to create a new thread about the same thing.

If you could just past that equal rights under the law thing and that studies have a requirement to meet certain scientific methods, you'd have a great argument. Really, you would.

You're the one that's always asking for and wants a bunch of links to proofs and findings. You're just not a happy camper are you?

I don't understand the skewed focus on Sweden. It's very bizarre reading, as it makes no sense. It's just one loony thing copy&pasted to the other loony, misrepresented thing.

Weird.

Sweden and Scandinavia was brought up as an example of why Same-Sex marriage and social acceptance of left-wing and liberal views are a good thing and should be emulated in America, I disagree and showed why.

P.s., there are a couple of other links thrown in there as well. After the Swedish one parent study proved that children have a lot more problems in Sweden at least, they said they didn't know if the results would be transferable to other countries, so before someone else pointed that out, I linked to a an American study and a British study that had the same type of results in their countries...

So far, I read mostly insincere responses. I guess those that disagree with Greenlander are very secure in their beliefs. So secure that they can’t be bothered to read an article about what they disagree with. So secure that the other side could never possibly say anything insightful or thought provoking, that they dismiss it off hand and mock those who give it voice. The left is so open-minded.

openminded =/= stupid or guillible

openminded would be accepting of things that others don't accept whereas being stupid and is always looking at some more bigoted religous fanatical arguments hoping that there might be an actual point or real evidence.

Also if we are using historical arguments then do you believe in witches?

Sweden and Scandinavia was brought up as an example of why Same-Sex marriage and social acceptance of left-wing and liberal views are a good thing and should be emulated in America, I disagree and showed why.

You did so in a very poor and nonsensical fashion, sprinkled with biased opinions, that show your reliance on spurious sources and reveal that you lack a basic understanding of Swedish society. That's why it was such bizarre reading.

P.s., there are a couple of other links thrown in there as well. After the Swedish one parent study proved that children have a lot more problems in Sweden at least, they said they didn't know if the results would be transferable to other countries, so before someone else pointed that out, I linked to a an American study and a British study that had the same type of results in their countries...

That one parent study was discredited even in the article you linked to - one of the things that made your cut&pasted post so unreadable, because the points you were trying to make were countered by your own links. Also what sort of relevance it would have to same-sex marriage (which by the way doesn't exist in Scandinavia - another detail revealing your ignorance of society here) is not stated. What would be "left-wing" or "liberal" about single parent households is also omitted.

This thread just gets lamer everytime I read it. Sweden is a neat place, people are more concerned with helping one another than they are with making a fast buck. I rather liked it when I was there. But, I guess that helping your neighbor makes you spiritually bankrupt. What a load of crap.

I dont believe in god and im better person than you u_u'

Sell it to me Brother!

You are around me on every side;
you protect me with your power.
Your knowledge of me is too deep;
it is beyond my understanding.

Psalm 139:5,6

b301254328940c105ba2d7db8880f2cd.gif

You're the one that's always asking for and wants a bunch of links to proofs and findings. You're just not a happy camper are you?

You say that like it's a bad thing. I don't just want links though. I want links to peer-reviewed studies that don't draw conclusions based on data that doesn't meet the necessary criteria.


Flawed conclusion - Example, the majority of car accidents occur near your place of residence. However, this does not bring forth the conclusion that if you avoided being near your place of residence that you would decrease your chances of being in a car accident. The obvious cause of the statistical data is the amount of time you spend near your place of residence.

Using broad sampling data to make a conclusion about a subset - Example: Ten women take a test, four brunettes, three blondes and three redheads. The brunettes have an average score of 85 out of 100. The rest have an average score of 75 out of 100. This does not bring forth the conclusion that brunettes are did better on the test than the blondes. In fact, no conclusion can be made based on the data I gave about the blondes and brunettes.

Random studies not actually random - I give out a questionnaire to 5000 people randomly chosen and I get a response by 300 people. I call this a random study. It's not. It is entirely possible that those 300 people have something in common that made them more likely to respond than the remain 4700 who did not. Generally, a return sample of less than twenty percent is completely discarded and results are treated with skepticism in ratio to the amount of people who did not answer the study.

Your studies often make invalid conclusions that don't match the data, make conclusions about a subset of a group by looking at data about the whole group, and hardly ever post the rate of reply.

...

Your studies often make invalid conclusions that don't match the data, make conclusions about a subset of a group by looking at data about the whole group, and hardly ever post the rate of reply.

Yeah, everybody knows the Swedish Medical Center is a hate speech hotbed, full of lies and partiality when they say anything it's likely to be in error on the side of conservative. :rolleyes:

http://www.swedish.org/16917.cfm

Stompy Kittens! I think, what was the band Laibach?
Nah, the stompy kittens go like this, I think:

"Eins, zwei, drei, vier
Bruderchen, komm tanz mit mir
Eins, zwei, drei, vier,
Beide Hande reich ich dir
Eins, zwei, drei, vier,
Meine Fruende, tanz mit mir
Eins, zwei, drei, vier,
Rundherum das ist nicht schwer

Wir tanzen Ado Hinkel,
Benzino Napoloni
Wir tanzen Schiekelgrueber,
Und tanzen mit Maitreya
Mit Totalitarismus
Und mit Demokratie
Wir tanzen mit Fascismus
Und roter Anarchie"

Of course, seeing as I do not know much German apart from snatches from songs, I probably mangled the spelling. And I probably forgot a line or something.

EDIT:
And yeah it was Laibach.

Yeah, everybody knows the Swedish Medical Center is a hate speech hotbed, full of lies and partiality when they say anything it's likely to be in error on the side of conservative. :rolleyes:

http://www.swedish.org/16917.cfm

Who mentioned 'Hate speech'? I suggested that your sources are unscientific. The Swedish Medical Center pretty openly supports 'spirtuality', but this in and of itself does not make it a bad source if it relies on facts and scientific conclusions.

The only study reference is performed by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Only I can't find the study on their site so that's not particularly useful. I'm not claiming that the study is false, only that they give me no way to verify how the study was done or to check the accuracy of the conclusion. This is the problem with most of your sources.

Feel free to post the a study, any study that comes to the scientific conclusion you are espousing. Post the study. Not an editorial.

Well I say good on Sweden for being the new Sodom and/or Gemorrah.

There should be an awards ceremony.

Greenlander you back already? Damn time flies

So far, I read mostly insincere responses. I guess those that disagree with Greenlander are very secure in their beliefs. So secure that they can’t be bothered to read an article about what they disagree with. So secure that the other side could never possibly say anything insightful or thought provoking, that they dismiss it off hand and mock those who give it voice. The left is so open-minded.

Well, I read it up to the point were he referred to "the Swedish experiment"
It's not an experiment, it's a country. And that country places its priorities slightly different, it doesn't follow the shining example of the US.
Btw, I still don't know who "Mr Karlson" is supposed to be, nor why he was qouted there...

There was no place more Christian than Spain during Franco. That's why Spain was such a great country. Now, it's just a dump compared to that glory.

1 Kings 18: 17-18
When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, "Is that you, you destroyer of Israel?"
He replied, "I have not destroyed Israel, but you and your father's house have, because you have abandoned the Lord's commandments and followed the Baals.


Captain Ahab was in the BIBLE?!?!?!?!

Damn. I thought Greenlander was banned for massive flaming.

Don't feed the trolls, people. That's all he is, and there are several 20+ page threads to attest to it.

What the topic creator dosen't seem to know is that there is NO verse in the bible about homosexual marriage. There's a verse about not having sex with someone of the same sex, but nothing about marriages. Also, that verse, IIRC, was in the book of leviticus. Which applies to the Levites. WHO NO LONGER EXIST! There's nothing saying that people today cannot homosexuals cannot marry or have sex today. Your entire biblical point is irrelevant. Also, the only reason each gender seems to play a different role in child developement is because they have grown up with stereotypes saying that fathers, not mothers, play catch with their children, etc. The very same stereotypes which you are furthering. There's no reason a mother can't play catch with a child, and that would have the same effect on their motor functions as if a father was doing it.

Damn. I thought Greenlander was banned for massive flaming.

Don't feed the trolls, people. That's all he is, and there are several 20+ page threads to attest to it.


Nah, I was reading through some other threads, threads I wasn't even posting in, and I saw a couple of posts that claimed people would beat their children to death as long as people like me were around to promote my way of thinking. So, I told that person (s) what I thought of them and got banned (deservedly so) for a week.

So what's your point here?

Feel free to post the a study, any study that comes to the scientific conclusion you are espousing. Post the study. Not an editorial.


I don't have to post data verbatim anything, YOU are the side that wants to change conventional wisdom, you prove that there is a study that says kids do just fine without Fathers.

Rational people understand rational summary, like this one.

http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/dadsarechamps/

I don't have to post data verbatim anything, YOU are the side that wants to change conventional wisdom, you prove that there is a study that says kids do just fine without Fathers.

Rational people understand rational summary, like this one.

http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/dadsarechamps/

'My side' has no such obligation. You don't get it. Unless you can show a compelling government interest you cannot infringe up on equal rights. You've suggested the government has one, but you have the obligation to show it. So if you admit that you can't post a study to support your claims, then you've admitted that the courts will be correct WHEN they require states to recognize same-sex marriages due to the fourteenth amendment.

Rational people understand that there are poorly conducted studies, particularly since you've posted dozens of poorly conducted or summarized studies, and that it's more effective to be able to review these studies and discover if they are just another ridiculous editorial not based on fact. Are you worried that if you post the study you will make it too easy for us to debunk you? Really, if the studies are so prevelant as you claim, how could you not benefit from posting them?

By the way, that's not a summary of anything? There are not studies. There are no referenced sources. Why pretend it is? Now, if you're trying to prove that children benefit from interacting with the adult role-models in their life, who is arguing that it's not true?

I don't have to post data verbatim anything, YOU are the side that wants to change conventional wisdom, you prove that there is a study that says kids do just fine without Fathers.

Rational people understand rational summary, like this one.

http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/dadsarechamps/
Actually, technically you now carry what we call the burden of proof in the legal system....I'm sure you've heard of it. Therefore, you are at least partially (and understandably) obligated to either post unbiased, objective data or quit saying "I'm right and here's the proof, and because you can't understand it from my point of view you're clearly wrong".

Sometimes I wish these forums required the same rules of debate as real debates, so we wouldn't have crap like this going down all the time. I admit, I don't really agree with your stance, but I wasn't against you, per se, until it started seeming to me that you just got sick of posting your "proof".

Fine... more studies...

After adjusting for other factors, children with a lone parent were found to be twice as likely to have a psychiatric disease compared to their two-parent counterparts. They were also at double the risk for suicide attempts and for alcohol-related diseases. The chances of drug abuse were three times as high among girls and four times as high among boys in single-parent households. Boys in single-parent households were more likely than girls to develop psychiatric and narcotics-related problems and were also more likely to die of any cause.
http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/511438.html

Or, peruse this one:
http://www.fathersnetwork.org/

Fine... more studies...

After adjusting for other factors, children with a lone parent were found to be twice as likely to have a psychiatric disease compared to their two-parent counterparts. They were also at double the risk for suicide attempts and for alcohol-related diseases. The chances of drug abuse were three times as high among girls and four times as high among boys in single-parent households. Boys in single-parent households were more likely than girls to develop psychiatric and narcotics-related problems and were also more likely to die of any cause.
http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/511438.html
"More studies"? You've already quoted that one. I fail to see what about it connotates that there are "more studies" listed in any sense.

