| sapphi_snake said: Your arguments are weak, as was expected. First of all correlation does not equate causation. Those studies don't prove your points. Are people who don't have sex before marriage less likely to divorce because they didn't have sex before marriage, or because they're religious peole who don't believe in divorce and will stay together no matter how terrible their relationship is? As for the "stronger upbringing for children" part well, do these studies include the effects that an unhappy dysfucntional marriage can have on children? In the end these studies select certain test subjects that will confirm their hypothesis, and fall into the typicall human logical fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. (the whole abuse being caused by premarital sex and "homosexual activity" just prooves how deluted you are, and is one of the most insulting and ridiculous things I've ever heard) The fantasy ideal of family and sex are mere pipe dreams. The fact that homosexuals are promiscuous has a lot to do with society, and their lack of place in it (unlike heterosexuals, they can't marry and are not encouraged to form monogamous partnerships). The more they becoem accepted, the more this issue will be solved. I find that the bolded part is in itself degrading to human beings in general. It has a total disinterest of individuality, personal fulfillment and happyness. All people are different and only the individual knows what's best for him/her. No typical formula works for everybody. |
Its funny. Of all the VGC Off-Topic posters, you insult people by delivering ad-hominem attacks, arguing everyone but yourself is illogical, yet never once providing a shred of evidence to support your point of view.
The interesting thing about the pre-marital sex and divorce argument is that the studies usually do not take religion in to account, but divorce studies do. Divorce studies show that religious people get divorced more often than non-religious, which blows your argument out of the water.
Yes, the studies take into account dysfunctional marriages that are still working, because they A/B test between marriages - dysfunctional or working - and divorced situations - dysfunctional and working. The results are always the same, and the studies have been this way since the 1940s.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/06/the-effects-of-divorce-on-america
http://www.troubledwith.com/Relationships/A000000830.cfm?topic=relationships: divorce
http://www.childadvocate.net/divorce_effects_on_children.htm
(these are the top 3 results for effects of divorce. 3 unrelated studies)
Again, its hilarious that you will throw out any study or data that disagrees with you as being false, yet never once lift a finger to study to see if your assumptions are even right. If you keep doing this (like a few other select VGC-OT posters), then I have to question if responding to you is going to ever be worth my time.
You saying all people are different, therefore are exempt from any standard of morals is humorous at best. Sure, you can do whatever you want, but don't argue that the results are always the same. I'm not going to prevent anyone from engaging in any sort of sexual activity, but its always interesting seeing the results of their actions. Its like smoking cigarettes: Sure, you are free to do it. Just don't come running to me when it costs you your health or wallet.
Also, in your argument about homosexual promiscuity and lack of marriages: I'd love to see data you could provide that shows that homosexuals even have a lot of interest in marriage, and are being forced into promiscuity due to the lack of it. Marriage rates among homosexuals in countries that have legalized it are incredibly low after the initial wave of marriages, and in the case of the Netherlands, almost none get married now (last stats I can find are ~1,100 marriages out of approximately 50,000 co-habitating couples compared to about 2,500 marriages and 40,000 couples the year after legalization in 2001). Such data argues that your view may be inherantly false. Now, I'm not saying homosexuals should be prevented from having a legal union due to such data - they should be free to be recognized by the state for whatever status they want - but I am saying that its not an issue as highly regarded as you claim.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
