|
Post by Mama Cass on Feb 21, 2014 15:12:26 GMT -6
I have been through this so many times in so many venues that I can no longer muster the energy to get into again, so I think I will make this my last ... ahem, contribution to the subject. It is true that most men will stray. That behavior is what women and the consensus of the community have always kept under control, even if not perfectly. In a very real sense, women make men grow up-- it is in their interest to do so. The lack of a drag on the natural behavior of men is the reason gay men are so out of control that their HIV rate is 44 times higher than the rest of the population. Essentially, as some researchers have suggested, gay men remain adolescents while most heterosexual men have to grow up in order to find and keep a partner. There is no such thing as gay marriage and never can be. By its nature, marriage is between opposite sex partners. It is, even in the age of birth control and abortion, intimately tied to reproduction and and the successful raising of any children that actually result from the union. Before we destroy marriage, we better ask ourselves why no other society has ever supposed that such a thing was a possibility and instituted it. Unless we can answer that question, we are ill-advised to overturn something that has endured for all of human history. While marriage practices do vary widely from culture to culture the one constant is that the marriages are between men and women. The question of monogamy is far more important than many people realize. The scholarly literature doesn't even pretend that monogamy is found among gays even though, obviously, they and we know that there are some faithful couples. It is just there are not enough to make a statistical blip. Most of the important scholars working in this area are themselves gay and publishing in gay academic journals. They don't have any incentive to lie about the matter because they don't think it is a problem. There is no legal right to marriage. That very notion is helping to kill it. Marriage predates both the state and the church. It is, in its essence, nothing more than the pair-bonding of those who can produce (naturally) others humans which creates kinship ties to a larger familial group. The state hedges it around with all sorts of legal protections because stable marriages protect children (and, up until recently, women). Men and women are not interchangeable and one does not really need to know the scholarly literature on the subject to recognize that children do best with their own father and mother. But this is the consensus of the scholarly literature too. If the state got out of the marriage business tomorrow, nothing would change. Men and women would still get together and do what men and women do. That will eventually lead to little humans that someone will have to raise and will need help to do so. That unit will look remarkably like a family and, if dad sticks around, it will look remarkably like what marriage has always looked like. Really, the idea that marriage could be extended to any grouping is so bizarre it could only be a very modern notion. Still, f I play devil's advocate, I could make the following argument: 1. With the advent of birth control and abortion, society has severed the connection between reproduction and sex. 2. Since no couple needs to expect, much less accept children, marriage is necessarily all about the adults and what they want. 3. Without a focus on providing a stable family for children, marriage becomes a vehicle for meeting the sexual and emotional needs of adults. 4. It follows that individuals can and should be allowed to make as many marriages as it takes, to meet their needs. 5. If follows equally that their needs might include a same sex partner or a dolphin of the same sex. All of this should be legal. Lest you think I am joking, I choose the dolphin on purpose. A British woman in Israel did marry a dolphin. You could do worse when you need a chuckle than to read "With This Herring I Thee Wed" (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10694972/#.Uwe-O2JdV8E)
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 21, 2014 16:15:46 GMT -6
The majority of gays have never wanted to marry. At least the ones who expressed themselves on the subject and reveled in their outsider status. (Current gay scholarship has found that monogamy among homosexuals is so rare as to be a statistical blip. In fact, one psychologist has said that traditional couples therapy fails gays precisely because they are not traditional couples. Ergo, a new kind of therapy must be developed for gays.) Marriage is (or used to be) the bedrock foundation of stable societies and, thus, hopelessly bourgeois. Gays were the outrageous outsiders living that life of freedom that their heterosexual counterparts could only dream of. The push for marriage came from those who wanted to force the normalization of homosexuality. This push was and not universally accepted. Rather than say too much more, I will quote