[Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .

Wed May 13 17:43:53 PDT 2009

My thoughts are WHY? Why is govt in the business. Why bother with attached
benefits. What if benefits were not attached to this social contract? What
if SS and such were separate from social relationships?
Wouldn't that solve the problems?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
> Behalf Of Geri
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:33 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
>
>
> Got it backwards, Steven. Even after church ceremonies, legal
> papers have to
> be filed with the government. That's what gives church-married folks their
> rights given to them by the government (filing taxes jointly,
> etc., etc.) If
> you took government out of the whole business, no one would get
> their rights
> from the government.
>
>
> Geri
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven" <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
> To: <jim at benchmarkinspections.com>; "Forest Grove local interests list"
> <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
>
>
> > Marriage is a religion thing.
> > You want a social contract, write one up.
> > Government should be out of the whole business.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
> >> Behalf Of Jim Katen
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:28 PM
> >> To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
> >> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
> >>
> >>
> >> I guess infertile atheists don't count for much in your world view.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> What a condescending attitude.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - Jim Katen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>   _____
> >>
> >> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
> >> Behalf Of Carol Morgan
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:14 PM
> >> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>