|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
However, it is your assumption that there was a better time. It comes part and parcel with your claim that "we" have been in social decline....we cannot have declined from a lower point, right? But I think this idea is being used in more than one sense or in a different sense than I would use it. I believe there have been better times as far as the basic tenets or laws a society observes go, but even in those better times things may in fact be worse for the citizens in many ways. I was just saying something along these lines about patriarchy to Schraf.
As you point out marriage was not always about love and romance. It was about social connections and property, to include money and power as well as survival (financially and through help from relatives). Under these basic guidelines gay marriage does not threaten heterosexual marriage. What it threatens is not any particular marriages, but the IDEA of marriage, the CONCEPT of marriage, the MEANING of the concept of marriage. The ideas a society is based on have more impact than any particular situation or event or actuality. The consequences of such ideas probably won't show up right away. It may take a generation or two.
The claim to reproduction as a necessity does not really exist any longer wouldn't you agree? But the PRINCIPLE is always there in the traditional view of marriage, the ancient view, the crosscultural view. The principle of natural reproduction has always been central to the idea of marriage, however many variations in fact may occur by necessity or choice. The principle does not exist at all with gays. I think there is a much biggeer CONCEPTUAL change going on here than many are willing to recognize, as well as the impact of such changes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4153 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: what is the idea of marriage? What is the Concept of marriage? What is the meaning of the concept of marriage? This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 06-Jul-2005 05:48 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't get it - sexual liberation means those things should be raging out of control! I'm so confused...... It IS raging out of control. Despite your subtitle, the information you give is not about pregnancy but about live births. If you add in abortions, the number of pregnancies must increase enormously, and I have been including the increase in abortions among the negative consequences of the sixties ideology. Abortions and STDs have risen enormously in the last few decades.
On the increase in STDs:
...Today STDs are at unprecedented and epidemic proportions. Thirty years of the sexual revolution is paying an ugly dividend, and those most at risk are teenagers ... ... The information I am about to share is from data gathered by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health in Austin, Texas.(1)... Today, there are approximately 25 STDs. A few can be fatal. ...It is estimated that 1 in 5 Americans between the ages of 15 and 55 are currently infected with one or more viral STDs, and 12 million Americans are newly infected each year. That's nearly 5% of the entire population of the U.S.! Of these new infections, 63% involve people less than 25 years old. ... most of these diseases were not around 20 to 30 years ago. Prior to 1960, there were only two prevalent sexually transmitted diseases: syphilis and gonorrhea. Both were easily treatable with antibiotics. In the sixties and seventies this relatively stable situation began to change. For example, in 1976, chlamydia first appeared in increasing numbers in the U.S. ...In 1981, human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV), the virus which causes AIDS, was identified. By early 1993, between 1 and 2 million Americans were infected with HIV or AIDS, over 12 million were infected worldwide, and over 160,000 had died in the U.S. alone. Then herpes was added to the mix. This STD now infects 30 million people. In 1985, human papilloma virus (HPV) began a dramatic increase. This virus can result in venereal warts and will often lead to deadly cancers. By 1990, penicillin-resistant strains of gonorrhea were present in all fifty states, and by 1992 syphilis was at a 40-year high. As of 1993, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), which is almost always caused by gonorrhea or chlamydia, was affecting 1 million new women each year. This includes 16,000 to 20,000 teenagers. This infection can result in pelvic pain and infertility and is the leading cause of hospitalization for women between the ages of 15 and 55, apart from pregnancy....
On the dismantling of marriage, and its contribution to other social ills, a book review:
Maggie Gallagher's newest book, The Abolition of Marriage, is a tough, passionate account of the thirty-year dismemberment of what she calls our most heroic human institution, marriage. In often heartbreaking detail, she tours America since the 1960s, exploring the collapse of marriage and the "culture of divorce. ..." The collapse of marriage, Gallagher shows, is not a natural and inevitable disaster, but rather the result of systematic dismantling by "divorce advocates"-the winners in the sexual revolution, lawyers, therapists, and social scientists. Armed with a barrage of statistics and case studies, she convincingly demonstrates that marriage is an indispensable public institution, the best and safest environment for raising children. Single parenthood, whether brought about by divorce or illegitimacy, is no substitute for the intact family with a mother and a father. The raising of our nation's children is the driving force behind this book. Exploding the optimistic myth of the "good divorce," Gallagher demonstrates that children of divorce have higher than average levels of youth suicide, lower intellectual and educational performance, more mental illness, violence, and drug use. But even for those families who seem to have weathered divorce, there is "the first and most enduring loss . . . the one that is almost never mentioned, the loss that affects children, parents, and spouses equally: the loss of the family story." Such observations-simple, true, and heartbreaking-are what make this book so compelling. On abortions, there's not really anything to say. The above-quoted website has a number of articles on abortion but there doesn't seem to be one that focuses on statistics. Just put "abortion statistics" into Google. The numbers are staggering, but here are a couple of references: Page not found – AbortionFacts.com Family Policy Alliance
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4153 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Ah at last, something to get my teeth into.