a bit from an interesting 2003 article in the Village Voice, in which the author goes back and forth between approving the idea that gays should be able to marry but decrying the downside: "Gay marriage, say proponents, subverts religion's hegemony over the institution, with its assumption of heterosexual reproductive pairing. It makes homosexuality more visible and therefore more acceptable, not just for judges or ER doctors but for the lesbian bride's formerly homophobic cousin. Because gay marriage renders queerness "normal," notes Yale legal scholar William Eskridge, it is both radical and conservative. "But marriage—forget the "gay" for a moment—is intrinsically conservative. It does not just normalize, it requires normality as the ticket in. Assimilating another "virtually normal" constituency, namely monogamous, long-term, homosexual couples, marriage pushes the queerer queers of all sexual persuasions—drag queens, club-crawlers, polyamorists, even ordinary single mothers or teenage lovers—further to the margins. "Marriage sanctifies some couples at the expense of others," wrote cultural critic Michael Warner. "It is selective legitimacy." (http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-07-22/news/stop-the-wedding/) Mostly, what Trout said. As for the quote, I think it gets at what I was saying, above. I am not alone within the LGBT community in making same sex marriage the all-encompassing goal of civil rights parity. That said, I think that public approval for SSM is a reasonable barometer for tolerance. The polls mean something when they move, but what they mean in absolute (rather than relative) terms is unclear.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 21, 2014 16:47:12 GMT -6
I have been through this so many times in so many venues that I can no longer muster the energy to get into again, so I think I will make this my last ... ahem, contribution to the subject. It is true that most men will stray. That behavior is what women and the consensus of the community have always kept under control, even if not perfectly. In a very real sense, women make men grow up-- it is in their interest to do so. The lack of a drag on the natural behavior of men is the reason gay men are so out of control that their HIV rate is 44 times higher than the rest of the population. Essentially, as some researchers have suggested, gay men remain adolescents while most heterosexual men have to grow up in order to find and keep a partner. Oi vey. What research is that? It sounds more like polemic and pejorative. There is no such thing as gay marriage and never can be. Oh? There are gay marriages, in fact, in more than a dozen states as well as in many countries. By its nature, marriage is between opposite sex partners. It is, even in the age of birth control and abortion, intimately tied to reproduction and and the successful raising of any children that actually result from the union. Before we destroy marriage, we better ask ourselves why no other society has ever supposed that such a thing was a possibility and instituted it. Unless we can answer that question, we are ill-advised to overturn something that has endured for all of human history. While marriage practices do vary widely from culture to culture the one constant is that the marriages are between men and women. Marriage is not solely about the raising of children. We have at least two infertile couples on this small website alone, and the law doesn't preclude marriage in any state or nation for those who cannot have children. This argument is always advanced as a thinly veiled justification for the codification of heterosexual privilege. By the way, marriage has changed a lot over the years. Gone are women as property, dowries, polygamy (mostly), asymmetric property rights, etc). One woman, one man doesn't even exist the in holy text on which your actual argument is no doubt based. The question of monogamy is far more important than many people realize. The scholarly literature doesn't even pretend that monogamy is found among gays even though, obviously, they and we know that there are some faithful couples. It is just there are not enough to make a statistical blip. Most of the important scholars working in this area are themselves gay and publishing in gay academic journals. They don't have any incentive to lie about the matter because they don't think it is a problem. Of course monogamy is found among gays. If you want to bring actual data concerning the prevalence from peer review literature, then bring it on, but to say that it doesn't even exist is demonstrably false. Last week, the local paper ran an article about a male/male couple that just got married under Minnesota law, after having been mutually monogamous for 53 years. There is no legal right to marriage. There is no legal impediment to it for heterosexuals. Equal protection under the law demands that there be no such impediment for gays. That very notion is helping to kill it. Marriage predates both the state and the church. It is, in