Also, I'm curious to know where you live that you think all of this is a universally correct issue. I was originally assuming Swedish, as that's the basis for almost every link you provided, but then the Swede (Fass) did in fact pretty accurately defend the other side of things. Then I naturally assumed you were American, because most of the people with these viewpoints that I've encountered are Americans, but then that also breaks it up into about a billion different factors that could lead you to believe differently than any other American. Now I'm just confused because so little of it makes sense.

Still anxiously awaiting new, unbiased links.

And as to your edit, answered with my edit, am I supposed to be referencing this ENTIRE page as support for your argument, or are just blindly poke around and guess as to what point you're trying to make with it? Please give articles in the future, not just the main page. Doing this leaves you more easily open to attack and criticism by other parties.

I don't have to post data verbatim anything, YOU are the side that wants to change conventional wisdom, you prove that there is a study that says kids do just fine without Fathers.

Rational people understand rational summary, like this one.

http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/dadsarechamps/
Yeah! You go, Greenlander! Show them that posting internet sites like this: http://www.metlife.com/Applications/Corporate/WPS/CDA/PageGenerator/0,1674,P985,00.html
should be enough to convince any rational person!

Power to the links!

Fine... more studies...

After adjusting for other factors, children with a lone parent were found to be twice as likely to have a psychiatric disease compared to their two-parent counterparts. They were also at double the risk for suicide attempts and for alcohol-related diseases. The chances of drug abuse were three times as high among girls and four times as high among boys in single-parent households. Boys in single-parent households were more likely than girls to develop psychiatric and narcotics-related problems and were also more likely to die of any cause.
http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/511438.html

Or, peruse this one:
http://www.fathersnetwork.org/

You mean more editorials. Would you like to actually post a study?

You mean more editorials. Would you like to actually post a study?

How about you post a study that meets your credentials to shut me up?


In the meantime:

http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/juvcrm/tcc2d.html (below)

A boy from a single parent home in the inner city is twice as likely to engage in crime when compared to a similar boy who is poor but living with a father and mother.

Seven in ten juveniles in long-term correctional facilities did not live with their fathers while they were growing up.


~~~~~
http://www.ncpa.org/abo/quarterly/20042nd/clip/20040620wthtm.htm (below)

Statistics tell the tale: Violent crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and suicide are often associated with being raised without an involved father.

Nearly two-thirds of adolescent murderers are from fatherless homes. Seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions and 60 percent of America's rapists grew up without fathers in their homes.

In fact, a boy raised by both parents is about half as likely by 30 to be incarcerated for committing a crime. And children raised by both parents are a third less likely to use illegal drugs, tobacco or alcohol than children in single-parent homes.

Children in two-parent families are less than half as likely to suffer from physical abuse or neglect, and less than half as likely to have emotional or behavioral problems than children raised in single-parent homes.

Decline of marriage and rise in divorce and out-of-wedlock births are key forces separating fathers from their children.

For example, marriage is disappearing in Scandinavia, according to Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Extending marital rights and benefits to unmarried partners in the 1990s drastically reduced Scandinavian marriages and increased out-of-wedlock childbirths.

Between 1990 and 2000, the out-of-wedlock birthrate in Norway rose from 39 percent to 50 percent and Sweden's rose from 47 to 55 percent. About 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark now have unmarried parents. Out-of-wedlock births are up in Britain, too. Forty percent of children in Britain are born to unmarried women.

How about you post a study that meets your credentials to shut me up?


In the meantime:

http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/juvcrm/tcc2d.html (below)

A boy from a single parent home in the inner city is twice as likely to engage in crime when compared to a similar boy who is poor but living with a father and mother.

Seven in ten juveniles in long-term correctional facilities did not live with their fathers while they were growing up.


~~~~~
http://www.ncpa.org/abo/quarterly/20042nd/clip/20040620wthtm.htm (below)

Statistics tell the tale: Violent crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and suicide are often associated with being raised without an involved father.

Nearly two-thirds of adolescent murderers are from fatherless homes. Seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions and 60 percent of America's rapists grew up without fathers in their homes.

In fact, a boy raised by both parents is about half as likely by 30 to be incarcerated for committing a crime. And children raised by both parents are a third less likely to use illegal drugs, tobacco or alcohol than children in single-parent homes.

Children in two-parent families are less than half as likely to suffer from physical abuse or neglect, and less than half as likely to have emotional or behavioral problems than children raised in single-parent homes.

Decline of marriage and rise in divorce and out-of-wedlock births are key forces separating fathers from their children.

For example, marriage is disappearing in Scandinavia, according to Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Extending marital rights and benefits to unmarried partners in the 1990s drastically reduced Scandinavian marriages and increased out-of-wedlock childbirths.

Between 1990 and 2000, the out-of-wedlock birthrate in Norway rose from 39 percent to 50 percent and Sweden's rose from 47 to 55 percent. About 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark now have unmarried parents. Out-of-wedlock births are up in Britain, too. Forty percent of children in Britain are born to unmarried women.
Again I ask: what area are these statistics being logically applied to? Because I'm looking at most of these little snippets, we'll call them facts to humour both sides, and I know that a good plurality, if not majority, don't apply to my region. That last fact, especially, seems entirely out-of-context if you're arguing the ratios of any area unquoted. Just because a certain group grows in certain areas doesn't mean it grows in all areas.

Simonist']Again I ask: what area are these statistics being logically applied to? Because I'm looking at most of these little snippets, we'll call them facts to humour both sides, and I know that a good plurality, if not majority, don't apply to my region.


They apply to this question, does a secular government have the right to encourage, through benefits, the advancement of dual sex, biological parenting...

How about you post a study that meets your credentials to shut me up?

I don't have the burden of proof. You do. I hold that there is no compelling interest to prevent the allowance of same-sex marriage. Much like if I held there is no Loch Ness monster, I am not required to prove this. The lack of proof is evidence enough. Prove your Loch Ness monster exists or stop claim it does.


In the meantime:

http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/juvcrm/tcc2d.html (below)

A boy from a single parent home in the inner city is twice as likely to engage in crime when compared to a similar boy who is poor but living with a father and mother.

Seven in ten juveniles in long-term correctional facilities did not live with their fathers while they were growing up.

Ha. Even better. An editorial based on editorials. Your sources aren't studies. They're editorials. These are bad sources even on a GL scale.


~~~~~
http://www.ncpa.org/abo/quarterly/20042nd/clip/20040620wthtm.htm (below)

Statistics tell the tale: Violent crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and suicide are often associated with being raised without an involved father.

Nearly two-thirds of adolescent murderers are from fatherless homes. Seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions and 60 percent of America's rapists grew up without fathers in their homes.

In fact, a boy raised by both parents is about half as likely by 30 to be incarcerated for committing a crime. And children raised by both parents are a third less likely to use illegal drugs, tobacco or alcohol than children in single-parent homes.

Children in two-parent families are less than half as likely to suffer from physical abuse or neglect, and less than half as likely to have emotional or behavioral problems than children raised in single-parent homes.

Decline of marriage and rise in divorce and out-of-wedlock births are key forces separating fathers from their children.

For example, marriage is disappearing in Scandinavia, according to Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Extending marital rights and benefits to unmarried partners in the 1990s drastically reduced Scandinavian marriages and increased out-of-wedlock childbirths.

Between 1990 and 2000, the out-of-wedlock birthrate in Norway rose from 39 percent to 50 percent and Sweden's rose from 47 to 55 percent. About 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark now have unmarried parents. Out-of-wedlock births are up in Britain, too. Forty percent of children in Britain are born to unmarried women.

The second was is even better. Didn't even bother with sources. Why not at least try, my friend?

They apply to this question, does a secular government have the right to encourage, through benefits, the advancement of dual sex, biological parenting...

A belief you have a requirement to prove or accept that the government has no need to care. You seem to choose to not even try to prove it. Most of us in this thread are educated enough to know the difference between editorial and studies.

They apply to this question, does a secular government have the right to encourage, through benefits, the advancement of dual sex, biological parenting...
Okay, I'll rephrase it again....WHAT SECULAR GOVERNMENT ARE YOU REFERRING TO, if any specific. If no specific, just say "secular government in general" and I'll wade through your links yet again to see if I just somehow imagined the extreme tilt towards certain geographical regions, whether or not someone else has already called you out on it.....

I can't put up with much more of this rubbish, if I don't get real sources and intelligible answers sometime soon.

Psst, psst, Greenlander, psst...

They want to see something kind of like this: http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/arb/publications/nlscy/uey/2003-002369/page07.shtml

This is a study carried out in the Montréal area, but is a real study. This is what they look like, in case you want to go and look for others that are more general and related to your point.

Psst, psst, Greenlander, psst...

They want to see something kind of like this: http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/arb/publications/nlscy/uey/2003-002369/page07.shtml

This is a study carried out in the Montréal area, but is a real study. This is what they look like, in case you want to go and look for others that are more general and related to your point.
Oooh, very catchy. I like yer style. You come here often?

I don't have the burden of proof. You do.

That's right, just keep jumping up and down, screaming I won't I won't I won't... It'll work. :rolleyes:


Recent research has given us much deeper—and more surprising—insights into the father's role in child rearing. It shows that in almost all of their interactions with children, fathers do things a little differently from mothers. What fathers do—their special parenting style—is not only highly complementary to what mothers do but is by all indications important in its own right for optimum child rearing.

http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Popenoe/nofathers.htm

~~~~~

The states should restructure their programs to promote fatherhood and marriage, say researchers Wade Horn and Andrew Bush. Building strong families would improve the life chances of children and help rebuild low-income communities.

*Among long-term prison inmates, 70 percent grew up without fathers, as did 60 percent of rapists and 75 percent of adolescents charged with murder.

* Fatherless children are three times more likely to fail school, require psychiatric treatment and commit suicide as adolescents.

*They are also up to 40 times more likely to experience child abuse compared with children growing up in two-parent families.
...
Source: Wade Horn and Andrew Bush, "Fathers, Marriage, and Welfare Reform,"
Hudson Institute Executive Briefing, 1997, Hudson Institute, Herman Kahn Center, 5395 Emerson Way, Indianapolis, IN 46226, (317) 545-1000.

