idiggory wrote:
Quote:
I didn't ignore it. I responded directly to it. In the case in question there was no primary source (I bolded it for you a second time so maybe you wouldn't miss it). Not only was there no primary source, every source that could be found (and which discussed the question being asked) expressed the same conclusion I expressed. In the absence of anyone even attempting to provide an alternative explanation much less provide any source or cite to support it, why attack the few I provided?
You HONESTLY don't see the problem in an argument that fails to provide any primary sources in its defense,
especially when asked for the specifically?
There is no primary source. How many times do I have to tell you this? If there was some sole authorized and respected-by-all-parties document which told us precisely why the US government has over time chosen to fund various benefits to married couples, I'd provide it.
Absent that, all I can do is explain my reasoning *and* show that others have used the same reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion. Which is worlds more than what anyone else has done in support of any countering argument. Heck, no one else has even presented a counter argument. No one can seem to explain why the US government would have a reason to fund benefits for married couples. They can explain why married couples might want them, but not why the rest of us would choose to give them to them.
That's kinda important isn't it? You can sit here and attack my reasoning if you want, but absent any alternative, you still have nothing. My explanation still stands as the best explanation.
But by all means, let's flip this around: Provide a primary source which shows definitively that the US government had some other reason for funding those benefits for married couples. Can you do that?
Quote:
And what your account of marriage UTTERLY FAILS TO CONSIDER is the relative power of women throughout history. You assume that benefits were attached to marriage so as to entice people to marry and have children. What you fail to consider is that, before the twentieth century, women had little choice BUT to marry. They simply have the economic stability to live outside of a heterosexual union. And this trend continued until into the 50s, when the feminist movement began to gain influence and managed to get pro-woman legislation passed that gave women, for the first time, the ability to reliably divorce a husband fairly.
I don't fail to consider that at all. What part of "by getting more people to marry, we reduce the number of single mothers" do you not see as perhaps having some tie in to the feminist movement? Of course they're related! Anything that can get more men to sign a contract requiring them to care for the women they impregnate and the children they produce helps women gain a stronger position in society.
You honestly don't see that connection? I do. I've commented on it numerous times in the past too. It just seems to me like you haven't bothered to actually consider what I'm saying. My argument is very logical, if you take the time to look at it instead of just rejecting it because it doesn't support the position you've already adopted.
Quote:
Oh, and sources:
-Elizabeth Kennedy and Madeline Davis, “‘I could hardly wait to get back to that bar’: Lesbian Bar Culture in the 1930s and 1940s"
-Katie Gilmartin, "We weren't bar people."
-Amy Branzdel, "“Queering Citizenship?: Same-Sex Marriage and the State"
-Jefferey Escoffier, "The Political Economy of the Closet"
-Donna Penn, "The Sexualized Woman"
Sources for what? You've provided zero explanation as to how the sources or ideas from the sources support any specific claim you are making. You can't just declare something to get true, then provide a list of sources and insist that the sources support your claim. Try actually thinking for yourself. It might just help you!
Um... I'll also point out that those are no less biased than the sources I provided and which got panned. You're still talking about some people writing books in which they express their opinions. I'm a bit curious what you think a "primary source" is in this context? When Joph has demanded that of me in past threads, what he's talking about is some documentation from those who wrote the laws explaining why they passed them. But, as I've explained repeatedly, there is no such thing. It's unfair to demand that I provide something which doesn't exist in order to defend my position, while those who argue against it also don't provide that support *and* they don't even produce and argument either. They just insist that I'm wrong because I'm not providing a strong enough source for them, while providing nothing themselves.
That's kinda cheesy, don't you agree?