GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by C Elegans


I have looked through your arguments and your links, and I have found no such facts. What I have found is your personal opinions and a website with propaganda material that I assume reflect other people's personal opinions. What facts are you referring to? Or is this also a question of sematics, that the word "fact" to you does not, as it does for me, include "objectively demonstrated, not falsified and consistent"?

Common sense - good sense in everyday affairs; practical intelligence.

The scientific equivalent of common sense is naturalistic observation, which as you know is a legitimate, objective, form of experimental research. I must appeal to common sense because I sense that any statistical and research data I use to support my arguments are summarily dismissed as propoganda by people who can't accept their conclusions. But that's all right - I understand it's easier this way. I mean, why bother digging up the primary resource material, evaluating the extraneous variables, and examining the research data for discrepancies when a simple word, "propoganda," can be used to throw suspicion and somehow invalidate the hypothesis and findings of over one hundred different studies en mass?

@MM-Perhaps if you were to provide a link to a more objective site that echoed the same results? The fact that the site you refer to actively proclaims to be pro-marriage and based upon Christian principles does tend to encourage skepticism.

I knew this whole 'looking at real evidence to find out what's true' lark would end in tears ....
However....uummm. It seems like with any given piece of evidence, either it wasn't repesentative in the first place, the person who compiled it was biased or the person using it will have selected it because they are biased. I think that if we are going to start calling each others evidence prpoganda, we should stop using it (unless anyone reallyknows what propaganda is). Saying 'that's propaganda because a Christian etc made it' we have already agreed is not on. We cannot just say 'that's propaganda because it is evidence but it tells us lies' is wrong as well because we are still trying to figure out what is lies and what isn't.
Are we to say that a piece of evidence has to take into account every single relevant case ever?
Are we to say that it has to take into account only the cases that the majority of SYMians want?
The majority of everyone? Shall we vote on what is evidence and what is propaganda? Shall we only accept evidence compiled by people with no social or political beliefs whatsoever?

I would like a practical way of deciding IN REAL LIFE what's propaganda and what isn't. And please noone tell me it's common sense.

Originally posted by frogus
Do you mean they are best enjoyed in a marriage, or in a longterm commited relationship?
sorry to keep coming back to this point. anyway, if it has to be a marriage, then what exactly changes during the matrimonial service to make one better equipped to enjoy sex.
What is it that 'clicks' during the marriage rite?

Marriage involves a public commitment that involves legal, societal and (if you're religious) spiritual responsibilities. I think people who marry with solemn vows to remain together indefinitely have a stronger level of commitment, and thus of security, freedom, and happiness, than those who do not.

@Sex. From what I have been able to determine, the better the security, the better the sex, and I think you'll find a greater sense of security making love to your "husband" or "wife" rather than merely your "boyfriend," "girlfriend," "live-in partner," or some other legally unrecognized appelation. But of course you can't call your partner your husband or wife unless you get married first.

It won't be long, however, before certain left-wing groups in the US attempt to overturn this "mean-spirited and intolerant" problem. Heck, in some countries of the world, you don't even have to marry a person of the opposite sex to be considered married.

Originally posted by EMINEM
From what I have been able to determine, the better the security, the better the sex, and I think you'll find a greater sense of security making love to your "husband" or "wife" rather than merely your "boyfriend," "girlfriend," "live-in partner," or some other legally unrecognized appelation.

Living together outside marriage is recognized and accepted by most legal systems in the modern world.

Originally posted by EMINEM
Heck, in some countries of the world, you don't even have to marry a person of the opposite sex to be considered married.

And that was standard practice in Europe until the 13th century AC, when one of the Popes and his cardinals decided to, in the words of a contemporary, "invade the hearth." It was a two-pronged attack, consisting of an insistance that all common law relationships (which were standard until that time) should not be considered outside the law, unless the couple was truly married (which at that time meant a church wedding), and all good Christians attended the newly-devised Confessional. Marriage and the confessional were not well-received, but the RCC had the strongest economic leverage of the period (they were the only ones who actually knew two Arabic "arts," bookkeeping and principles of taxation), so they got their way on this pair.

Sounds like you're describing society returning to its cultural, pre-RCC roots.

Originally posted by EMINEM
Heck, in some countries of the world, you don't even have to marry a person of the opposite sex to be considered married.

So?

Originally posted by Astafas


So?

So what?

Originally posted by Astafas


Living together outside marriage is recognized and accepted by most legal systems in the modern world.

Not fully in the only country that counts. To summarize things as they apply to the US (BTW, these aren't research finding; they're written laws, so please don't tell me it's propoganda):

Those living together have no legal property ownership rights.

Those living together need an additional written property agreement when purchasing a home.

Those living together have additional parenting issues because they are not automatically recognized as the legal parents.