(Sorry, not everything can be printed online, old fashioned Library reference is required)
~~~~~~

One expert from Harvard medical school who has studied over 40 years of research on the question of parental absence and children's well-being said this: “What has been shown over and over again to contribute most to the emotional development of the child is a close, warm, sustained and continuous relationship with both parents.”1 Or as David Blankenhorn has stated in Fatherless America: “Fatherlessness is the most harmful demographic trend of this generation.”

http://www.fathersonline.org/fatherlessness/facts-on-fatherlessness-nov-03.pdf#search='Without%20fathers%20study'

a lot of people are in a dream world, if you consider most teenagers in most countries of the world you can see clearly that the progenitor of this thread has somewhat of a point. and if you'd read the brothers karamozov you'd understand what dostoyevski meant by his quote, which i don't think just applies to god litterarly but to a higher notion of morality rather than a egocentric convenient one.

That's right, just keep jumping up and down, screaming I won't I won't I won't... It'll work. :rolleyes:
Funny you should mention that, as it's been done on both sides....

And neither of these new links appear to be studies, either.....just more reports on studies. Though at least this time the second one cites its OWN references....whether or not they're also biased sources.....

Simonist']Oooh, very catchy. I like yer style. You come here often?
Only when bored. So, yes, often.

Simonist']Okay, I'll rephrase it again....WHAT SECULAR GOVERNMENT ARE YOU REFERRING TO, if any specific. If no specific, just say "secular government in general" and I'll wade through your links yet again to see if I just somehow imagined the extreme tilt towards certain geographical regions, whether or not someone else has already called you out on it.....

I can't put up with much more of this rubbish, if I don't get real sources and intelligible answers sometime soon.

Get used to it. GL is a big argument dropper. He also likes to post editorials and call them studies. And if you really press him, he'll tell you he doesn't have to prove his point because the burden of proof is on you. But none of these things are as fun as when he tells you about his Eugenics plan.

Get used to it. GL is a big argument dropper. He also likes to post editorials and call them studies. And if you really press him, he'll tell you he doesn't have to prove his point because the burden of proof is on you. But none of these things are as fun as when he tells you about his Eugenics plan.
Yeah, I've been noticing those problems steadily over the past twenty minutes or so.....apparently some people don't have the common sense to realize that if you start a topic with the seeming intent to be persuasive, you have to prove your point and stand up to debate. That seems to be a spreading disease.

Unfortunately, trying to get ANY viable information out of him has made me feel like a bully. Dang.

a lot of people are in a dream world, if you consider most teenagers in most countries of the world you can see clearly that the progenitor of this thread has somewhat of a point. and if you'd read the brothers karamozov you'd understand what dostoyevski meant by his quote, which i don't think just applies to god litterarly but to a higher notion of morality rather than a egocentric convenient one.
Oh, he does have some sort of a point. It's better for children to grow up in homes in which there's a father figure involved. Some studies, like the one I posted a bit before, mention that as the ideal. However, this doesn't consitute proof that a single parent home will necessarily be bad, or that gay couple will result in bad children, or that a family with an abusive father or parents in a bad relationship will not result in screwed up children. The quotes provided are not proof for any of these scenarios.

Psst, psst, Greenlander, psst...

They want to see something kind of like this: http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/arb/publications/nlscy/uey/2003-002369/page07.shtml

This is a study carried out in the Montréal area, but is a real study. This is what they look like, in case you want to go and look for others that are more general and related to your point.


Oh yeah, thank you! :)

The results also show that there are more children with behavioral problems in single-parent families. The high number of single-parent families may be a partial explanation for the relatively high number of children displaying hyperactivity and emotional maturity problems.

They acted/sounded like they expected an even higher number because of poverty influence, or low scores because of poverty. But it appears that poverty isn’t as big a problem as it’s supposed to be and the loss of Father is a bigger influence on low score, rich or poor.

Nice link, thanks. I’ll save it and use it. :D

Single-Parent Family 0.72 0.75 0.59 (all scores less than average)

Not that using it will do any good, as we've now all seen it.....

That's right, just keep jumping up and down, screaming I won't I won't I won't... It'll work. :rolleyes:

I love how you edit our posts to make you sound more reasonable. Again, here is my proof that the Loch Ness monster does not exist. Ready.





Done. See. Without proof, there is no need to refute proof. So clearly support what you claim to be true and I'll show you how your sources do not actually show that. And you know I will which is why you don't show it. Again, see my proof is the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth amendment says that I don't have to prove that everyone should have equal protection under the law. You know why? Because it guarantees equal protection under the law without a compelling government interest to do otherwise. Apparently that compelling government doesn't exist since you can't seem to show it does and you've seen tons of sources to show that the statistics to support your claims simply do not exist.

Recent research has given us much deeper—and more surprising—insights into the father's role in child rearing.

And, yet you can't seem to show any of it.


It shows that in almost all of their interactions with children, fathers do things a little differently from mothers. What fathers do—their special parenting style—is not only highly complementary to what mothers do but is by all indications important in its own right for optimum child rearing.

http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Popenoe/nofathers.htm

~~~~~

The states should restructure their programs to promote fatherhood and marriage, say researchers Wade Horn and Andrew Bush. Building strong families would improve the life chances of children and help rebuild low-income communities.

*Among long-term prison inmates, 70 percent grew up without fathers, as did 60 percent of rapists and 75 percent of adolescents charged with murder.

* Fatherless children are three times more likely to fail school, require psychiatric treatment and commit suicide as adolescents.

*They are also up to 40 times more likely to experience child abuse compared with children growing up in two-parent families.
...
Source: Wade Horn and Andrew Bush, "Fathers, Marriage, and Welfare Reform,"
Hudson Institute Executive Briefing, 1997, Hudson Institute, Herman Kahn Center, 5395 Emerson Way, Indianapolis, IN 46226, (317) 545-1000.