its essence, nothing more than the pair-bonding of those who can produce (naturally) others humans which creates kinship ties to a larger familial group. The state hedges it around with all sorts of legal protections because stable marriages protect children (and, up until recently, women). Men and women are not interchangeable and one does not really need to know the scholarly literature on the subject to recognize that children do best with their own father and mother. But this is the consensus of the scholarly literature too. If the state got out of the marriage business tomorrow, nothing would change. Men and women would still get together and do what men and women do. That will eventually lead to little humans that someone will have to raise and will need help to do so. That unit will look remarkably like a family and, if dad sticks around, it will look remarkably like what marriage has always looked like. Really, the idea that marriage could be extended to any grouping is so bizarre it could only be a very modern notion. Still, f I play devil's advocate, I could make the following argument: 1. With the advent of birth control and abortion, society has severed the connection between reproduction and sex. 2. Since no couple needs to expect, much less accept children, marriage is necessarily all about the adults and what they want. 3. Without a focus on providing a stable family for children, marriage becomes a vehicle for meeting the sexual and emotional needs of adults. 4. It follows that individuals can and should be allowed to make as many marriages as it takes, to meet their needs. 5. If follows equally that their needs might include a same sex partner or a dolphin of the same sex. All of this should be legal. Lest you think I am joking, I choose the dolphin on purpose. A British woman in Israel did marry a dolphin. You could do worse when you need a chuckle than to read "With This Herring I Thee Wed" (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10694972/#.Uwe-O2JdV8E) You just couldn't pass up on the chance to compare SSM to bestiality, could you? Let me make this very simple: Marriage is a legally binding mutual agreement, and thus can only take place between consenting adults. This rules out bestiality (and pedophilia, and marriage to inanimate objects, and so forth).
|
|
|
Post by Mama Cass on Feb 21, 2014 16:56:31 GMT -6
I was going to bring up consent but decided against it. It has been done to death. We don't worry about consent when it comes to eating animals. Why should we worry about it if we decide to marry animals?
Infertile couples are completely beside the point. I will leave it to you to try and figure out why.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 17:31:41 GMT -6
I have been through this so many times in so many venues that I can no longer muster the energy to get into again, so I think I will make this my last ... ahem, contribution to the subject. It is true that most men will stray. That behavior is what women and the consensus of the community have always kept under control, even if not perfectly. In a very real sense, women make men grow up-- it is in their interest to do so. The lack of a drag on the natural behavior of men is the reason gay men are so out of control that their HIV rate is 44 times higher than the rest of the population. Essentially, as some researchers have suggested, gay men remain adolescents while most heterosexual men have to grow up in order to find and keep a partner. There is no such thing as gay marriage and never can be. By its nature, marriage is between opposite sex partners. It is, even in the age of birth control and abortion, intimately tied to reproduction and and the successful raising of any children that actually result from the union. Before we destroy marriage, we better ask ourselves why no other society has ever supposed that such a thing was a possibility and instituted it. Unless we can answer that question, we are ill-advised to overturn something that has endured for all of human history. While marriage practices do vary widely from culture to culture the one constant is that the marriages are between men and women. The question of monogamy is far more important than many people realize. The scholarly literature doesn't even pretend that monogamy is found among gays even though, obviously, they and we know that there are some faithful couples. It is just there are not enough to make a statistical blip. Most of the important scholars working in this area are themselves gay and publishing in gay academic journals. They don't have any incentive to lie about the matter because they don't think it is a problem. There is no legal right to marriage. That very notion is helping to kill it. Marriage predates both the state and the church. It is, in its essence, nothing more than the pair-bonding of those who can produce (naturally) others humans which creates kinship ties to a larger familial group. The state hedges it around with all sorts of legal protections because stable