[Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
Geri
g-g-steele at comcast.net
Wed May 13 12:50:51 PDT 2009
See, Carol, this is why Religion & Politics should never marry! <little joke>
What you said below, that may be your personal religious view on the whole thing, and I don't wish to argue religious views with you.
As I said in the first place, I was talking about *civil rights.* You and your church and/or religion would not have to be involved. I would think the separation of church and state would make you feel protected. After all, it is not the law that a marriage must take place in a church or in the name of any religion, yet all religious people have the wonderful right to marry in their church if they choose! Those who don't so choose may be married in a civil ceremony (without bothering any church who wouldn't have them), which is still just as legal.
Here is another example where SOME churches disagree with law: the death penalty. Some churches think a government should not have the right to kill someone, yet it is legal in some states ... See? Separation of church and state.
Also, in my first response to Bob, I was saying there is a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia and polygamy, meaning that it does not make sense to cry "no same-gender marriages because they'll lead to pedophilia or polygamy." That's a strawman response. If two consenting, adult women or men wish to legally be bound together in a loving marriage, it has *nothing* to do with the strawman. Now, if someone *honestly* doesn't see a difference ... I have no wish to explain any further except to suggest they look in a good dictionary.
Geri
----- Original Message -----
From: Carol Morgan
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
Marriage has traditionally been to covenant before god and legitimize offspring.
If it is just who you want to have a nice little committment ceremony with, it could be anything.
------ Original Message ------
Received: 12:08 PM PDT, 05/13/2009
From: "Geri" <g-g-steele at comcast.net>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
Sorry, Carol, not understanding your comment ... ?
Geri
----- Original Message -----
From: Carol Morgan
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
The relationship is that if men just happen to like men boys or multiple women, what's the difference?
------ Original Message ------
Received: 11:41 AM PDT, 05/13/2009
From: "Geri" <g-g-steele at comcast.net>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
Ha! Darn, Steve, if I'd known someone might think of that, I wouldn'a said it!
No, didn't think of that, actually, so no pun intended ...
Geri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Jerrett" <stevedj at teleport.com>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
>> The politically-religious should butt out of this one.
>
> Geri,
>
> Pun intended?
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geri" <g-g-steele at comcast.net>
> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
>
>
>> Nicely written by Brown ...
>>
>> I don't understand how some (often it is folks who consider themselves
>> fervently religious) equate homosexuality with pedophilia & polygamy
>> either! (Psst! Most pedophiles are heterosexual males.) Heterosexuals are
>> allowed the civil right of marriage without being frightened someone will
>> say they are preying on children or having more than one spouse. Allowing
>> the civil right of marriage does not force any church to perform or
>> recognize it -- The legality of marriage comes from government, not
>> church!
>>
>> Oh, the "certain groups" you refer to Bob just don't make any sense, do
>> they?! Example: the Catholic Church didn't recognize divorce, either.
>> However, you can get legally divorced, even if you are a Catholic and your
>> church then doesn't allow you to fully participate after that.
>>
>> The politically-religious should butt out of this one.
>>
>> My 2-cents. ; )
>> Geri
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Bob Browning
>> To: Grovenet
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:54 AM
>> Subject: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
>>
>>
>> Here' another sign of how certain groups in America promote their agenda
>> by not only ignoring the truth, but by bending it to their own needed
>> outcome!!
>>
>> bob "lies, damned lies, and made up statistics" browning
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Adventures in Math & Marriage or,
>>
>> Why Gay Marriage Does Not Decrease Straight Marriage
>>
>> by Barrett Brown
>>
>> Does the legalization of gay marriage contribute to the decline of
>> heterosexual marriage? A good portion of our fair republic's cultural
>> conservatives seem to believe that it does. Evangelical kingpin James
>> Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, told a typically credulous Larry King
>> in November of 2006:
>>
>> "In the Netherlands and places where they have tried to define marriage
>> [to include gay couples], what happens is that people just don't get
>> married. It's not that the homosexuals are marrying in greater numbers,
>> it's that when you confuse what marriage is, young people just don't get
>> married."
>>
>> If what Dobson says is true, New Jersey is going to be in huge trouble,
>> and Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, must already be.
>> Of course, Dobson is wrong. Here's why.
>>
>> First, let's think about this problem mathematically and prepare our
>> variables. X is any country "where they have tried to define marriage [to
>> include gay couples]," in Dobson's description. Y is the marriage rate
>> among heterosexuals before country X has "tried to define marriage [to
>> include gay couples]," and Z is the allegedly decreasing heterosexual
>> marriage rate that exists after ten years of gay civil unions. The Dobson
>> Theorem, as we shall call it, states that "if X, then Y must be greater
>> than Z." Or, translating math into English, "if a nation allows for civil
>> unions, the marriage rate among heterosexuals at the time that this occurs
>> will be higher than it is ten years later."
>>
>> Let us now test the Dobson Theorem. Like most things with variables, the
>> Dobson Theorem requires that X be substituted for various things that meet
>> the parameters of X-in this case, northern European countries. Luckily,
>> Dr. Dobson himself has provided us with some data. During the Larry King
>> interview, Dobson mentioned Norway and "other Scandinavian countries" as
>> fitting the description. We'll also need values to punch in for Y and Z.
>> These may be obtained from all of the countries in question, which have
>> famously nosy governments. Conveniently enough, these numbers may also be
>> obtained from the October 26, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal
>> op-ed page, where William N. Eskridge, Jr., the John A. Garver professor
>> of jurisprudence at Yale University, and Darren Spedale, a New York
>> investment banker, penned an editorial based on their new book entitled
>> Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the
>> Evidence.