(Sorry, not everything can be printed online, old fashioned Library reference is required)
~~~~~~

One expert from Harvard medical school who has studied over 40 years of research on the question of parental absence and children's well-being said this: “What has been shown over and over again to contribute most to the emotional development of the child is a close, warm, sustained and continuous relationship with both parents.”1 Or as David Blankenhorn has stated in Fatherless America: “Fatherlessness is the most harmful demographic trend of this generation.”

http://www.fathersonline.org/fatherlessness/facts-on-fatherlessness-nov-03.pdf#search='Without%20fathers%20study'

Strange how all of this information exists to 'prove' your point, and not one single study. You'd think one of these must be based on a study you can cite. Why is it so hard for you to find one? It's your thread. Certainly, you wouldn't start ANOTHER thread and still not have any proof, would you?

Strange how all of this information exists to 'prove' your point, and not one single study. You'd think one of these must be based on a study you can cite. Why is it so hard for you to find one? It's your thread. Certainly, you wouldn't start ANOTHER thread and still not have any proof, would you?
It's been done before, and even if we mere mortals can prevent it in this case, it'll surely happen again. Probably on the same topic. Next week.

Oh, he does have some sort of a point. It's better for children to grow up in homes in which there's a father figure involved. Some studies, like the one I posted a bit before, mention that as the ideal. However, this doesn't consitute proof that a single parent home will necessarily be bad, or that gay couple will result in bad children, or that a family with an abusive father or parents in a bad relationship will not result in screwed up children. The quotes provided are not proof for any of these scenarios.


OH no. I don't mean to say that single parent homes MUST be bad, only that statistically they are worse. I also point out that secondary homes (children that have been forced to move into families with different parents (remarriage and co-habiting adult parents etc.,) cause statistical problems as well.

Then, the conclusion is, that even secular governments have a 'reason' to favor one method over the other because of statistical success and therefore, they have an interests in favoring one method over another with incentives and benefits for that method (which is biological dual sex parents) that the studies say is statistically BEST (If you thought I was saying that good people can't come from other methods then I apologize).

Then, the conclusion is, that even secular governments have a 'reason' to favor one method over the other because of statistical success and therefore, they have an interests in favoring one method over another with incentives and benefits for that method (which is biological dual sex parents) that the studies say is statistically BEST (If you thought I was saying that good people can't come from other methods then I apologize).
Yes, perhaps the government should encourage people to take the path that has been proven statistically best, but it shouldn't do so by constraining the right to choose. Whenever possible the government should inform about the possible pitfalls and difficulties of making whatever choice, and provide, or encourage the community to provide, some level of support to those who, by choice or accident, find themselves in those situations.

This is especially true in poor areas or in cases where one of the parents has a mental problem.

On the other hand, statistics often hide as much as they reveal. For example, the Montréal study doesn't tell us why families with both parents present fare better, or whether parenting style can contrarrest the absense of the father, or what kinds of community supports will be better for what situations. Futhermore, society is in constant change, and the answers that were true 30 years ago may not be true now.

Oh yeah, thank you! :)

The results also show that there are more children with behavioral problems in single-parent families. The high number of single-parent families may be a partial explanation for the relatively high number of children displaying hyperactivity and emotional maturity problems.

They acted/sounded like they expected an even higher number because of poverty influence, or low scores because of poverty. But it appears that poverty isn’t as big a problem as it’s supposed to be and the loss of Father is a bigger influence on low score, rich or poor.

Nice link, thanks. I’ll save it and use it. :D

Single-Parent Family 0.72 0.75 0.59 (all scores less than average)

"Data describing the outcomes of children ages 5 and 6, as well as the family and community environments in which they live, were collected from three sources: their parents, their teachers, and from the children themselves. The data for all twelve community research reports were based on the Early Development Instrument (EDI) and the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) assessments. Samples were drawn in each of the communities from families with children ages 5 and 6, and the teachers, parents, and children were given the EDI and NLSCY assessments.

In order to understand the performance of the children in each community based on the EDI, the results were compared to a larger EDI sample of about 28,250 children, drawn from selected communities. Although this sample, referred to as EDI-16, is not truly national or representative, it provides a means of comparing children in this community with other 5-6 year old children. The number of children in the EDI-16 sample is different from that used in the EDI monitoring report3."

Keep in mind that this is not a random study, therefore not representative and it is a fairly limited geographic area. It also does not show what percentage of respondants.

"*big rant against Canadian study that Greenlander didn't even bring up, but agreed with*

Yeah, you go man, you go, don’t give up now... you must be right, it's doubtlessly full of lies and innuendo...How dare they conclude that two parent homes with a working-loving-mother-and-father relationship might be good for the children…. :rolleyes:

Yes, perhaps the government should encourage people to take the path that has been proven statistically best, but it shouldn't do so by constraining the right to choose. Whenever possible the government should inform about the possible pitfalls and difficulties of making whatever choice, and provide, or encourage the community to provide, some level of support to those who, by choice or accident, find themselves in those situations.

This is especially true in poor areas or in cases where one of the parents has a mental problem.

On the other hand, statistics often hide as much as they reveal. For example, the Montréal study doesn't tell us why families with both parents present fare better, or whether parenting style can contrarrest the absense of the father, or what kinds of community supports will be better for what situations. Futhermore, society is in constant change, and the answers that were true 30 years ago may not be true now.

You see, now that's a rational post. I don't have a problem with that, a little political differences settled with the method designed by our government and we move on...

Yeah, you go man, you go, don’t give up now... you must be right, it's doubtlessly full of lies and innuendo...How dare they conclude that two parent homes with a working-loving-mother-and-father relationship might be good for the children…. :rolleyes:
Ha. Did you read what I wrote in my sentence-long 'big rant'? The source may very well have been conducted properly, but it doesn't say what the respondent rate is which is important to evaluating the source. The original poster of the source pointed out that it's not random and it's very local, so I said nothing new.

It's amusing how you're so threatened by any questioning of sources. The source is devoid of lies or innuendo, it's just missing a crucial piece of information about the study.

You see, now that's a rational post. I don't have a problem with that, a little political differences settled with the method designed by our government and we move on...

Good. So it's settled. Same-sex marriage cannot be denied based on present evidence.

It's amusing how you're so threatened by any questioning of sources. The source is devoid of lies or innuendo, it's just missing a crucial piece of information about the study.


Yes, yes, I know exactly what you mean. I know this one poster that damns and dismisses absolutely everything and everyone that ever said anything about any-subject without first backing it up with three cross-continent non-random million person surveys... And yet, this poster never actually brings any data himself, no, he just likes to piss and moan about other people’s data and statistics and findings and opinion and educated conclusion from outside sources.

Good. So it's settled. Same-sex marriage cannot be denied based on present evidence.


Oh that's right, he likes to play word games as well. He likes to pretend that same-sex parenting results are somehow excluded from the results of other studies, he likes to pretend that they don't fall under single parent and co-habitating parents results and that somehow, magically, a piece of paper that says marriage on it is going to FIX and make perfect, the otherwise same household that they are already living in, with the children from that 'step-family' feel so much better after that :confused: :rolleyes:

Yes, yes, I know exactly what you mean. I know this one poster that damns and dismisses absolutely everything and everyone that ever said anything about any-subject without first backing it up with three cross-continent non-random million person surveys... And yet, this poster never actually brings any data himself, no, he just likes to piss and moan about other people’s data and statistics and findings and opinion and educated conclusion from outside sources.

Ha. That's amusing. I know I would hate if my attempts to deny people rights were constantly thwarted by people who don't buy into bogus studies. I can understand why you're bitter.

Ha. That's amusing. I know I would hate if my attempts to deny people rights were constantly thwarted by people who don't buy into bogus studies. I can understand why you're bitter.


Well good for you, good that you recognize the relevance of this very first feeling of sympathy for a fellow human being. Perhaps you will cultivate this new feeling into an actual ‘hope.’ A hope that you will develop into a sense of heart, maybe even the heart of a philanthropist, who will one day work for the good of the widows and the orphans and the children in our community. This would make us all glad and proud and remember this day, this day being the result of today’s admission of empathy for a fellow poster. :p


Praise God Hallelujah! :D

Oh that's right, he likes to play word games as well. He likes to pretend that same-sex parenting results are somehow excluded from the results of other studies, he likes to pretend that they don't fall under single parent and co-habitating parents results and that somehow, magically, a piece of paper that says marriage on it is going to FIX and make perfect, the otherwise same household that they are already living in, with the children from that 'step-family' feel so much better after that :confused: :rolleyes:

Okay, first of all, a married homosexual couple raising children cannot possibly fall under the category of "single parents." The word "single" means one. A married couple consists of two. Two, strangely enough, is not equal to one. Crazy how that works.

Secondly, please, please stop acting as if adopted children, step-children, and children created through medical assistance are not really the children of the couple who think of themselves as those children's parents. That's unbelievably offensive on a whole variety of levels.

Third, what on earth do you have against Sweden? Have you ever actually been there? I have - not for terribly long, but long enough for me to be extremely impressed. In my experience, the Swedes tended to be nicer, more cheerful, at least seemingly more financially comfortable, and more community-minded than pretty much any other group of people I've encountered. I only spent a couple of weeks there, but it was enough to make me seriously consider moving there at some point. Don't knock a country till you've tried it...

Oh that's right, he likes to play word games as well. He likes to pretend that same-sex parenting results are somehow excluded from the results of other studies, he likes to pretend that they don't fall under single parent and co-habitating parents results and that somehow, magically, a piece of paper that says marriage on it is going to FIX and make perfect, the otherwise same household that they are already living in, with the children from that 'step-family' feel so much better after that :confused: :rolleyes:

Do I have to post how to draw conclusions from statistics again? If you have a statistic about all blond people, it tells you nothing of how being a blond woman affects that statistic. You can't just say, "well, the subgroup is part of the statistic." You have to actually analyze the subgroup.

Well good for you, good that you recognize the relevance of this very first feeling of sympathy for a fellow human being. Perhaps you will cultivate this new feeling into an actual ‘hope.’ A hope that you will develop into a sense of heart, maybe even the heart of a philanthropist, who will one day work for the good of the widows and the orphans and the children in our community. This would make us all glad and proud and remember this day, this day being the result of today’s admission of empathy for a fellow poster. :p


Praise God Hallelujah! :D

Yes, maybe I can get enough sympathy to suggest denying people standard rights and eugenics. How long exactly does it take to reach that level of sympathy?

Do I have to post how to draw conclusions from statistics again? If you have a statistic about all blond people, it tells you nothing of how being a blond woman affects that statistic. You can't just say, "well, the subgroup is part of the statistic." You have to actually analyze the subgroup.

If you think it would help, you go right ahead. You're being very persistent about staying off topic and concentrating on the irrelevant, it shows passion and determination. Well done, congratulations.

A hope that you will develop into a sense of heart, maybe even the heart of a philanthropist, who will one day work for the good of the widows and the orphans and the children in our community.

...you mean by allowing them to marry people they love? Or to be raised by loving parents? Who may or may not conform to other people's ideals? Sounds great!

Oh, wait. I forgot. "Having a heart" means judging people based on arbitrary standards, denying orphans homes because their potential parents don't look like Ward and June Cleaver, refusing to let people be with the loves of their lives because a few totally unrelated people think that's icky, and repealing the 14th Amendment. Silly me; how could I get so confused?

Okay, first of all, a married homosexual couple raising children cannot possibly fall under the category of "single parents." The word "single" means one. A married couple consists of two. Two, strangely enough, is not equal to one. Crazy how that works.

Actually, it's very easy to explain that. Consider, IF the survey is being done in a country that doesn't have same-sex marriage, it doesn't mean they don't have same-sex couples already living there, these couples and situations had to be classified somewhere, they were put in single parent homes of co-habitating homes for the study (both of which are lower that standard dual biological parent homes). But t was a good question, thanks.

Secondly, please, please stop acting as if adopted children, step-children, and children created through medical assistance are not really the children of the couple who think of themselves as those children's parents. That's unbelievably offensive on a whole variety of levels.

Children are really children, regardless of where they are being raised, if I said anything differently before, I apologize. All children deserve to feel 'at home' where they lay their heads at night.


Third, what on earth do you have against Sweden? Have you ever actually been there? I have - not for terribly long, but long enough for me to be extremely impressed. In my experience, the Swedes tended to be nicer, more cheerful, at least seemingly more financially comfortable, and more community-minded than pretty much any other group of people I've encountered. I only spent a couple of weeks there, but it was enough to make me seriously consider moving there at some point. Don't knock a country till you've tried it...

I don't have anything 'against' Sweden, I'm Swedish myself, but who cares about that. What they do have is a history of social liberalism that is now being discussed by other countries, (Canada, US etc.,) so they are relevant for discussion and comparison..

...you mean by allowing them to marry people they love? Or to be raised by loving parents? Who may or may not conform to other people's ideals? Sounds great!

Oh, wait. I forgot. "Having a heart" means judging people based on arbitrary standards, denying orphans homes because their potential parents don't look like Ward and June Cleaver, refusing to let people be with the loves of their lives because a few totally unrelated people think that's icky, and repealing the 14th Amendment. Silly me; how could I get so confused?