marriages protect children (and, up until recently, women). Men and women are not interchangeable and one does not really need to know the scholarly literature on the subject to recognize that children do best with their own father and mother. But this is the consensus of the scholarly literature too. If the state got out of the marriage business tomorrow, nothing would change. Men and women would still get together and do what men and women do. That will eventually lead to little humans that someone will have to raise and will need help to do so. That unit will look remarkably like a family and, if dad sticks around, it will look remarkably like what marriage has always looked like. Really, the idea that marriage could be extended to any grouping is so bizarre it could only be a very modern notion. Still, f I play devil's advocate, I could make the following argument: 1. With the advent of birth control and abortion, society has severed the connection between reproduction and sex. 2. Since no couple needs to expect, much less accept children, marriage is necessarily all about the adults and what they want. 3. Without a focus on providing a stable family for children, marriage becomes a vehicle for meeting the sexual and emotional needs of adults. 4. It follows that individuals can and should be allowed to make as many marriages as it takes, to meet their needs. 5. If follows equally that their needs might include a same sex partner or a dolphin of the same sex. All of this should be legal. Lest you think I am joking, I choose the dolphin on purpose. A British woman in Israel did marry a dolphin. You could do worse when you need a chuckle than to read "With This Herring I Thee Wed" (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10694972/#.Uwe-O2JdV8E) Hi Cass: One line from your long quote above really piqued my interest: "There is no legal right to marriage"
That might be technically true from a strict and narrow point of view - the Constitution does not guarantee the right to marry. Equal protection under the laws is a legal right however, and a fundamental legal right at that. Equal protection under the law is the right at issue here. I'm sure we can agree that when a state grants marriage to a couple some very real legal benefits and some serious legal obligations accrue. These very valuable legal benefits and obligations are granted because the married couple promises to love, honor and support each other, and most importantly from the state's perspective, the couple promises to become the primary legal entities financially responsible for the welfare of each other. This is a huge benefit for society. There is something in it for the couple and something in it for the state (the state being the legal voice of society). Obviously, the granting of legal privileges to married couples discriminates against un-married couples as a matter of law. In this case, the discrimination against platonic friends, roommates, siblings, other possible social pairings etc. that are not "married" is justified under the Equal Protection Clause because these other pairings do not make a lifelong legally enforceable commitment to love honor and support each other. However, when a gay couple stands ready to make the same lifelong, legally binding and enforceable commitment to love, honor and support each other, what basis does the state have to deny the gay couple the rights, privileges and obligations of marriage? That is where the Equal Protection Clause kicks in, and that is why so many courts, including some pretty conservative ones, find not that gays haves a "right to marriage" but instead the courts find that gays who are willing to accept the legal obligations of marriage have a right not to be denied equal protection under the state's marriage laws. All of the stuff about relative fidelity, reproduction, traditional meaning etc. etc. etc. is just a bunch of red herrings. Marriage from the state's perspective is a package of legal benefits and obligations granted in exchange for a legally enforceable lifetime commitment to love and support. Many Gays stand ready willing and able to make those legal commitments. Dolphins don't. Talk about your red herring. Sacramental marriage is an entirely different issue and I have no problem letting this Church or that Faith decide to whom they will or won't grant sacramental marriage. All of the news, court cases, and general ado surrounding this issue concerns civil marriage of course. It is often quite funny when people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds refuse to acknowledge that premise and instead try to finesse the civil rights/Equal Protection Clause issues with dodges and misdirection. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 17:42:58 GMT -6