Let me examine your claims and I'll get back to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I am trying to point out that my focus is on HOW WE THINK ABOUT WHAT MARRIAGE IS, rather than on specific things like "What gay marriage will do to so-and-so's marriage." This is why I am emphasizing terms like "idea, principle, concept," etc. How we think about what marriage is, is the topic, and NOT what that concept IS at the moment. However, I've said it's first and formost about heterosexual union, and the PRINCIPLE of natural reproduction, which gays are in PRINCIPLE incapable of. Extending marriage to gays will change that PRINCIPLE in people's minds. The concept of marriage includes other factors of course, the extended-family/social factor for instance, but heterosexuality and the principle of natural reproduction are fundamental.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4153 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Oh I was so hopeful, that you were finally getting the grasp of basic research and the selection of resources. The first thing to do when considering sources is to look at what other material they produce, it gives you a good idea of their bias. In addition it is useful to see who cites their material. All of your references are groups with christian agendas who just reference each other.:
Your first source is by an organization called "probe ministries" - they also produce articles such as:
quote: it's nice they wear their heart on their arm but it does not add to the credibility of their reports. They have a clear agenda of marriage to push. The section you cite pulls it's stats from an organization called MISH that produces such docs as quote: Secondary virginity??? I don't know of any serious medical organization pushing such an idea. Another of their reports makes their agenda clear:
quote: The second source is a book review - do I have to explain why a book review is not worth discussing as a piece of evidence. Have you got any sources that don't have an obvious christian bias or are better at hiding their agenda? Page not found – AbortionFacts.com - take a look at the sections about birthcontrol and the like and the wonky science it promotes. That site is not worth the bandwidth I spent getting there. The second one likes to quote genesis an awful lot and is very similar in tone. It's a nice first stab but you need to work hard on your analysis and selection of sources. you may wish to read the following page: Evaluating Internet Research Sources http://library.fortlewis.edu/reference/evaluate.asp On a general level, I notice that you, in common, with many christians put great store into testimonial accounts from people (and for a christian I can see how that is attractive). Testimonial evidence is only useful in very specific circumstances, it is mostly worthless in this type of debate. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 06-Jul-2005 06:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I am trying to point out that my focus is on HOW WE THINK ABOUT WHAT MARRIAGE IS, rather than on specific things like "What gay marriage will do to so-and-so's marriage." The problem for you is that, in increasing numbers and among a majority of Americans, how we think about what marriage is is as a union between loving equal partners. Moreover, that's how we practice marriage in this country. If there's no requirement that we hold straights to the principles you've just outlined (and there isn't) then it's a double standard motivated by bigotry to deny marriage to gays on the basis of those standards. According to your standards there's a significant number of hetero marriages that are illegitimate, but somehow I doubt you see them that way.
Extending marriage to gays will change that PRINCIPLE in people's minds. That principle does not exist in the minds of most Americans. Now who's trying to redefine marriage for people?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Alan Gutmacher Institute has statistics which reflect what you were saying, as these add together live births and abortions and show that the numbers are declining overall since 1973 -- they give no statistics before that -- although the number has fluctuated quite a bit in the meantime. Guttmacher Institute stats
However, one interesting note is that the category "teenager" may turn out not to be particularly relevant. The problem is with SINGLE parents as this is the area of all the social ills I'm talking about, and THIS is what has increased enormously over the last few decades, as prior to that pregnant teenagers would more frequently marry. If teenagers are married, the problem doesn't exist by my standard, and if the statistics are taken only by age and not marital status --or even cohabiting co-parenting status, I don't think they tell us much.
Even though the United States is among those countries with a falling teen pregnancy rate, it still has by far the highest rate of teen pregnancy throughout the western industrialized world.