If they didn't drag a third and fourth and fifth (and many more as there are children in the world etc.,) into it, then I wouldn't say a word against it. But the truth is, their choices influences more than just themselves. The reports of the neighborhoods of the children being studied shows that the neighborhood does indeed have an affect on them.

No man is an island. Our choices have influence and impact on those around us, even when those around us are strangers to us personally. If their love for each other is allowed to grow and continue unmolested, why do they insist that they be endorsed by the government and then have an influence on children not their own?

They gain nothing for themselves, and yet they attempt to prove, without evidence, that the children will not be harmed even when all evidence points to the contrary.

If you think it would help, you go right ahead. You're being very persistent about staying off topic and concentrating on the irrelevant, it shows passion and determination. Well done, congratulations.

Well, it's worth a shot.

Using broad sampling data to make a conclusion about a subset - Example: Ten women take a test, four brunettes, three blondes and three redheads. The brunettes have an average score of 85 out of 100. The rest have an average score of 75 out of 100. This does not bring forth the conclusion that brunettes are did better on the test than the blondes. In fact, no conclusion can be made based on the data I gave about the blondes and brunettes.

While you believe that supporting your crazy notions is irrelevant, most would disagree, including, fortunately, the SCOTUS. Feel free to read how to actually draw a conclusion from a study before posting your next editorial. It will make it easier for you to know exactly how we're going to make your post look silly.

If they didn't drag a third and fourth and fifth (and many more as there are children in the world etc.,) into it, then I wouldn't say a word against it. But the truth is, their choices influences more than just themselves. The reports of the neighborhoods of the children being studied shows that the neighborhood does indeed have an affect on them.

No man is an island. Our choices have influence and impact on those around us, even when those around us are strangers to us personally. If their love for each other is allowed to grow and continue unmolested, why do they insist that they be endorsed by the government and then have an influence on children not their own?

They gain nothing for themselves, and yet they attempt to prove, without evidence, that the children will not be harmed even when all evidence points to the contrary.

They gain nothing for themselves other than equal protection under the law and the 1000 rights and priveleges conveyed by marriage. Just those two little things.

All evidence points to the contrary and so far you've managed to find NONE. What's that say about your research skills?

Well, it's worth a shot.

Using broad sampling data to make a conclusion about a subset - Example: Ten women take a test, four brunettes, three blondes and three redheads. The brunettes have an average score of 85 out of 100. The rest have an average score of 75 out of 100. This does not bring forth the conclusion that brunettes are did better on the test than the blondes. In fact, no conclusion can be made based on the data I gave about the blondes and brunettes.

While you believe that supporting your crazy notions is irrelevant, most would disagree, including, fortunately, the SCOTUS. Feel free to read how to actually draw a conclusion from a study before posting your next editorial. It will make it easier for you to know exactly how we're going to make your post look silly.
One of the difference is, of course, that I didn't make up a bunch of survey participants, questions and results to make my point. I actually found and presented the data that is compiled elsewhere for my posts.

You seem to like to talk to everyone (Christian or Seculare, but mainly people that disagree with you) like everyone besides you is an idiot. But at least it is entertaining to us, so please feel free to continue trying to educate the rest of us with your survey results and statistic and why children never having anything is important. Why don't you just ‘decide’ what the answer ‘should be’ before the data is even collected and save ourselves all the trouble of collected flawed and unusable data. :rolleyes:

They gain nothing for themselves other than equal protection under the law and the 1000 rights and priveleges conveyed by marriage. Just those two little things.

All evidence points to the contrary and so far you've managed to find NONE. What's that say about your research skills?

Why don't you post a list of those 1000 rights, or at least a link to that list.


And that's right, not studies, not one, not one Canadian study, not one US study, Not one European (Scandinavian) study... no studies whatsoever, you just keep repeating denial of everything, I'm sure someone will believe you, perhaps even you will believe you! Well good for you, we wouldn't want all your effort to be wasted without notice, even if you have to notice it yourself. :)

One of the difference is, of course, that I didn't make up a bunch of survey participants, questions and results to make my point. I actually found and presented the data that is compiled elsewhere for my posts.

You seem to like to talk to everyone (Christian or Seculare, but mainly people that disagree with you) like everyone besides you is an idiot. But at least it is entertaining to us, so please feel free to continue trying to educate the rest of us with your survey results and statistic and why children never having anything is important. Why don't you just ‘decide’ what the answer ‘should be’ before the data is even collected and save ourselves all the trouble of collected flawed and unusable data. :rolleyes:

Amusing. You didn't find and present data, you found and presented editorial articles that often don't list sources other than other editorial articles. Those that actually have sources that can be found on the internet have been largely debunked, but then, that's why you left the other thread, right? I don't think you're an idiot. I think you're obtuse. I think you don't recognize that people aren't supposed to prove they deserve a right that is protected by the constitution and impairing those rights is only permitted in limited ways with enough proof to show a compelling government interest. Proof of a compelling government interest does not exist or you would present it, I would assume. The last line is my favorite as you're the one who is deciding the conclusion without data to base it on.

If it is so fine to live without religion, and to allow children to be raised in a society full of divorce (64%) and told that marriage doesn't matter (the government recognized civil unions, not marriages, same sex unions or otherwise is irrelevant)...

There IS a fitting example for Greenlander's hypothesis: VATICAN CITY!
No secular government, way christian, no divorces, no single-parents and absolutely no chance for gay-marriage. Now, how does that influence the youth of Vatican City?

Why don't you post a list of those 1000 rights, or at least a link to that list.

I love how you pretend like you've not seen this list before. It's been posted in your threads several times. But, hey, there's no commandment against misleading people. Oh, wait.

Here are shorter, summarized lists -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

Here is a detailed accounting of the rights and responsibilities as compiled by the General Accounting Office in Washington, DC for Committee on the Judiciary (House of Representatives) -
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

Particularly, read the first page. Notice how they explain how the list was compiled and acknowledge how they may have missed some of the rights and responsibilities because of flaws in the way they searched. That's what real studies do. They address any issues there may be in the introduction to the research so as to allow the reader to evaluate the study on its merits. If you read the first page you will be able to examine the merits of this particular document.

See that. I make a positive claim and you ask for evidence and I present an unbiased source with information about the study, the conclusion of the study and the means of conducting the study. However, there is not a requirement for me to support a denial of your claim (a negative claim) unless you've already adequately supported your claim. You have yet to post one single actual study in this thread. Only editorials by your own admission. In other threads on the rare occasion you actually decided to support your spurious claims with real studies they were often missing details on the means of the study or incorrectly summarized the sampling. However, feel free to post them here so we can reference posts debunking them. I love quoting, don't you?

And that's right, not studies, not one, not one Canadian study, not one US study, Not one European (Scandinavian) study... no studies whatsoever, you just keep repeating denial of everything, I'm sure someone will believe you, perhaps even you will believe you! Well good for you, we wouldn't want all your effort to be wasted without notice, even if you have to notice it yourself. :)

I'm done playing this game with you. I will just link to the other thread. People can read for themselves, and the obvious weakness of your evidence is clear to any who wish to examine it clearly. I needn't evaluate it at all.

In Defense of Family! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429391&page=1&pp=15)

Here's the other thread where you can hear all these arguments made before and debunked before. He begins by proposing an amendment that denies equal protection under the law claiming that marriage is a right reserved for families with children (though his amendment never mentions them). Later, you can also see Greenlander propose Eugenics and eventually controlling what food people are permitted to eat among other things.

Eugenics
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9173856&postcount=46
"If the homosexual brain doesn't function right, why not just fix it?"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9174506&postcount=113
"The same with your genetic theory for homosexual brain development. If it's genetics, it can be fixed."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9174796&postcount=137
"Besides, I'll say it again, IF it is genetics, it WILL be addressable in the future. Parents will be able to decide if their children will be Gay or not."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9174925&postcount=149
"That's a double edged sword. If I want grandchildren, AND I'm religious so I want my offspring to only have one sexual partner (their spouse), and I find out that while developing they might become homosexual unless I give them a medical treatment now...


Treatment it is."

On making up arguments
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9250356&postcount=921
"When thinking of a 'solution to problem' we must be allowed to speculate and hypothesize and invent."



Come on, GL. Let's not pretend anymore. You're not trying to protect the family or marriage. You hate gays and lesbians and you want to prevent them from existing, but until you can you want to deny them rights and if actual data doesn't support your goal you're perfectly willing to 'speculate and hypothesize and invent'.

That seemed kind of crazy to me. Honest feedback. I'd advise not talking about or publishing things like that in the future if you wanna stay out of the loony bin.

In Defense of Family! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429391&page=1&pp=15)

Eugenics
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9173856&postcount=46
"If the homosexual brain doesn't function right, why not just fix it?"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9174506&postcount=113
"The same with your genetic theory for homosexual brain development. If it's genetics, it can be fixed."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9174796&postcount=137
"Besides, I'll say it again, IF it is genetics, it WILL be addressable in the future. Parents will be able to decide if their children will be Gay or not."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9174925&postcount=149
"That's a double edged sword. If I want grandchildren, AND I'm religious so I want my offspring to only have one sexual partner (their spouse), and I find out that while developing they might become homosexual unless I give them a medical treatment now...


That's actually a pretty good listing, thanks for looking those up. You'll also notice how I was responding to what was an entirely hi-jacking topic in that thread, and distorted the thread into one single aspect of Family (the SSM aspect of it), It became impossible to talk about any of the other anti-family stuff that was meant to be included (divorce, prevalent pornography, various child rearing methodology, and ways to encourage parents to work out their problems without bringing the children into it, etc., etc., etc.,), and thus, the reason for this new thread, addressing singly the issues that clogged up that thread.

As to your attempt to use the word Eugenics in a derogatory way, would you like to elaborate? Why, in your opinion, shouldn’t parents measure and treat and take proper nutrition etc., even as their child is still in the womb, to avoid genetic and developmental flaws or problems? Pediatrics is getting more and more into early treatment and avoidance of future problems via the essential tool of prenatal care and genetic screening and testing et al.,(essentially eugenics without the bad connotations) for raising healthier children with as few future problems as possible, like ADD/ADHD, Asthma, Autism, healthy brain development and body ailments, even as you sit here screaming out against it…

Genetic Screening: testing for genetic disorders. Most commonly, prospective parents or a fetus is tested when a specific genetic disorder is suspected (e.g., Tay-Sachs or sickle cell disease). In such a case, genetic screening begins with a complete medical history of both parents. If the parents decide to conceive or have already conceived, diagnostic tests, such as chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis, can be performed on the fetus to detect various genetic disorders. In the case of a positive finding, the parents can elect to abort the fetus. Embryo biopsy, another diagnostic test, can be used on an embryo conceived by in vitro fertilization to determine if the embryo is free of certain genetic diseases before it is implanted in the uterus. As researchers identify more genetic markers for diseases and develop blood tests for them, concern has arisen over the use of such tests to deny people health and life insurance, employment, and the like. A 1993 National Academy of Sciences report called for the establishment of ethical guidelines on the use of genetic screening, and in 1995 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said that the use of genetic screening to deny employment could violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.


EDIT: I'm personally against the abortion option unless its so severe as allowing further development only increases pain and suffering, but that's a different topic: More stuff about genetic flaws causing problems that you would have us not address because you don't like the word Eugenics.

http://www.hubin.org/news/research/topics/genetics/genetechnology/index_en.html

That's actually a pretty good listing, thanks for looking those up. You'll also notice how I was responding to what was an entirely hi-jacking topic in that thread, and distorted the thread into one single aspect of Family (the SSM aspect of it), It became impossible to talk about any of the other anti-family stuff that was meant to be included (divorce, prevalent pornography, various child rearing methodology, and ways to encourage parents to work out their problems without bringing the children into it, etc., etc., etc.,), and thus, the reason for this new thread, addressing singly the issues that clogged up that thread.

As to your attempt to use the word Eugenics in a derogatory way, would you like to elaborate? Why, in your opinion, shouldn’t parents measure and treat and take proper nutrition etc., even as their child is still in the womb, to avoid genetic and developmental flaws or problems? Pediatrics is getting more and more into early treatment and avoidance of future problems via the essential tool of prenatal care and genetic screening and testing et al.,(essentially eugenics without the bad connotations) for raising healthier children with as few future problems as possible, like ADD/ADHD, Asthma, Autism, healthy brain development and body ailments, even as you sit here screaming out against it…

Genetic Screening: testing for genetic disorders. Most commonly, prospective parents or a fetus is tested when a specific genetic disorder is suspected (e.g., Tay-Sachs or sickle cell disease). In such a case, genetic screening begins with a complete medical history of both parents. If the parents decide to conceive or have already conceived, diagnostic tests, such as chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis, can be performed on the fetus to detect various genetic disorders. In the case of a positive finding, the parents can elect to abort the fetus. Embryo biopsy, another diagnostic test, can be used on an embryo conceived by in vitro fertilization to determine if the embryo is free of certain genetic diseases before it is implanted in the uterus. As researchers identify more genetic markers for diseases and develop blood tests for them, concern has arisen over the use of such tests to deny people health and life insurance, employment, and the like. A 1993 National Academy of Sciences report called for the establishment of ethical guidelines on the use of genetic screening, and in 1995 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said that the use of genetic screening to deny employment could violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.