>>
>> According to Eskridge and Garver, Denmark began allowing gay civil unions
>> in 1989. Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by
>> 10.7 percent. Norway did the same in 1993, and a decade later the
>> heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 12.7 percent. Sweden followed
>> suite in 1995, and ten years later the heterosexual marriage rate had
>> increased by 28.7 percent. And these marriages were actually lasting.
>> During the same time frame, the divorce rate dropped 13.9 percent in
>> Denmark, 6 percent in Norway, and 13.7 percent in Sweden. So, we may
>> probably dispense with the Dobson Theorem. But how did Dobson get this
>> relationship so wrong in the first place?
>>
>> The culprit may be the Weekly Standard and National Review gadfly Stanley
>> Kurtz, who took issue with Garver and Eskridge's preliminary findings back
>> in 2004, before they were published. Confronted with statistics indicating
>> that marriage in Scandinavia is in fine shape, Kurtz instead proclaimed
>> that "Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and
>> divorce no longer mean what they used to." Brushing aside numbers showing
>> that Danish marriage was up ten percent from 1990 to 1996, Kurtz countered
>> that "just-released marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and
>> Denmark." He failed to note that they were down in 2001 for quite a few
>> places, including the United States, which of course had no civil unions
>> anywhere in 2001. And having not yet had access to the figures, he
>> couldn't have known that both American and Scandinavian rates went back up
>> in 2002. As for Norway, he says, the higher marriage rate "has more to do
>> with the institution's decline than w
>> ith any renaissance. Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is
>> driven by older couples 'catching up.'" It's unclear exactly how old these
>> "older couples" may be, but at any rate, Kurtz thinks their marriages
>> simply don't count. But even if we arbitrarily strike such nuptials from
>> the record, we're still left with an increase in Norway's marriage rate,
>> as Kurtz himself acknowledges that these oldster nuptials only constitute
>> "much" of the increase, not all of it or even most of it. So Kurtz's
>> position is that Norwegian marriage is in decline because not only are
>> younger couples getting married at a higher rate, but older couples are as
>> well.
>>
>> Kurtz applies a similar level of statistical acumen to divorce rates.
>> "It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers
>> looked better in the nineties," he wrote. "But that's because the pool of
>> married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without
>> first getting married." This is true. It's also true that Denmark has a
>> much lower divorce rate than the United States as a percentage of married
>> couples, a method of calculation that makes the size of the married people
>> pool irrelevant. Denmark's percentage is 44.5, while the United States is
>> at 54.8 percent. Incidentally, those numbers come from the Heritage
>> Foundation, which also sponsors reports on the danger that gay marriage
>> poses to the heterosexual marriage rate.
>> Still, Kurtz is upset that many Scandinavian children are born out of
>> wedlock. "About 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark now have
>> unmarried parents," he says. He doesn't give us the percentage of
>> second-born children who have unmarried parents, because that percentage
>> is lower and would thus indicate that Scandinavian parents often marry
>> after having their first child, as Kurtz himself later notes in the course
>> of predicting that this will no longer be the case as gay civil unions
>> continue to take their non-existent toll on Scandinavian marriage.
>>
>> Since the rate by which Scandinavian couples have children before getting
>> married has been rising for decades, it's hard to see what this has to do
>> with the more recent advent of gay marriage-unless, of course, you happen
>> to be Stanley Kurtz. "Scandinavia's out-of-wedlock birthrates may have
>> risen more rapidly in the seventies, when marriage began its slide. But
>> the push of that rate past the 50 percent mark during the nineties was in
>> many ways more disturbing." Of course it was more disturbing to Kurtz. By
>> the mid-1990s, the Scandinavians had all instituted civil unions, and thus
>> even the clear, long-established trajectory of such a trend as premature
>> baby-bearing can be laid at the feet of the gays simply by establishing
>> some arbitrary numerical benchmark that was probably going to be reached
>> anyway, calling this milestone "in many ways more disturbing," and hinting
>> that all of this is somehow the fault of the gays.
>>
>> By the same token, I can prove that the establishment of the Weekly
>> Standard in 1995 has contributed to rampant world population growth. Sure,
>> that population growth has been increasing steadily for decades, but the
>> push of that number past the 6 billion mark in 2000 was "in many ways more
>> disturbing" to me for some weird reason that I can't quite pin down. Of
>> course, this is faulty reasoning. One could just as reasonably argue that
>> by virtue of its unparalleled support for the invasion of Iraq, the Weekly
>> Standard has actually done its part to keep world population down.
>>
>> Why is Kurtz so disturbed about out-of-wedlock rates? Personally, I think
>> it would be preferable for a couple to have a child and then get married,
>> as is more often the case in Scandinavia, rather than for a couple to have
>> a child and then get divorced, as is more often the case in the United
>> States. Kurtz doesn't seem to feel this way, though, as it isn't
>> convenient to feel this way at this particular time. Here are all of these
>> couples, he tells us, having babies without first filling out the proper
>> baby-making paperwork with the proper federal agencies. What will become
>> of the babies? As long as we're looking at trend lines, we may conclude
>> that they'll continue to outperform their American counterparts in math
>> and science, as they've been doing for quite a while.
>>
>> From:
>>
>> eSkeptic: the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society
>> Wednesday, May 13th, 2009 | ISSN 1556-5696
>> View at: www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-05-13
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
More information about the GroveNet
mailing list