rec.arts.movies.past-films

On 15 sep, 16:04, kfw1...@ wrote:
> On 15 sep, 02:35, kfw1...@ wrote:
>
> > > Well, I've yet to see a study that says most cohabiting couples marry,
> > > and studies do show that cohabitation is correlated with higher
> > > divorce rates later. I mentioned this earlier, and it's only common
> > > sense, as couples get used to leaving relationships when things get
> > > tough.
>
> > Personally I think that that is a good thing.
>
> I think a good thing is what's good for children, that parents don't
> separate.

I think good relationships are good for children. Bad relationshios
are bad. In that case it's better to divorce.

>
> > > Loon, notes that studies find "an unmistakably strong connection
> > > correlation between unstable, frequently changing relationships of
> > > parents and drug abuse, criminal behaviour and STD's among teenagers."
>
> > I really start to wonder where you get your info. That is an
> > outragious statement.
>
> /mdblog/ #10...
> If it's outrageous, refute it.

It is such a outragious claim, supported by nothing I don't feel the
urge. Anyway, I looked up the guy who makes the statements and all I
can find is stuff on extremely conservative organisations that have
very, very little impact on Dutch society. He's not taken serious
overhere. It's the kind of people that claim non of Darwin is true.

What's really outrageous is to call an
> expert's conclusions outrageous without having any data to back what
> you want to believe.

I see no expert. I see a reliogious nut.


I've cut out a lot below because it's more of the
> same:
> Ken: studies show . . .
> Martin: that's outrageous

I don't see him backing up his statements anywhere (and I do read
Dutch...). Statements that are dodgy anyway.

>
> > > > After all, supporters of same-sex marriage
> > > > > argued forcefully in favor of the (legal and social) separation of
> > > > > marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike
> > > > > agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance
> > > > > of alternative forms of cohabitation.
> > Please tell me their back ground. I am sure they are some religious
> > group. In Holland the biggest political party is Christian (CDA) and
> > even they are FOR gay marriage.
>
> I don't know their background. Facts are facts
, it doesn't matter who
> discovers them.

It does matter how you present them, how you got them, etc. If you you
type in the name of Van loon and the Dutch word for marriage you can
only find some stuff on religious sites. His findings had no resonance
in a social or scientific way. That should tell you something.


You seem to think that if a source of data is a
> conservative or Christian conservative, his or her data is
> automatically disqualified.

No, but If their the only ones claiming it, I suspect there is
something behind it.



That's nonsensical for several reasons.
> First of all, how do you know the source didn't adopt that political
> position _after_ looking at the data?

because they have allways been against gay marriage.


Secondly, you presume that the
> political position, if it did predate the study, determined how the
> study was conducted. But you don't even know how these studies were
> conducted.

They don't even bother to tell.


Finally, you speak as if your views and the views of others
> on your side couldn't possibly be tainted by your views. You insist
> that social conservatives have an axe to grind but maintain your own
> innocence. How convenient, how bigoted, how presumptuous.
>
> > Do you deny that gay marriage advocates usually
>
> > > describe the traditional family as an arrangement no better than
> > > others?
>
> > I don't.
>
> So do you think no one pays any attention to what they say?

Sure. And why shouldn't they? They had good arguements.


>
> > The Dutch marriage parliament
>
> > > voted for gay partnerships in 1997, the same year that out of wedlock
> > > births began to increase by two percentage points.
>
> > How much was this before? Because I read it has been increasing since
> > the 70's.
>
> Again, if you have facts rather than opinions, post them.

I did elsewhere. It is worse: since the 60's.


>
> > That same increase
>
> > > took place for seven consecutive years, in the latest figures I have
> > > found. No correlation?
>
> > Absolutely not. Gay marriage has not been on the ageda of the media
> > since most people seem to agree upon it. It has been on the political
> > agenda for a short time a while ago, because it was the question
> > whether or not religious civil servants *have to* marry gay couples if
> > they don't want to.
>
> What does that have to do with it?

I didn't want so say there was absolutely *no* talk about gay marriage
the last years. Gay marriage in itself is quite accepted, 72% of The
Netherlands is for it. Amonsgt young people it is 82%

>
> > I'm not disputing that Holland is liberal; that's why this liberal law
> > > passed and that's why marriage is declining and out of wedlock births
> > > are increasing.
>
> > But is there something wrong with the kids?
>
> Once again, yes, and social scientists know it very well. You can look
> it up.

I live there. In any case, from other social research I know we have
less drug problems than other countries.

MK