EDIT: I'm personally against the abortion option unless its so severe as allowing further development only increases pain and suffering, but that's a different topic: More stuff about genetic flaws causing problems that you would have us not address because you don't like the word Eugenics.

http://www.hubin.org/news/research/topics/genetics/genetechnology/index_en.html

I don't attempt to use it in a derogatory way. I do use it that way. I don't believe in breeding humans like dogs. I don't believe in breeding or altering out traits someone doesn't like. Because it starts with ADHD and it gets expanded to include homosexuals (just like you've used) or black people. Even you have admitted that using genetic cleansing to further your political agenda is a foul act, but this is precisely what you propose to do.

Does lack of Christianity lead to Nihilism?

...I'd wish.


www.counterorder.com

I don't attempt to use it in a derogatory way. I do use it that way. I don't believe in breeding humans like dogs. I don't believe in breeding or altering out traits someone doesn't like. Because it starts with ADHD and it gets expanded to include homosexuals (just like you've used) or black people. Even you have admitted that using genetic cleansing to further your political agenda is a foul act, but this is precisely what you propose to do.


So, we have to live with all our ailments because you like to use a slippery-slope argument against us being able to treat and address the various genetic ailments that assails us. Next you’ll be telling us that we ‘deserve’ our suffering because that’s what being ‘truly’ human is all about. God forbid we should use eugenics for anything like helping make us healthier :rolleyes:


Anophthalmia and Microphthalmia
Cleft Lip and Palate
Congenital Heart Disease
Down Syndrome
Facial Injuries and Disorders
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
Genetic Brain Disorders
Genetic Disorders
Genetics/Birth Defects
Head and Brain Malformations
Neural Tube Defects
Prenatal Testing
http://goldbamboo.com/topic-t1116.html

So, we have to live with all our ailments because you like to use a slippery-slope argument against us being able to treat and address the various genetic ailments that assails us. Next you’ll be telling us that we ‘deserve’ our suffering because that’s what being ‘truly’ human is all about. God forbid we should use eugenics for anything like helping make us healthier :rolleyes:


Anophthalmia and Microphthalmia
Cleft Lip and Palate
Congenital Heart Disease
Down Syndrome
Facial Injuries and Disorders
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
Genetic Brain Disorders
Genetic Disorders
Genetics/Birth Defects
Head and Brain Malformations
Neural Tube Defects
Prenatal Testing
http://goldbamboo.com/topic-t1116.html

It's not a slippery slope argument when you admit up front it is your purpose. Did you or did you not say that you want to use Eugenics to 'cure' homosexuality if it is possible?

It's not a slippery slope argument when you admit up front it is your purpose. Did you or did you not say that you want to use Eugenics to 'cure' homosexuality if it is possible?

IF it's a genetic flaw, then it can be treated. Even in the links to the other thread, I said the same thing. AND, I said, I didn't think it was entirely a genetic flaw, but I honestly don't know, and neither does anyone else at this point. However, it does look like it might be a genetic trait and if so, then it can and will be treated (that’s a prediction, not a commentary).


*off for today... back late tomorrow.

I have no sympathy for Conservative Christian politicians. Maybe they ought to stay the hell out of politics in Sweden from now on. Apparently no one likes them.

IF it's a genetic flaw, then it can be treated.

What an asshole. Every advance in human biology was a "flaw" or a "mutation", and those things are prevalent now. Perhaps homosexuality is evolution's answer to population overgrowth. Or perhaps homosexuals are evil demons sent by Satan to put penises in men's assholes, so that heterosexual males can think about what homosexuals do, and want to destroy them.

Which is more ignorant? Probably the quote.

And why the hell would gays want to be heterosexual? Fuck off. Get off your high horse and realize they are people with rights, who don't want a "cure".

IF it's a genetic flaw, then it can be treated. Even in the links to the other thread, I said the same thing. AND, I said, I didn't think it was entirely a genetic flaw, but I honestly don't know, and neither does anyone else at this point. However, it does look like it might be a genetic trait and if so, then it can and will be treated (that’s a prediction, not a commentary).


*off for today... back late tomorrow.

The point remains that if you had your way, you would force homosexuals to cease to exist, by stopping them from developing normally while in the womb if necessary.

And that is quite simply why no one takes you seriously. Trying to breed out homosexuals has nothing to do with protecting the family as you proclaim. Your thinly-veiled attempt to do anything that harms homosexuals is exposed. My work is done here.

Same-Sex marriages and coupling has a disproportionately adverse affect on marriage and child rearing in the society and community. Although the proponents like to claim that 10% of the population is homosexual (from a paper written way back in something like the 1950’s), the real situation is much different. Something like 2.4% of the population is homosexually inclined, and then the number of these people that are co-habitating either as a couple or as married (where allowed) is again a much lower percentage of this group. And for my concern, the number of same-sex couples with children is even less still. The end result being that half of one percent of all the households raising children are raising them in same-sex households. But this less than one percent of the total is adversely changing the entire society’s perception of the institution of marriage for the rearing of children and to the the detriment of all of the children in the community.

Even when two communities (like US and Sweden) have vastly different outlooks on social life and personal tolerance and acceptance, the end result of tolerance for non-married-child-rearing is always bad for the children simply because that is even less stable then high-divorce rates (as hard as that is to believe).

Rutgers Universtiy: The Marriage Project 2005
This year’s essay by David Popenoe provides a more complete picture of the Scandinavian experience, with a focus on Sweden. It finds support for the progressive view that Sweden’s social welfare policies have helped to create a child-friendly society. Child poverty barely exists. Teen birthrates are very low. Few infants are in daycare because mothers enjoy one full year of paid family leave after the birth of a child.

The essay also finds support for the conservative view that Swedish policies have contributed to the weakening of marriage and the family. There are no economic or other incentives to marry and, not surprisingly, the Swedish marriage rate is one of the lowest in the world and considerably lower than other Western European nations. Meanwhile, the risk of divorce is high and continues to rise for married couples. Sweden also leads the Western nations in nonmarital cohabitation where the risk of breakup is twice that of married parents.

At the same time, because of its concern for children, the Swedish approach includes policies that many American social conservatives would embrace, such as strict limits on abortion, a six-month waiting period before parents are allowed to divorce, and a ban on in vitro fertilization for single women and on anonymous sperm donations for all couples.

Both the U.S. and Sweden are among the industrialized nations with the lowest percentage of children growing up with both biological parents. Both have similarly high family breakup rates. Both share post-modernist outlooks. Yet despite these commonalities, the two societies have very different cultural traditions. Sweden is highly communitarian, ethnically homogeneous, socially cohesive, and resolutely secular. America is highly libertarian, ethnically diverse and strongly religious. Though Scandinavian family policies may be inspirational models for creating a more child and family-friendly society, Americans can’t simply import Scandinavian policies and achieve Scandinavian results. To achieve a more child-centered society, Americans will have to find ways to check the corrosive effects of its consumerist and radically individualist culture on marriage and the family.

http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2005.htm

Why is the Swedish marriage rate so low relative to other nations? In brief, because religion there is weak, a left-wing political ideology has long been dominant, and almost all governmental incentives for marriage have been removed. First, the religious pressure for marriage in Sweden is all but gone (although of the marriages that do occur, many are for vague religious reasons). Any religious or cultural stigma in Sweden against cohabitation is no longer in evidence; it is regarded as irrelevant to question whether a couple is married or just living together. Second, the political left wing throughout Europe has generally been antagonistic to strong families, based on a combination of feminist concerns about patriarchy and oppression, an antipathy toward a bourgeois social institution with traditional ties to nobility and privilege, and the belief that families have been an impediment to full equality. Finally, unlike in the United States all government benefits in Sweden are given to individuals irrespective of their intimate relationships or family form. There is no such thing, for example, as spousal benefits in health care. There is also no joint-income taxation for married couples; all income taxation is individual.

For those of you claiming that the children are better off in liberal countries, lets just check and see which of ‘my over the top conservative fundie views of protecting the children are so unneeded in Sweden, the Sweden Nobody Knows…


In the U.S., Sweden has long been identified with liberated sexuality. But there’s another side to Sweden. When it comes to the lives and well-being of children, this secular society imposes more stringent legal restrictions on sexual and family behavior than the U.S. Here are four issues affecting children where Sweden takes a more conservative approach than the U.S.

Legal Divorce
Sweden: All married couples with children, 16 or under, must wait six months before a divorce becomes final
U.S.: Most states make no distinction in their divorce laws between couples with children and couples without

In Vitro Fertilization
Sweden: Allowable only if a woman is married or cohabiting in a long-term relationship resembling marriage
U.S.: No restrictions

Anonymous Sperm Donation
Sweden: Prohibited
U.S.: No restrictions

Abortion
Sweden: No abortion allowed after the 18th week of pregnancy without review and permission from the National Board of health
U.S.: Abortions allowed for pregnancies through the third trimester in all but three states


Gee, it looks like they do a lot of the stuff you guys say I'm a fundy for... :rolleyes:

The end result is, secular government does have an incentive to encourage biological parents to stay together... for the good of the children.

Same-Sex marriages and coupling has a disproportionately adverse affect on marriage and child rearing in the society and community. Although the proponents like to claim that 10% of the population is homosexual (from a paper written way back in something like the 1950’s), the real situation is much different. Something like 2.4% of the population is homosexually inclined, and then the number of these people that are co-habitating either as a couple or as married (where allowed) is again a much lower percentage of this group. And for my concern, the number of same-sex couples with children is even less still. The end result being that half of one percent of all the households raising children are raising them in same-sex households. But this less than one percent of the total is adversely changing the entire society’s perception of the institution of marriage for the rearing of children and to the the detriment of all of the children in the community.


This is hilarious. Granting the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution to less of one half of one percent of the population amounts to an attack on the instution of marriage and according you would result in a dramatic increase in the number of children being raised in these households. I guess gays must be more likely to have a dozen children than, say, Catholics.

Any attack you can find, huh? Aren't you at least going to pretend you're not being unreasonable. Why do you keep introducing evidence that there is no reason to deny these people rights?

Because Marriage is, whether you like it or not, cross-culturally, about raising the children the institution creates.
The ideal family environment for raising young children has the following traits: an enduring two-biological parent family that engages regularly in activities together, has developed its own routines, traditions and stories, and provides a great deal of contact time between adults and children. Surrounded by a community that is child friendly and supportive of parents, the family is able to develop a vibrant family subculture that provides a rich legacy of meaning and values for children throughout their lives.
~ David Popenoe, Ph.D., professor and former social and behavioral sciences dean at Rutgers University

To spew forth a bunch of non-children reasons for marriage is ignoring the fact that all non-children reasons for marriage are things that are susceptible to whimsical alterations, as the government in question chooses to or chooses not to recognize… The only cross-culture common feature of the institution of Marriage is children related. Outside of raising children Marriage is not an institution at all, it is nothing.

*snippage*

Overall, your arguments are unfocused. Children are better off in Sweden or not?

You've argued that allowing SSM will let all these policies go to hell, but they haven't in Sweden. Somehow Sweden seems to respect the importance of giving equal rights to all people and still repects the need to protect children. Your arguments seem to show that Sweden's problem with marriage rates are can more accurately be attributed to not giving married couples the protections offered by other governments and not to SSM marriage policies.

You've argued that married couples don't need the rights of marriage (if they're gay) but then you argue that taking those rights decreases the chance that people will enter into stable long-term relationships. Certainly you're not arguing that granting these rights to more people is somehow going to make them disappear. More importantly, your 'evidence' shows that people are more likely to have instability in their relationships without the bond of marriage. So what exactly are you trying to do? Trying to make sure that homosexuals relationships remain unstable (even the ones that involve children)? Trying to encourage homosexuals to be promiscuous? Face it, the policies you espouse towards homosexual damage the family.

Are you even trying anymore? Thanks for posting evidence that more accurately supports our side of the argument than yours.

Children are not better off in Sweden despite the good focus on children...

They have better children protection laws, but they failed to improve the condition of the children because they didn't recognize that the perceptive value of the marriage institution in society. Namely, they didn't recognize that their changing the meaning of marriage to non-children raising reasons would alter the societies view of the value of marriage and less and less parents would choose to opt for it, thinking it less and less necessary.

Satisfying marriages are crucial for the wellbeing of adults, but marriages are even more important for the proper socialization and overall wellbeing of children. The primary purpose of the institution of marriage is to ensure the responsible and long-term involvement of both biological parents in the rearing and raising the next generation. It should be protected and encouraged.

Because Marriage is, whether you like it or not, cross-culturally, about raising the children the institution creates.
The ideal family environment for raising young children has the following traits: an enduring two-biological parent family that engages regularly in activities together, has developed its own routines, traditions and stories, and provides a great deal of contact time between adults and children. Surrounded by a community that is child friendly and supportive of parents, the family is able to develop a vibrant family subculture that provides a rich legacy of meaning and values for children throughout their lives.
~ David Popenoe, Ph.D., professor and former social and behavioral sciences dean at Rutgers University