I was going to bring up consent but decided against it. It has been done to death. We don't worry about consent when it comes to eating animals. Why should we worry about it if we decide to marry animals? Infertile couples are completely beside the point. I will leave it to you to try and figure out why. My last post was probably too wordy. Cass, in your opinion, what legal basis exists for the following discrimination under the law: - Denying many legal benefits and obligations of civil marriage to gay couples who promise before the binding authority of the state to honor, love and financially support each other for life; - Granting many legal benefits and obligations of civil marriage to hetero couples who promise before the binding authority of the state to honor, love and financially support each other for life? This is why the Federal Courts are striking down gay marriage bans one by one. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 17:45:43 GMT -6
I was going to bring up consent but decided against it. It has been done to death. We don't worry about consent when it comes to eating animals. Why should we worry about it if we decide to marry animals? Infertile couples are completely beside the point. I will leave it to you to try and figure out why. My last post was probably too wordy. Cass, in your opinion, what legal basis exists for the following discrimination under the law: - Denying many legal benefits and obligations of civil marriage to gay couples who promise before the binding authority of the state to honor, love and financially support each other for life; - Granting many legal benefits and obligations of civil marriage to hetero couples who promise before the binding authority of the state to honor, love and financially support each other for life? This is why the Federal Courts are striking down gay marriage bans one by one. Jim p.s. Mine is a profoundly libertarian and conservative position. It is a damn shame that so many Republicans let their religious views get in the way of the principles that they ought to cherish as conservative citizens. It might ultimately be the death of the party. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 21, 2014 17:56:11 GMT -6
Sacramental marriage is an entirely different issue and I have no problem letting this Church or that Faith decide to whom they will or won't grant sacramental marriage. Neither do I. That said, those who insist--asserting the right of churches to marry couples in keeping with their doctrine--that gays not marry potentially discriminate against churches which desire to marry homosexuals within in keeping with their (different) doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 21, 2014 18:02:03 GMT -6
I was going to bring up consent but decided against it. It has been done to death. We don't worry about consent when it comes to eating animals. Why should we worry about it if we decide to marry animals? Infertile couples are completely beside the point. I will leave it to you to try and figure out why. Yeah, why muddy the waters in a debate about marriage by bringing up something so pedestrian as consent? You're actually making the opposite case. If we do not even give animals the right to refuse becoming meat, then why should they be allowed to enter into legal contracts, which a marriage definitely is (although you may argue, if you wish, that it is more than this as well)? Consent is key. As Prophet Westley (pbuh) said to Buttercup, "Then you're not married. You didn't say ; you didn't do it."
|
|
|
Post by Mama Cass on Feb 21, 2014 23:39:42 GMT -6
One line from your long quote above really piqued my interest: "There is no legal right to marriage" That might be technically true from a strict and narrow point of view - the Constitution does not guarantee the right to marry. Equal protection under the laws is a legal right however, and a fundamental legal right at that. Equal protection under the law is the right at issue here. Gays already have equal protection under the law. They can marry just like heteros can. They must marry a person of the opposite sex. Dammit. I knew I would regret responding here. Now I have more weak arguments to answer. When will it end??? Marriage is no longer a lifelong commitment and it is not enforceable. Marriage needs to be rescued, not given the final, fatal blow-- grown up men playing make believe and society pretending it isn't pure theater. The state derives its legitimacy from the people. The people of this country have made it abundantly clear that they do not favor gay marriage. In all but two states it has been imposed on the people by the courts. In one instance by the legislature against the will of the people. Naturally enough, after years of the chattering elites in New York, the universities and the entertaiment industry pushing it, people are starting to get tired of the whole mess. But "winning" that way does no one any good and just weakens real marriage further. I think you would find the Princeton Principles helpful. This does not demonstrate a good grasp of what marriage is. The paper the group produced is called Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles I hope this is readable. I cannot edit a message once posted and I cannot figure out quite how to quote in pieces.
