[Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
Katie Allnutt
allnutt at verizon.net
Wed May 13 21:41:52 PDT 2009
I always thought that historically marriage was more or less a
business proposition.
In many cultures it is to transfer property (the bride) to the male
and if necessary a dowery of sufficient value to keep her alive. (To
pay him for the responsibility to feed her and shelter her etc.)
For a long time in Europe marriage was a way to keep property (real
estate and collections of valuables) within certain families- the
royalty families mostly, and legitimize only certain children.
Marriage wasn't required to legitimize children of the lower classes
because there was no property to pass on to them. The state and the
church (which was often the governing body) didn't really care if the
peasants were properly married since they couldn't get taxes/tithes
out of them either.
Even in more modern history, marriage can be more or less a survival
technique. One of my relatives was doing some genealogy and I don't
remember whether it was my great great great great great grandfather
or one with one more great in front of it. But his wife died during
childbirth with his 13th child. He pretty much immediately married
another woman. No one asked him at the time whether he was motivated
by his religious principles or a need to have more legitimate
offspring but I've always figured it was just to give his surviving
kids and him, a chance to eat on a regular basis. She had kids too
and she likely did it to give her children a chance at some
sustenance too.
Marriage today has evolved into a multi-purposed thing. And it is
highly regulated by powerful institutions regardless of whether that
institution is a religion or the government.
I think the whole thing boils down to how we define what is our
government. If government is of the people and by the people then we
can use trends and consensus to change what our government does to us
and for us and what it requires us to do for a marriage license and
what benefits we can expect from the government (automatic property
transfer at death, visitation in hospitals, coverage on family
insurance policies regulated by the states etc.)
If the people control the government of the US then we will likely
see some changes in marriage laws over the next decade, because the
population is shifting its views all the time.
Katie
On May 13, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Carol Morgan wrote:
> 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