To spew forth a bunch of non-children reasons for marriage is ignoring the fact that all non-children reasons for marriage are things that are susceptible to whimsical alterations, as the government in question chooses to or chooses not to recognize… The only cross-culture common feature of the institution of Marriage is children related. Outside of raising children Marriage is not an institution at all, it is nothing.
Yet your sources don't support this conclusion. In Sweden, you find that protecting children is not enough. You have to protect the rights and priveleges involved in marriage in order to encourage people to enter into long, stable relationship whether children are involved or not. Your sources show exactly why those rights and priveleges being afforded to homosexuals will create the best available situation to the children involved, which is a stable household. Your sources show that respecting children as an aspect is important. But they also show that getting people into long-term stable relationships (which you've argued for weeks is best for children) requires granting those relationships the rights and priveleges of marriage. Denying these rights to homosexuals is to say that these rights are unnecessary and will make it MORE likely that these rights and priveleges will slowly disappear, something we both agree would be a terrible outcome.

Yet your sources don't support this conclusion. In Sweden, you find that protecting children is not enough. You have to protect the rights and priveleges involved in marriage in order to encourage people to enter into long, stable relationship whether children are involved or not. Your sources show exactly why those rights and priveleges being afforded to homosexuals will create the best available situation to the children involved, which is a stable household. Your sources show that respecting children as an aspect is important. But they also show that getting people into long-term stable relationships (which you've argued for weeks is best for children) requires granting those relationships the rights and priveleges of marriage. Denying these rights to homosexuals is to say that these rights are unnecessary and will make it MORE likely that these rights and priveleges will slowly disappear, something we both agree would be a terrible outcome.

Those sources show that adding new reasons for marriage (like same-sex marriages) reduces the incentive for marriage for the entire community.

Marriage rates are lower in Sweden than in any other industrialized country, completely obliterating your assumption that allowing SSM would increase the households of married couples for children. The exact opposite is true, despite your prediction to the contrary.

1 Kings 18: 17-18
When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, "Is that you, you destroyer of Israel?"
He replied, "I have not destroyed Israel, but you and your father's house have, because you have abandoned the Lord's commandments and followed the Baals.

Civilization can only exist if there is a degree of order, voluntarily accepted, and if people are willing to co-operate with one another and make prudent provision for future generations. This requires a measure of self-restraint. But, as the great Russian writer, Dostoyevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted".

The English writer G.K. Chesterton put it another way. "Once men stop believing in God", he said, "they do not believe in nothing. They start believing in anything".

It is no wonder that the man who wrote the "Wealth of Nations" - which provides the theoretical basis for the free market - Adam Smith, wrote a second book entitled the "Theory of Moral Sentiments". He realized that, unless people have certain shared moral sentiments on the basis of which they are prepared to put chains on their appetites, the free exchange of goods and services, which he favored, would become impossible.

Before we are to take the far lefts advice, we should examine the Scandinavian experiment.

In addition to cataloging the economic decline resulting from the rise in the Swedish welfare state, Mr. Karlson (Swedish economist, Nils Karlson) argues that perhaps the most damaging consequence of the "third way" is the loss of "dignity" among the Swedish people. Mr. Karlson takes a classical approach and argues every individual has a "unique value" and a "good society" requires individual liberty, personal responsibility and respect for the liberty of others.

As the welfare state undermines the ability to engage in productive activity to support oneself, and individual liberty and responsibility, there will be a corresponding loss in dignity. This loss of dignity debilitates both the individual and society.

The Swedish model teaches us good intentions are not enough when trying to create a humane, compassionate and prosperous society. Failure to fully understand the economic and social consequences of policies that increasingly regulate and tax productive activity was the Swedish model's fatal flaw.
http://www.stockholm-network.org/pubs/SNupdate66.htm


In regards to people that have assured me that religous people will always be allowed to worship in peace and disagree with protection, that they won't be forced to recognize the immoral (In their opinion) situation around them and they won't be 'shut-up' by a liberal governmnet or neighbors that don't like what they say... The intolerance in Sweden is so strong now, that the minister below is 'evil' for having mentioned it (no one claims he's lying, only that he worded it 'evilly' and in a derogatory way). The attack against Christians in Sweden seems self evident and this site shows how strongly they (the Conservative Christians) are opposed when they do speak up.
Celebrity evangelist preacher Runar Sogaard, in a sermon at Filadelfia church in Stockholm on March 20, repeated claims against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) - whose Birthday Muslims worldwide celebrated Thursday - saying the Seal of Prophets was "a confused pedophile" since his wives included a girl aged nine years old, alluding to the Prophet's wife `Aisha.

No Comment

The Muslim imam said that although Sogaard's comments "injured millions of Muslims all over the world, but they must not lead to violence like the murder last year of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh who was critical of Islam," Reuters said.

"We assure all honest Swedes that the tragic developments we witnessed in Holland will not take place here."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005852.php


Here, we see that other Christians actually feel the need to treat Sweden like a place requiring and in need of Christian missionaries, including Ministers from Sweden...

Bishop Walter Obare of Kenya has struck a blow against the liberal, theologically bankrupt state church of Sweden by consecrating a bishop for a new more conservative mission within the Swedish Lutheran Church. He did so in spite of threats and protests from the Swedish church and the Lutheran World Federation.

Obare is to be congratulated for his determination to oppose the false doctrine of the Swedish state church and to support those who are rying to be and remain genuinely Lutheran. It may be difficult for American Lutherans to appreciate the office of bishop, but the Lutheran Confessions support such as an office as long as bishops themselves support the pure doctrine and administration of sacraments. As all Lutherans have experienced, in various ways, there is no church polity that guarantees orthodoxy, but only faithfulness to the Word of God and our Lutheran Confessions, which may be the case regardless of an Episcopal, consistorial or synodical form of church polity.
http://paulmccain.worldmagblog.com/paulmccain/archives/012473.html

What the real goal is, should be discussed and in the open, so that no one misunderstands...

"The Swedish National Association for Sexual Education once declared: 'Our aim is to encourage liberation through sex.' This pronouncement proved indeed to be one of the cleverest, most successful methods ever used to create acceptance of the policies of the top-down State and lure the populace into a kind of civil docility. In his book The New Totalitarians, Roland Huntford details the insidious manner in which a populace can be duped by the exchange of countless personal, political, and moral freedoms for the illusory right to sexual freedom. He quotes this chilling statement made by Mr. Ingvar Carlson, Sweden's former minister of education: 'The state is concerned with mortality from a desire to change society.”

If it is so fine to live without religion, and to allow children to be raised in a society full of divorce (64%) and told that marriage doesn't matter (the government recognized civil unions, not marriages, same sex unions or otherwise is irrelevant)... These next few links show you what happens.

The number of rape charges per capita in Malmö is 5—6 times that of Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen is a larger city, but the percentage of immigrants is much lower. And it’s not just the rape statistics that reveal a scary increase in Malmö or Sweden. Virtually every kind of violent crime is on the rise. Robberies have increased with 50 % in Malmö only during the fall of 2004. Threats against witnesses in Swedish court cases have quadrupled between 2000 and 2003. During the past few decades, massive immigration has changed the face of Sweden’s major cities, as well as challenged the viability of the welfare state. In 1970 Sweden had the fourth highest GDP per capita among developed countries with income about 6% above the OECD average. By 1997 it was at fifteenth place with an average GDP per capita 14% below average. Malmö has a heavy concentration of Muslim immigrants in particular. According to some estimates, it will be a Muslim majority city in no more then 10 years. Crime is rampant in the growing ghettos:

Kids in Single-Parent Homes Have Worse Health
At higher risk for mental illness, substance abuse and suicide
http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/511438.html

Single-Parent Kids More At Risk
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/04/health/main539283.shtml

Broken homes take huge toll on kids, major study finds
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828886/posts

And before you run off thinking, two mothers are as good as a mother and a father read these reports showing the specifics that men/Fathers bring to a child’s development ~ (I’m not even going to argue about the idea of two fathers being able to replace a single mother, anyone that thinks that’s even worthy of assumption that it might be better is a waste of my effort to debate with, they are essentially insane in their delusion and beyond my concern). Research on the importance of the role of fathers in the lives of their children is a long ignored, but rapidly growing area of research.

Indeed, fathers appear to play a crucial role in three important areas of their children’s lives:
• Cognitive abilities
• Behavior
• General health and well-being
http://www.swedish.org/16917.cfm

It is generally agreed that men and women should no longer be regarded as 'opposites'. The important thing to remember is that mothers and fathers often bring different strengths and styles to their parenting roles. These roles complement each other, meaning that they are not interchangeable and are each necessary for healthy childrearing.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/fathers.php

At age 33, men from disrupted family backgrounds were twice as likely to be unemployed (14% compared with 7%), and 1.6 times as likely to have experienced more than one bout of unemployment since leaving school (23% compared with 14%). Again, the reasons for the differences in these risk levels are complicated. Some of the difference seems to be due to poverty and behavior problems that existed before the divorce and persisted or deepened afterward. However, even after controlling for these factors, men whose parents divorced were still 1.4 times as likely to be unemployed and 1.3 times as likely to have experienced more than one bout of unemployment during adulthood.

An American study found that juvenile offending was affected not just by whether a particular child’s parents were married, but also by the prevalent family structures in his neighborhood.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A2530441

Mumbo jumbo mumbo mubo , mumbo jumbo mubo mumbo jumbo ! Mumbo mumbo ?

Children are not better off in Sweden despite the good focus on children...

They have better children protection laws, but they failed to improve the condition of the children because they didn't recognize that the perceptive value of the marriage institution in society. Namely, they didn't recognize that their changing the meaning of marriage to non-children raising reasons would alter the societies view of the value of marriage and less and less parents would choose to opt for it, thinking it less and less necessary.

Satisfying marriages are crucial for the wellbeing of adults, but marriages are even more important for the proper socialization and overall wellbeing of children. The primary purpose of the institution of marriage is to ensure the responsible and long-term involvement of both biological parents in the rearing and raising the next generation. It should be protected and encouraged.

Your conclusions are illogical. They didn't change the meaning of marriage to non-children raising. They decided that long-term, stable relationships don't require the rights and priveleges of marriage in order to be maintained, an argument you yourself have made. Marital rights and priveleges are central to encouraging those types of relationships and everyone benefits from people being in stable, healthy relationships regardless of the existence of children. Those relationships may be even more crucial when children are involved, but without children society still benefits from familial relationships between couples. Certainly, you're not arguing that outside of the existence of children there is no benefit to people entering into long-term relationship rather than jumping from relationship to relationship, are you?

Those sources show that adding new reasons for marriage (like same-sex marriages) reduces the incentive for marriage for the entire community.

Marriage rates are lower in Sweden than in any other industrialized country, completely obliterating your assumption that allowing SSM would increase the households of married couples for children. The exact opposite is true, despite your prediction to the contrary.

Again, your logic is specious. You are suggesting denying marital rights to a specific group. They denied those same rights to an entire population. Your own sources show that denying those rights is the specific reason for the degradation of marriage. You want to do EXACTLY what they did, but just to a small group of the population. You made the argument those rights and priveleges are not necessary to the existence of long-term relationships (in gay couples). Which of us is travelling the dangerous path here?

Finally, unlike in the United States all government benefits in Sweden are given to individuals irrespective of their intimate relationships or family form. There is no such thing, for example, as spousal benefits in health care. There is also no joint-income taxation for married couples; all income taxation is individual.

Notice how they mentioned two priveleges that affect the spousal relationship and have nothing to do with children. The obvious conclusion is that we can KNOW that denying marital rights and priveleges to a population decreases the chances for long-term, stable relationships in that population.

Your conclusions are illogical. They didn't change the meaning of marriage to non-children raising. They decided that long-term, stable relationships don't require the rights and priveleges of marriage in order to be maintained, an argument you yourself have made. Marital rights and priveleges are central to encouraging those types of relationships and everyone benefits from people being in stable, healthy relationships regardless of the existence of children. Those relationships may be even more crucial when children are involved, but without children society still benefits from familial relationships between couples. Certainly, you're not arguing that outside of the existence of children there is no benefit to people entering into long-term relationship rather than jumping from relationship to relationship, are you?


Your prediction that allowing SSM will increase the number of long term relationships for a country’s citizens is not holding up under examination.

Your prediction that allowing SSM will increase the number of long term relationships for a country’s citizens is not holding up under examination.

You do know how science works, yes?

I make the claim that that adding apples to a barrel that already contains apples will increase the number of apples in the barrel. I start adding apples, but at the same time a group of men come up and start eating the apples. When I am done adding apples the barrel has less apples than te beginning.

You post a source that attributes the decline in the number of apples to the men eating the apples.

YOUR conclusion - Adding apples to the barrel decreases the overall number of apples in the barrel.

Clearly, SSM isn't the ONLY factor affecting marriages in Sweden. It's entirely possible and even likely that without the change in marital benefits, marriages would have increased in Sweden with the introduction of SSM. However, SSM was introduced and all marital rights and benefits were taken away. Whether or not SSM helped the marriage rate is unknown because it was COMPLETELY overshadowed by the much larger factor of taking away all marital rights and benefits. I know you're aware of this.