|
|
|
Post by Mama Cass on Feb 22, 2014 0:28:15 GMT -6
I have been through this so many times in so many venues that I can no longer muster the energy to get into again, so I think I will make this my last ... ahem, contribution to the subject. It is true that most men will stray. That behavior is what women and the consensus of the community have always kept under control, even if not perfectly. In a very real sense, women make men grow up-- it is in their interest to do so. The lack of a drag on the natural behavior of men is the reason gay men are so out of control that their HIV rate is 44 times higher than the rest of the population. Essentially, as some researchers have suggested, gay men remain adolescents while most heterosexual men have to grow up in order to find and keep a partner. Oi vey. What research is that? It sounds more like polemic and pejorative. Be careful what you wish for. This is work I did several months ago and is a random sample from the first 2 pages of about 2000 articles that come up on the subject in a huge online database: Bonello, Kristoff, Cross, Malcolm C. Gay Monogamy: I Love You But I Can't Have Sex With Only You. Journal of Homosexuality; Jan 2010, Vol. 57 Issue 1, p117-139 The abstract is unintentionally hilarious. Only 8 couples were studied but, as the author points out, the purpose of the article is to contest the notion that monogamy means the same thing to heterosexuals and homosexuals. Believing that “ may preclude a contextual understanding of gay male monogamy and extra-dyadic sex that may otherwise remain perfunctory. “ Apparently gays go big for emotional monogamy. Not so much for actual. Klesse C. ‘How to be a Happy Homosexual?!’ Non-monogamy and Governmentality in Relationship Manuals for Gay Men in the 1980s and 1990s. Sociological Review August 2007;55 (3): Another hilarious abstract once you figure it out. Let me translate for you : Gay sexual behavior is not a problem. Defining monogamy based on white, middle class relationships is. “A distinctive feature of relationship manuals for gay men is the presentation of (non-) monogamy as a matter of choice and negotiation. However, within this paradigm, most manuals problematise recreational, casual, or non-relational sex or relationships with multiple partners through a set of discourses around the concepts intimacy, maturity, addiction and compulsion. The normative ideal of a successful gay male partnership is fleshed out in the provision of narrative schemata based on stage model theories which naturalise white middle class relationship experiences and concerns.” Hosking, Warwick. 2013. "Agreements About Extra-Dyadic Sex in Gay Men's Relationships: Exploring Differences in Relationship Quality by Agreement Type and Rule-Breaking Behavior." Journal Of Homosexuality 60, no. 5: 711. Non-monogamy is not a problem. Breaking the rules the “couple” have set on their sexual behavior is. The quality of such relationships suffer. SHERNOFF, MICHAEL. 2006. "Negotiated Nonmonogamy and Male Couples." Family Process 45, no. 4: 407-418. “This article explores the issue of sexual exclusivity and nonexclusivity within male couples. In order to achieve both clinical and cultural competency in work with male couples, therapists need to challenge their cultural biases regarding monogamy.” Wheldon C, Pathak E. Masculinity and Relationship Agreements among Male Same-Sex Couples. Journal Of Sex Research [serial online]. September 2010;47(5):460-470. “Extradyadic sex is a significant source of risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among men in same-sex relationships. Nonmonogamous sexual agreements are common among male same-sex couples and may serve as effective targets for risk reduction interventions; however, there is a dearth of research reporting on the social and cultural determinants of explicit nonmonogamous agreements.” Bonello K. Gay. Monogamy and extra-dyadic sex: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Counselling Psychology Review. The issue of gay monogamy and extra-dyadic sex has challenged heteronormative relationship conventions for decades and controversial research findings have been widely cited. This paper reviews a small but meaningful body of theoretical propositions and empirical evidence that looks at monogamy and nonmonogamy in male couples and the functions of extra-dyadic sex. … Results: Most couples established non-monogamous relationships for reasons of sexual variety and were equally adjusted and functional as their monogamous counterparts. Non-monogamy in gay-male couples does not inevitably conflate with relationship dissatisfaction in such dyads. Monogamy was sustainable for many but not for others who broke their original agreements. Hoff, Colleen C, and Sean C Beougher. 2010. "Sexual agreements among gay male couples." Archives Of Sexual Behavior 39, no. 3: 774-787 “Many gay male couples make agreements about whether or not to permit sex with outside partners, yet little is known about the development and maintenance of these agreements, their impact on relationships, and whether they are an effective HIV prevention strategy.” Many gay male couples make agreements about whether or not to permit sex with outside partners, yet little is known about the development and maintenance of these agreements, their impact on relationships, and whether they are an effective HIV prevention strategy. Long-term gay relationships do exist but they are the exception. The United Families International Blog reports the following about the longevity of gay relationships: If you’re in a male same-sex marriage, it’s 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than a heterosexual marriage. If you’re in a female same-sex marriage, this figure rises to 167 percent. These statistics come from Norway and Sweden where five out of every 1000 new couples are same-sex. Gunnar Andersson, “Divorce-Risk Patterns in Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden”2004. An Amsterdam study found that the average homosexual relationship lasts only 18 months and that “men in homosexual relationships, on average, have eight partners a year outside those relationships.” By comparison, more than two-thirds of heterosexual marriages in America last longer than ten years. Maria Xiridou, et al. “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17, 7 (2003): 1029-1038. There is no such thing as gay marriage and never can be. Oh? There are gay marriages, in fact, in more than a dozen states as well as in many countries.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 22, 2014 0:49:38 GMT -6
Mama Cass,
I have already said that monogamy and marriage are not for everyone. The polyamorous sorts on which you seem to wish to build your argument are not the ones clamoring for licenses.
