@masanopat:

Correlation doesn't man causation

That's true man!

Repeating what has been said, so intelligent. :cry2: :cry2:

Correlation doesn't man causation

That's true man!

3.  I meant explain your reasoning for stating it was a false cause fallacy from above.  I hope you have a better source than wikipedia.

Again, I say cite your sources and explain your justification for the false cause fallacy.  Anyone can post numbers, all I see is the number of marriages and not of cohabitation.  If it says approximately 5 per 1000 are married in Sweden, then this doesn't mean that the other 995 per 1000 are cohabitating.  That is a very weak induction.  You can go from specific to general, but not general to specific (see square of opposition).  The set membership comprising non-married includes single people and widows or widowers.  This is still not proof of greater cohabitation in Europe.  Since you like fallacies, this is a fallacy of division; something that is true for the whole class (non-married) is not true for all of its parts (cohabiters, etc.).  Please list the junk correlatives.  In addition, please provide evidence tying into your previous post about how many non-married Europeans are cohabitating in addition to having kids as well as those that don't.

commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm

So a look at the numbers would be helpful… to weed out the junk correlatives.

Europe's marriage rate 1960–2012 (per 1,000 inhabitants) including countries with legal gay marriage

Marriage rates for the USA by state: 1990, 1995, and 1999 through 2011.

States where gay marriage was legal before 2011.
States where gay marriage was legal after 2011 (and thus, no data).

@nordicblue:

Since legalizing registered partnerships and gay marriage in Scandinavia, an overwhelming number of adults have simply stopped bothering to get married in the first place

This is cum hoc ergo propter hoc in all its splendor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Go on, do tell.

a) "It should be noted that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also shows Sweden's marriage rates increasing since domestic partnership. The trend line is in the opposite direction than what the "Bishop" and O'Reilly claimed. "

b) Additionally, using the date of 2009, we see marriage rates decline and increase, with neither the highest nor lowest matching Sweden's highest or lowest marriage rates.

c) Denmark only legalized gay marriage last year, so there is no trend data.  But recognizing same-sex partnerships didn't negatively impact the rate of marriage.

d) Ditto Norway

re: Marriage

You have two options here.  Either strip marriage of all it's legal meaning and have it be a strictly religious title.  Or let it have a legal meaning and open it to all consenting adults.

Since legalizing registered partnerships and gay marriage in Scandinavia, an overwhelming number of adults have simply stopped bothering to get married in the first place

This is cum hoc ergo propter hoc in all its splendor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

That would defeat the purpose.  Marriage is only Christian if you are christian.  If you are not Christian, why bother.  Civil unions are marriages without the church.  Why not just write up a contract or trust, bequeathing your things to your partners - solver civil unions and tax purposes.  Want to have visiting rights and say in their health at the hospital - create an advanced directive and give your partner power of attorney, which is stronger than the rights marriage gives.

Except that:

1. There are other religions besides Christianity, all with their own interpretation of the concept of "marriage";
2. Straight atheists get married too; and
3. Generic "civil unions", as they stand in most countries, are NOT equivalent in terms of legal value to a marriage license.

And no, it wouldn't "defeat" the purpose, it would actually CLARIFY the purpose of both religious "marriage" and of a domestic partnership/cohabitation contract. "Marriage", at least according to one popular Western religion, should be about one's partnership being sanctified under the observation of a deity, not about the government.

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason that "marriage" is an institution at all, at least in the United States, is because Christians are hell-bent on making sure that THEIR religion remains institutionalized within the government, which is really disgusting imo, especially considering that it is and has always been a nation of immigrants. Yet another example of socially-sanctioned white supremacism in this country. (I also firmly believe that this - or more accurately, the increasing number of people who realize this about marriage - is precisely why the trend of declining marriage around the industrialized world has been happening for so long, but that's a different discussion entirely)

In the UK, the current price for marriage at the registrar office is £195.  That's all in; everything included for up to 4 guests including the 2 witnesses.  A basic Will will cost between £75 and £150, depending on where you live and if you are on welfare.  This doesn't include the filing fee to make the Will official. I think we paid £35, about 6 years ago.  So adjusting for price increases, that means that just doing a Will (not on welfare) costs more than getting married.  Then of course you have to make up many more legal documents to cover the other things that are included in marriage.

Marriage can be fought based on an extremely limited set of grounds.  Legal documents, however, can be fought on a multitude of grounds.

As far as I'm concerned, "marriage" can stay in the church, I don't care, but the legal benefits of a civil domestic partnership should not be limited to the same standards of any one religious doctrine's idea of "marriage". I say we strip religious marriage of all its legal value, and relegate those benefits instead to a genderless, numberless domestic household contract.

Some of the older people will remember the bizarre media battle that then Vice President Dan Quayle had with TV character Murphy Brown over having a baby out of wedlock.