Those living together cannot make financial decisions for the other if he or she is injured or incapacitated unless they have a "durable power of attorney."

Those living together cannot make medical decisions for the other if he or she is injured or incapacitated unless they have a "durable power of attorney for healthcare."

Those living together cannot make end of life decisions for the
other if he or she is dying.

Those living together cannot make funeral arrangement if the other dies.

Those living together do not automatically receive survivor inheritances if the other dies as would be the case if married.

Originally posted by fable


Sounds like you're describing society returning to its cultural, pre-RCC roots.

Not really. European society has already returned to its cultural, pre-Roman Catholic Church roots.

Originally posted by EMINEM


Not fully in the only country that counts. To summarize things as they apply to the US (BTW, these aren't research finding; they're written laws, so please don't tell me it's propoganda):

Those living together have no legal property ownership rights.

Those living together need an additional written property agreement when purchasing a home.

Those living together have additional parenting issues because they are not automatically recognized as the legal parents.

Those living together cannot make financial decisions for the other if he or she is injured or incapacitated unless they have a "durable power of attorney."

Those living together cannot make medical decisions for the other if he or she is injured or incapacitated unless they have a "durable power of attorney for healthcare."

Those living together cannot make end of life decisions for the
other if he or she is dying.

Those living together cannot make funeral arrangement if the other dies.

Those living together do not automatically receive survivor inheritances if the other dies as would be the case if married.

The only country that counts? Are you on drugs?

You are know reciting differences in the material rules. Living together outside marriage is still recognized and accepted.

Originally posted by Astafas


Living together outside marriage is still recognized and accepted.

Not fully, and definitely not to the same extent as marriage.

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
@MM-Perhaps if you were to provide a link to a more objective site that echoed the same results? The fact that the site you refer to actively proclaims to be pro-marriage and based upon Christian principles does tend to encourage skepticism.

Excuse me, Ode, but can we please leave the prejudice in the real world? Prejudice is certainly something not needed on these boards and it is of no use to any debate, and this is no exception.

Originally posted by Astafas


The only country that counts? Are you on drugs?

You are know reciting differences in the material rules. Living together outside marriage is still recognized and accepted.

While it is allowed and the couple are acknowledged as being more than just roommates, they are still not recognized as married and do not recieve any "benifits" a married couple recieves.

@MM, what do you mean, the only country that counts?

Excuse me, Ode, but can we please leave the prejudice in the real world?

to be fair, if i was quoting from a proclaimed anti-marriage source, you would be perfectly justified in doubting the study's impatiality and relevance to the debate. i don't believe that that is prejudice.

Originally posted by Robnark


to be fair, if i was quoting from a proclaimed anti-marriage source, you would be perfectly justified in doubting the study's impatiality and relevance to the debate. i don't believe that that is prejudice.

It is not the statement about "pro-marriage" that I say is prejudice. It is the fact that Ode said that the researchers having "Christian values" calls for skepticism that I say he was making a prejudice statement. To be skeptical solely because of the person's values is prejudice, and not a smart comment to make when those you are debating with have Christian Values as well.

However, anti-marriage sources and pro-marriage sources would be relevant to the debate since they provide two different view points.

Originally posted by EMINEM
Common sense - good sense in everyday affairs; practical intelligence.

The scientific equivalent of common sense is naturalistic observation, which as you know is a legitimate, objective, form of experimental research. I must appeal to common sense because I sense that any statistical and research data I use to support my arguments are summarily dismissed as propoganda by people who can't accept their conclusions. But that's all right - I understand it's easier this way. I mean, why bother digging up the primary resource material, evaluating the extraneous variables, and examining the research data for discrepancies when a simple word, "propoganda," can be used to throw suspicion and somehow invalidate the hypothesis and findings of over one hundred different studies en mass?

Common sense can not and should not be mixed up with science or empiric observation, again I'd like to point out that the expression "common sense" has very different meaning in different countries and between different people, whereas scientific principles are more globally accepted - for instance, there are international definitions of what is science and guidelines that all scientists mus follow. Besides, appealing to "science" is no more valid as an argument than appealing to "common sense", unless we can provide material.

I checked many of the references from the websites you linked to, and only one ref was to a scientific study published in a scientific journal, that was the study they had misquouted. If you can provide material from standard scientific studies, I'd consider it.

Not fully in the only country that counts.

MM, aren't you feeling well?

Not fully in the only country that counts.

Sickening. I’m inclined to think that any argument emanating from the same source as this comment is utter nonsense, and need not be taken seriously by intelligent people regardless of locale.

@Waverly

the only country that counts?

Are you suggesting i was taking it seriously

then again, was MM?

Originally posted by Robnark
then again, was MM?

Who knows, I hope it was meant as a joke, but I saw smilies, so I'm not sure...