Posted on 05/18/2004 5:18:43 AM PDT by kattracks
There's a world of difference, but if it helps you feel like a crusader, go ahead and pretend there's not. The more reasonable among us will try not to laugh too hard.
This is one of the most credulously and frequently cited articles in public debate in recent memory. Which is unfortunate considering how the entire article hinges on easily debunked logical fallacies. And since Kurtz is smart enough to know they're logical fallacies, one can only conclude that he deliberately forfeited his credibility in order to pollute this debate with knowingly false conclusions.
True. Scandinavia, for the most part, has a lot of out-of-wedlock births because the institution is not worshipped there as much as it is here. The situation has nothing to do with gays. So either Kurtz is making a grossly incorrect assumption or he is desperately trying to push an agenda. This doesn't speak well for him in any case.
I wasn't talking about Libertarians! Sheesh...don't take things so persoanlly.
Then tell me where you got off course, because you started this discussion in post #110 talking about libertarians.
Libertarians long for people to take more personal responsibility
I said in #110....and maybe confusion came in here
Simple fact is...they don't!
where "they" being many people in general...not Libertarians! There are far too many peolpe out there, tdadams, who are not responsible for their actions. That's all I'm trying to point out.
And lest you think I'm being hypersensitive, you should know we have a cabal of libertarian basher on here who constantly misrepresent what libertarians stand for. So it's easy to mistake your comments as being in that vein.
tdadams, looking at FR profile, I see you oppose "ad hominems." So I'm sure you'll aprove of my not being impressed by the above.
I found Kurtz's description of the gradual death of marriage to be credible simply in light of what I have seen among some of my relatives. As for children being harmed by the death of marriage, well, given, your own profile's stated opposition to divorce, I presume you agree that family disorganization is a real problem. As for whether gay weddings are part of the death of marriage, I'm afraid we'll have plenty of opportunities to find out over the coming years.
In your profile, you also say you disapprove of homosexuality. Give me a break. You disapprove of Lorenz Hart and Cole Porter? And yet you want the g'mint to endorse gay marraiage? Me, I think gays, especially men, can't help it, and so see no reason to be other than friendly and, in my way, accepting, of discrete homosexuals. This acceptance does not require overcoming the wisdom -- liberal wisdom -- of the ages concerning marriage.
I suppose you also "disapprove" of plural marriage, a plain disaster for children, which is next on the slippery slope if we can't defend traditional marriage.
As a conservative, if you don't think Kurtz is right, why not wait twenty years to know for sure, rather than embarking on a massive social experiment already being tried in the Netherlands and other countries? Homosexuals have lived happily for decades with non-governmental Metropolitan Community Church weddings; why woudn't a conservative who doesn't think Kurtz has enough data points want to wait for some more?
You obviously don't know the definition of ad hominen. Or do you simply think a reasoned criticism that disagrees with your opinion is an ad hominen. I criticized Kurtz's article because it is sloppy reasoning and is easily debunked because of his reliance on classic logical fallacies. That's not an ad hominen.
If I called you a bonehead, that would be an ad hominem.
why woudn't a conservative who doesn't think Kurtz has enough data points want to wait for some more?
For one, I made no comment about whether he has too much or too little data points. My criticism didn't encompass the quantity of his data, but the quality.
Secondly, you say this as if I could do anything to stem the tide of gay marriage. I'm flattered that you attribute such great power to me, but I'll have to demur and confess I have no such power.
That would be good-natured ribbing. If you said I was knowingly saying A when I believed B, that would be ad hominem. This ad hominem against Stanley Kurtz -- that he doesn't believe what he says he does -- is not original to tdadams but is the standard liberal line of those who can't accept that there might actually be a rational argument against legal recognition for same-sex marriage.
Libertarianism is the religion of the Internet, even, sometimes, on FR.
In the article in question, Kurtz posits that correlation equals causation. Most intelligent people, and that would include Kurtz, know this is not the case. It's a well known and easily spotted logical fallacy.
In my opinion, someone who doesn't know any better can be forgiven as lacking intellect. But Kurtz is no dummy. He knows better, but pretends otherwise. He's forfeiting his credibility by doing this.
I'm not one of those, my friend. I may not agreee with all that you proclaim, but I try not to bash. Unfortunately, my posts don't always convey exactly what I mean. So it takes working them out like we did. Perception is sometimes everything. :^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.