In 2000, the total number of teen pregnancies in the United States was 821,810 (84 pregnancies per 1,000 people). Compare this with Canada whose total rate of teen pregnancies for 2000 was 38,600 (38 pregnancies per 1,000 people). Many other western industrialized countries, such as Sweden and France, have even lower teen pregnancy rates than Canada. When compared to other countries, it easy to understand why the United States is considered to have a serious problem when it comes to teen pregnancy. In the United States, the 18 - 19 year-old age group has the highest rate of pregnancy followed by the 15 - 17 year-old age group. However, 15 — 17 year-old pregnancy rates dropped by as much as 23% between 1992 and 2000, while the rate for 18 to 19 year-olds only dropped by 11%. Teen pregnancy is viewed to be the cause of many problems. Teen mothers are more likely to not finish high school or college. Additionally, it is estimated that as much as 80% of unwed teen mothers end up welfare. Compared to 25 years ago, pregnant teens are also far less likely to be married.BestSite: Statistics Teen PREGNANCY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sorry but you cannot judge statistics by the philosophy of the website that publishes them or your statistics would be irrelevant too, as would Alan Guttmacher's site, which I just quoted in my last post, the voice of Planned Parenthood, a biased source if ever there was one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are right, since the sixties the principle has already been destroyed, which is why gay marriage is even considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4153 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
What is the philosophy of the websites I have quoted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You are right, since the sixties the principle has already been destroyed, which is why gay marriage is even considered. Not just considered. The law, in several civilized countries including conservative Catholic Spain, as well as one US state. But, please address the point. Why do you hold gays to a standard that you don't apply to straights?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
So, do you believe that in an ideal society all women would be subservient to and obedient to all men?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Faith writes: What it threatens is not any particular marriages, but the IDEA of marriage, the CONCEPT of marriage, the MEANING of the concept of marriage. The ideas a society is based on have more impact than any particular situation or event or actuality. The consequences of such ideas probably won't show up right away. It may take a generation or two. Yes, but as both you and I have pointed out marriage was originally a contract between two groups of people. Through this contract each group could assure themselves protection, loyalty (not really, BUT it was an IDEA), increasing their land holdings and/or money and of course power. That was the IDEA, the CONCEPT. I think, I could be wrong, that you are romanticizing a little about the role of the man/woman union. That it had some higher meaning. It was strictly a means to an end. Hence the concubines/prostitutes offspring had no more claim to David and/or Solomon's throne and the lineage that brought forth Jesus. Anywho, obviously I am of the opinion that anyone who wants to promote a loving, healthy relationship where children can grow is important. We no longer live in an era where it is NECESSARY to procreate. The world HAS changed in that respect and must be recognized. So, to continue to judge who gets to enter into a binding contract with whom is excessive (please don't talk to me about animals and children that really is a ridiculous claim as I am obviously refering to consenting adults). Btw, I don't think churches are/or should be REQUIRED to perform marriage ceremonies...it's not legally binding anyway. And, as an attempt to swing back onto the topic. I think the bank was well within it's rights. Let's face it a bank does not give a shit what/whose money they have unless you are stupid enough to drop a bomb and get their attention. Obviously that sums up Christian Voice. No other christians got the boot, so claims of discrimination are whining at best. Christians claims of persecution in this country are like white peoples' claims of persecution in this country.....funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2956 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Hi Faith,
I hope CK doesn't mind me butting in here but I want to make a point that I hope you will take to heart. As I understand what he is saying isn't that the philosophy of the site necessarily affects the statistics but that you should question the source of the stats themselves (wherever they are from!). A stat from the NIH maybe be trustworthy whether it is on a pro-choice or pro-life website (although both may interpret the results differently). What I found to be questionable in the Probe Ministries article, for example, was the source of the statistics, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health. This organization first of all is quite right-wing and biased toward abstinence-only sex educaztion. That alone might be fine but they do not cite any sources for the data that is then cited by Probe. You see the point? With few exceptions it appears that the Medical Institute for Sexual Health cites other Christian-abstinence sources for data that is then re-cited as scientific. These data ate simply not supported by legitimate studies (at least that I could find). I want to agree with others here that you are very articulate and seemingly intelligent. I think you could do your viewpoint a great service (and bring some fresh views here) if you would concentrate on backing up assertion (or not making them without fact-in-hand) and polishing debate style. The post I am replying to is a great example. You put out some data with references, that data was then disputed. This was a great start. But you followed it with a "all stats are biased, mine as much as yours" instead of a defense/rebuttal etc. based on the cites. Anyway, my two-cents worth.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024