Johannes: there is no need to distort your position. It is one of the most self-distorted ones I've seen.
You said:
you have now lied, claiming that I said that since I have not proven that homosexual marriage causes weakness in marriage
and
when it is introduced into a society it indisputably becomes a major force in locking in the trend of marriage decay, destroying marriage and weakening families. It is the knife that finishes off the sick, but potentially recovering patient.
So, marriage is recovering, but now homosexual marriage is reversing that trend. Without homosexual marriage, marriage would potentially not weaken, and in fact recover. Thus, homosexual marriage is causing marriage to weaken. The absence of homosexual marriage would mean stronger marriage, which is yours and the authors claim. Else why even bring the subject up in the first place?
You can't have it both ways. Either homosexual marriage causes weaker marriages, or it doesn't. Your attempts at nuance don't cut it; you've obviously taken Clinton's semantic defense to heart.
Mix ingredient A and B, and nothing happens. Add catalyst C to the mix, and a reaction occurs. The catalyst is a 'change agent', however, without its presence, there is no reaction. Call it what you want, the presence of C causes the reaction.
Thanks for pointing out so succinctly how you say one thing, then another, then claim you never said the first. Sure you haven't been giving pointers to the Bush administration?
Well one reason is that where homosexual marriage has existed, marriage has practically vanished. So obviously homosexual marriage has not demonstrated an ability to strengthen marriage
See how weak your logic is? You've conveniently (again) isolated homosexual marriage as the component/ingredient/change agent/cause of the weakening of marriage (although, in your self deluded manner, you deny even saying that, because it is so obviously unproven).
Once again, can you show a bit of data that supports this cause/effect relationship? Care to quote something from this amazing Kurtz article that you are so in love with?
Kurtz was clear to demonstrate that in cultures where marriages are for the most part intact, homosexual marriage is scorned. He also showed that in cultures where marriage is generally viewed as a requirement for having children, homosexual marriage is scorned. So then it is reasonable to posit that if Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates had not already been high (i.e. marriage and child-raising are already somewhat detached), homosexual marriage would have been far more difficult to imagine. That is the logic – and it is quite good, based upon the trends to which he referred in his article. You simply need to read it honestly, and weep if you have to.
You've isolated the cause! Nonmarital births create an environment that allows homosexual marriage, which further reinforces the decline of marriage. How convenient to ignore all other factors: financial incentives, secularism, supportive welfare states, increase in acceptance of cohabitation relationships, etc. Don't let all those other much more likely factors get in the way of your logic, though. Makes it kind of fall apart.
To pick out that one factor from all the others, and declare it a 'major' factor, with not a shred of credible data or proof, is intellectual dishonesty. I'm not even sure it desires the 'intellectual' part.
Here's one of the author's stories to 'support' his position:
Finally, consider a case that made even more news in Norway, that of handball star Mia Hundvin (yes, handball prowess makes for celebrity in Norway). Hundvin had been in a registered gay partnership with fellow handballer Camilla Andersen. These days, however, having publicly announced her bisexuality, Hundvin is linked with Norwegian snowboarder Terje Haakonsen. Inspired by her time with Haakonsen's son, Hundvin decided to have a child. The father of Hundvin's child may well be Haakonsen, but neither Hundvin nor Haakonsen is saying.
Did Hundvin divorce her registered partner before deciding to become a single mother by (probably) her new boyfriend? The story in Norway's premiere paper, Aftenposten, doesn't bother to mention. After noting that Hundvin and Andersen were registered partners, the paper simply says that the two women are no longer "romantically involved." Hundvin has only been with Haakonsen about a year. She obviously decided to become a single mother without bothering to see whether she and Haakonsen might someday marry. Nor has Hundvin appeared to consider that her affection for Haakonsen's child (also apparently born out of wedlock) might better be expressed by marrying Haakonsen and becoming his son's new mother.
What is even the point of this story? This story is repeated probably millions of times in the US. One couple is together, and break up over an affair. One partner has a child out of wedlock, possibly before the first marriage is dissolved. How is it even relevant that, in this particular instance, the existing marriage was a homosexual one? What possible difference does that make? Would this not have happened if the couple were heterosexual? Divorce statistics say otherwise.
So much for the author's 'proof'. Oh, and the story of the Norwegian Prince Haakon. That's a good one, too. A heterosexual unmarried prince has an affair, the church argues amongst itself as to the morality of it, and somehow weaken's the church's authority because of...gay marriage? What kind of self serving leap is THAT?
No, the factors of increased nonmarital births in the world have many causes, but on a situational level, it is hard to even imagine gay marriage being one of them. I can just imagine the conversations in Sweden:
"Hey, Bjorn, why don't we get married?".
"Oh, but Bridget, we'll lose our tax benefits."
"Who cares? Let's do it."
"But, Bridget, we don't need to get married. We're ungodly humanists."
"Oh, please!"
"But, Bridget, the state will take care of us."
"Bjorn!"
"But, Bridget, the feminists will scorn us as puppets of the Judeo-Christian pharisees."
"BJORN!"
"But, Bridget, homosexuals are getting married."
"Oh, in that case, forget it..."
Yeah, keep dreaming.... |
