Supreme Court vs Westboro Church Protests at 8pm C-span2

[sapphi_snake]

mrstickball said:

Seriously? Linking a study done by an organisation like Focus on the Family? (and for your information this was just my first ad-hominem attack on this topic, and it's not a logical fallacy, as it's only logical to question to sources that you linked, which are obvious biased right wing organisations with an agenda). And what do those links have to do with sex before marriage? None of those studies show that people who have sex before marriage are more likely to divorce (or that the having sex veofre marriage part leads to the divorce part). It's just anti-divorce propaganda that aims to manipulate people to stay in miserable marriages.

Considering the sources of those studies you linked, and the fact that they're based on the typical logical error I previously noted, there's not much to them (except the third link, though I wonder if the "positive" effects of seing mommy and daddy fight and scream at eachother all the time help children in any way). I'm not rejecting them because I disagree with their conclusion, I disagree with them because they're based on logical errors, and they have a propagandistic purpose (especially considering their sources).

People are different, and what works for one person doesn't work for another. The trick when using an analogy to illustate your point is that it has to be a valid one. You're using a faulty comparison to make your point. It's been scientifically proven that smoking is harmfull, and it can be explained exactly why that is - smoking is unecessary to the human body, brings no benefits whatsover and causes addiction. Sex is a natural biological function, it brings several benefits, both phisiological and psychological, and is one of the basic human needs. This of course wouldn't matter in an analogy, but what's importnat here is the nature of the negative consiquences.

The dangers of smoking are drawn by the very activity, as smoking destroys your lungs, plain and simple. When talking about the "dangers" of sex before marriage - which can also be the dangers of sex after marriage if adultery exists - a more valid comparison would be with the risks of horse back riding, or driving a car - in all 3 cases carelessness could lead to grave consiquences, however in none of the 3 cases are negative consiquences mandatory outcomes, and more often then not, they're not. They only happen if you're not carefull, and are not inherent to the 3 activities mentioned (the negative outcomes of smoking are inherent).  The negative consiquences can only happen if you're not careful and are not reasons to not do the 3 actions I mentioned - sex, horse back riding and driving a car.

As for your final paragraph, homosexuals do want the right to marry. Whether or not they do marry is irrelevant to them recieving those rights. There's no tradition in homosexuals marrying, no social pressure for them to do so. Many heterosexuals wouldn't marry if it weren't for social pressure. Same sex marriage has only been legal for a little over a decade, and that's in the Netherlands. In most of the other countries where it's legal it has been that way for less then a decade. Society doesn't change in such a short time. You show me data, but it doesn't at all disprove my view, unless you apply the logical fallacy again. Those numbers just show a situation, not the cause of said situation. To prove my point I'd have to ask some of my proffesors at Uni for books regarding society, marriage and sexuality (in the fields of anthropology, sociollogy and psychology) to find nfo regarding the mechanisms mechanisms that influence heterosexuals to marry, not be as promiscuous etc., and why there are no mechanisms to influence homosexuals to do the same (which is obviously the fault of society, not of homosexuals). That is worthwhile if I'm writing a paper for Uni, but it is too much effort for a vgchartz forum topic, so I'm sorry.

Another thing that I found interesting was that your links talked about the financial burden caused by divorce, and that it should be a  reason against divorce. Well, today I just read an interesting article showing that children are a huge financial burden, and that they don't lead to happiness. It sounds like a study that you should enjoy, considering the arguments used (which are better founded than those you provided for divorce being bad).

Here you go: http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/04/why-having-kids-is-foolish/

Enjoy.

(I will not be writing such long posts in the future)