Meanwhile, you avoid addressing any of my points because you don't have an actual reply.

Notice how they mentioned two priveleges that affect the spousal relationship and have nothing to do with children. The obvious conclusion is that we can KNOW that denying marital rights and priveleges to a population decreases the chances for long-term, stable relationships.

If allowing same-sex couples to marry (with or without children) increases the number of families that consists of parents that are not married (from 9% to 28% as shown in Sweden) and we know that unmarried couples are twice as likely to not stay together as married couples... Then SSM is more harmful then beneficial for a much, much larger number of children.

SS couples can and do raise good children now, but they are by necessity measured with the step-families and single parent households, and thus, a child is less likely to be successful in that household.


An indirect indicator of fragile families is the percentage of persons under age 18 living with two parents. Since 1960 this percentage has declined substantially, by 20 percentage points (Figure 11). Unfortunately, this measure makes no distinction between natural and stepfamilies; it is estimated that some 88 percent of two-parent families consist of both biological parents, while nine percent are stepfamilies. (2) The problem is that children in stepfamilies, according to a substantial and growing body of social science evidence, fare no better in life than children in single-parent families. (3) Data on stepfamilies, therefore, probably are more reasonably combined with single-parent than with biological two-parent families. An important indicator that helps to resolve this issue is the percentage of children who live apart from their biological fathers. That percentage has doubled since 1960, from 17 percent to 34 percent. (4)

Meanwhile, you avoid addressing any of my points because you don't have an actual reply.


Your points are theories and assumptions that not only NOT backed up with evidence, the existing evidence makes your assumptions look flat out wrong. What you think about adding 'apples' to 'apples' should have added up to more, but in this case, it appears to have broken the bucket and the apples are all falling out...

If allowing same-sex couples to marry (with or without children) increases the number of families that consists of parents that are not married (from 9% to 28% as shown in Sweden) and we know that unmarried couples are twice as likely to not stay together as married couples... Then SSM is more harmful then beneficial for a much, much larger number of children.

Seriously, your ability to make a logical connection is stronger than this, no? The rate of all marriages is down in Sweden because Sweden does not offer marital rights to ANYONE. You fail to accept that this is the primary cause for the problem in Sweden. Even your own source accepts this as a cause. Why can't you?

I will ask again. Do you actually claim that denying marital rights and priveleges to the population of Sweden DID NOT have a profound affect on the number of long-term stable relationships in Sweden?

Your points are theories and assumptions that not only NOT backed up with evidence, the existing evidence makes your assumptions look flat out wrong. What you think about adding 'apples' to 'apples' should have added up to more, but in this case, it appears to have broken the bucket and the apples are all falling out...

But you know what broke the bucket and you're pretending like you don't. It wasn't SSM and you know it. It was denying rights to the entire population.

Why don't you post a list of those 1000 rights, or at least a link to that list.


http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

I believe it starts on page 14 ...

I was going to copy and paste but the list is 1049 items long and not in a forum frendly format

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

I believe it starts on page 14 ...

I was going to copy and paste but the list is 1049 items long and not in a forum frendly format

I posted that same link. I would also add that those rights and priveleges have since been updated (the original study was from 1996). It's now 1138 (some rights and priveleges have been lifted while others have been added).

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04353r.html

I posted that same link. I would also add that those rights and priveleges have since been updated (the original study was from 1996). It's now 1138 (some have rights and priveleges have been lifted while others have been added).

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04353r.html
Must have missed that post :)

Thanks for letting me know lol

I will ask again. Do you actually claim that denying marital rights and priveleges to the population of Sweden DID NOT have a profound affect on the number of long-term stable relationships in Sweden?

Again, Your assumptions are NOT backed up by the evidence.

And that is one reason why, by certain measures, Sweden has a lower divorce rate. But if couples just cohabit they certainly can break-up, and that is what Swedish nonmarital couples do in large numbers. It is estimated that the risk of breakup for cohabiting couples in Sweden, even those with children, is several times higher than for married couples. By one indication, in the year 2000 there were two-and-one-half separations or divorces per 100 children among married parents, almost twice that number among unmarried cohabiting parents living with their own biological children, and three times that number among cohabiting couples living with children from a previous relationship.

Whereas my conclusions are coming from the data, your conclusion are contrary to the data and based on you ‘assumption’ of what you think would happen.

The correct conclussion is that we need to have laws that protect children AND marriage, something neither the US nor Sweden is doing.

im sorry greenlander, lets just assume that a home with male/male or female/female adults are more unhappy than a male/female home is correct, then should we als ban marriages where the father drinks? or how bout when the mother is neurotic? or maybe we should just ban all marriages that isnt 100% sure of being a completely "happy" home, whaddya say mate?

im sorry greenlander, lets just assume that a home with male/male or female/female adults are more unhappy than a male/female home is correct, then should we als ban marriages where the father drinks? or how bout when the mother is neurotic? or maybe we should just ban all marriages that isnt 100% sure of being a completely "happy" home, whaddya say mate?

Sweden takes those children out of the home.

Must have missed that post :)

Thanks for letting me know lol

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9303731&postcount=96

Again, Your assumptions are NOT backed up by the evidence.

And that is one reason why, by certain measures, Sweden has a lower divorce rate. But if couples just cohabit they certainly can break-up, and that is what Swedish nonmarital couples do in large numbers. It is estimated that the risk of breakup for cohabiting couples in Sweden, even those with children, is several times higher than for married couples. By one indication, in the year 2000 there were two-and-one-half separations or divorces per 100 children among married parents, almost twice that number among unmarried cohabiting parents living with their own biological children, and three times that number among cohabiting couples living with children from a previous relationship.

Whereas my conclusions are coming from the data, your conclusion are contrary to the data and based on you ‘assumption’ of what you think would happen.

The correct conclussion is that we need to have laws that protect children AND marriage, something neither the US nor Sweden is doing.

Your conclusions are not supported by data or even logic. I'm encouraging marriage so your post does not address the point. People are NOT encouraged to marry in Sweden because they are not granted the rights and priveleges associated with it. Thus the low marriage rate in relation to the US. Your own source agrees with my conclusion and I posted it once, but let's do it again, shall we?

Finally, unlike in the United States all government benefits in Sweden are given to individuals irrespective of their intimate relationships or family form. There is no such thing, for example, as spousal benefits in health care. There is also no joint-income taxation for married couples; all income taxation is individual.

Read that again. There are no marital rights and benefits granted. In the US there are 1,138 at last count. This is the conclusive reason for the marriage rate in Sweden.

I notice you continue to avoid answering my questions. Is this because you can't answer and still pretend like your conclusions are logical?

Do you actually claim that denying marital rights and priveleges to the population of Sweden DID NOT have a profound affect on the number of long-term stable relationships in Sweden?

Do you actually claim that denying marital rights and priveleges to the population of Sweden DID NOT have a profound affect on the number of long-term stable relationships in Sweden?


Your answer, Again: They have devalued marriage. They have ceased to consider marriage as an institution requiring protection and encouragement, this is bad for the children. It has had a profound affect on the entire community.
In the modern world people are reluctant to make strong commitments if they don’t have to; it’s easier to hang loose. The problem is that society ends up with adult intimate relationships that are much more fragile. It is, indeed, surprising that Sweden has such a high a level of couple breakup, because it is the kind of society—stable, homogeneous, and egalitarian—where one would expect such breakups to be minimal. Yet the high breakup level is testimony to the fragility of modern marriage in which most of the institutional bonds have been stripped away—economic dependence, legal definitions, religious sentiments, and family pressures—leaving marriage and other pair-bonds held together solely by the thin and unstable reed of affection.

The losers in this social trend, of course, are the children. They are highly dependent for their development and success in life on the family in which they are born and raised, and a convincing mass of scientific evidence now exists pointing to the fact that not growing up in an intact nuclear family is one of the most deleterious events that can befall a child. In Sweden, just as in the United States, children from non-intact families—compared to those from intact families—have two to three times the number of serious problems in life. We can only speculate about the extent of psychological damage that future generations will suffer owing to today’s family trends. That the very low marriage rate and high level of parental break-up are such non-issues in Sweden, something which few Swedes ever talk about, should be, in my opinion, a cause there for national soul searching.

Your answer, Again: They have devalued marriage. They have ceased to consider marriage as an institution requiring protection and encouragement, this is bad for the children. It has had a profound affect on the entire community.

I totally agree. I wanted you to state it clearly.

Second question, if the Supreme Court says equal rights or no rights. You can't deny rights to a specific groups so either states recognize SSM or marriages of that state receive NO MARITAL RIGHTS OR PRIVELEGES. You are now required to vote to either allow SSM marriages or take away all marital rights and priveleges granted by the government. Which would you vote for?

If allowing same-sex couples to marry (with or without children) increases the number of families that consists of parents that are not married (from 9% to 28% as shown in Sweden) and we know that unmarried couples are twice as likely to not stay together as married couples... Then SSM is more harmful then beneficial for a much, much larger number of children.
You're contradicting yourself here. You are saying that a two-parent household is better than a single-parent one, yes? So if you don't let same sex marriages happen, and unmarried couples don't stay together as long, wouldn't you say that ALLOWING SSM would probably increase the chance that any children raised in this relationship would be in two-parent household? If you deny people the right to SSM, you are increasing the risk that children will be raised in a single-parent household.

SS couples can and do raise good children now, but they are by necessity measured with the step-families and single parent households, and thus, a child is less likely to be successful in that household.

Second question, if the Supreme Court says equal rights or no rights. You can't deny rights to a specific groups so either states recognize SSM or marriages of that state receive NO MARITAL RIGHTS OR PRIVELEGES. You are now required to vote to either allow SSM marriages or take away all marital rights and priveleges granted by the government. Which would you vote for?

I have no idea which one I would vote for. I'm hoping it doesn't come to that. I rather concur with the conclusion of the study... Both sides are not doing enough. Neither the US version nor the Scandinavian version.

I believe that the SCOTUS can find that the government does have a sufficiently strong reason to regulate and restrict if necessary, the institution of Marriage for the benefit of the community.

This leaves us with a final conclusion from the Scandinavian family experience, a more general one. The fact that family breakdown has occurred so prevalently in both the United States and Scandinavia, two almost opposite socio-economic systems, suggests that the root cause lies beyond politics and economics and even national culture in an over-arching trend of modernity that affects all advanced, industrial societies. Basic to this trend is the growth of a modern form of individualism, the single-minded pursuit of personal autonomy and self-interest, which takes place at the expense of established social institutions such as marriage. This shows up in low marriage and high cohabitation rates in the Scandinavian societies, even though they are relatively communitarian. And it is expressed in high divorce and high solo parenting rates in the United States, despite our nation’s relatively religious character.

One paramount family goal for modern societies today, put forward by many experts, is to create the conditions whereby an increasing number of children are able to grow up with their own two married parents. If this is a worthy goal, and I think it is, both Scandinavia and the United States have failed badly, and millions of children have been hurt. If we are to take seriously the record of recent history in these nations, the market economy on its own, no matter how strong, is unlikely to be of much help in achieving this goal. The wealthier we become, the weaker the family. But neither, apparently, are the many governmental policies of the welfare state. They may help to soften the impact of family breakup, but the state appears relatively powerless to contain family decline and often even contributes to it. What we must look for, instead, are ways to curtail the growth of modern individualism. While in Scandinavia the main thrust of such efforts probably should focus on resisting the anti-marriage influences of political ideologies and social policies, in the United States the main issue is surely to find better ways to insulate marriage and the family from the pernicious effects of a self-interest-fostering market economy that is tethered increasingly to a coarsening popular culture.

I have no idea which one I would vote for. I'm hoping it doesn't come to that. I rather concur with the conclusion of the study... Both sides are not doing enough. Neither the US version nor the Scandinavian version.

And here we have it. You won't answer that point becuase you know the obvious answer is that taking away the rights and priveleges related to marriage would damage marriage more than SSM ever could. You could let people marry blenders and it couldn't do the level of damage of the government discontinuing it's support for marriage. You know it. Your source knows it. I know it. You're afraid to say it. Because it underlines the very specific reason for why you cannot deny marital rights to a population, it will discourage long-term, committed, stable relationships (something neither of us wants to happen). You know that denying those rights to a population will do exactly that and you know your own sources believe this to be true and openly stated as much. Is the gay population so different that somehow denying them those rights and priveleges will have the opposite effect as it does on the population of Sweden or as it would on the entire population of the US?

I'm bookmarking that source by the way. It makes an excellent argument for SSM. Unintentionally, of course. And I can show it to people and get them talking about how brilliant the author is and how well-researched the source is first and then show them that it points out the adverse effect that denying marital rights and priveleges has on the stability of the relationships in that population. Thanks, GL.

I hope you continue to support Eugenics as well, because that should help prevent it from ever going into effect.