Meanwhile, I'll take this gem as your silliest pseudo-fact for the day (which, in your case, is saying quite a lot):
If you’re in a male same-sex marriage, it’s 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than a heterosexual marriage. If you’re in a female same-sex marriage, this figure rises to 167 percent. These statistics come from Norway and Sweden where five out of every 1000 new couples are same-sex. Gunnar Andersson, “Divorce-Risk Patterns in Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden”2004.
The divorce rates for Norway and Sweden are 44 and 47 percent respectively. Let's take 45% as a fair approximation for both. Therefore, following your quote, the likelihood of male SSM ending in divorce is 45 + (45 * 0.50) = 67.5%, and the likelihood of female SSM ending in divorce is 45 + (45 * 1.67) = 110% . That's one hell of a divorce rate, even for a bunch of sun-starved, stoic Nordic types.
Just curious--what is it that you find so incredibly fascinating about homosexual non-monogamy that has led you to do all this research. Do tell.
FB
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 22, 2014 0:58:51 GMT -6
I hope this is readable. I cannot edit a message once posted and I cannot figure out quite how to quote in pieces. Not that there is much worth saving in your post, but I don't think that this statement is true. You should be able to edit after posting. When you do so, the time of the last edit will be displayed on the bottom of your post. You should also have the option of stating why the post was edited. I double checked this by looking on a ProBoards forum where I have no status or superpowers whatsoever. Let me know if you find this not to be the case--I know that it is fairly standard protocol, particularly given that I am fairly lazy when I post and tend not to check the Preview tab. I often end up editing one or two minutes after the original when I see the obvious typo or misaligned quote string.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Feb 22, 2014 5:11:28 GMT -6
Reading through all this, I wonder why it's anyone else's business how gay couples behave relative to their spouse or lover. Unless, of course, someone delights in dictating other people's sex lives.
So freakin' what gays are not monogamous?!? How is that anyone's business? Especially that of Nosy Nellies like MC has demonstrated self to be, not to mention a flagrant sexist with this crap about women having to make men grow up because otherwise they'd be running around trying to have sex with anything they could hold still for long enough.
Honestly, this stuff of MC's is the most leering screed I've read in years.
|
|
|
Post by Mama Cass on Feb 22, 2014 10:13:33 GMT -6
Mama Cass, I have already said that monogamy and marriage are not for everyone. The polyamorous sorts on which you seem to wish to build your argument are not the ones clamoring for licenses. Meanwhile, I'll take this gem as your silliest pseudo-fact for the day (which, in your case, is saying quite a lot): If you’re in a male same-sex marriage, it’s 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than a heterosexual marriage. If you’re in a female same-sex marriage, this figure rises to 167 percent. These statistics come from Norway and Sweden where five out of every 1000 new couples are same-sex. Gunnar Andersson, “Divorce-Risk Patterns in Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden”2004. The divorce rates for Norway and Sweden are 44 and 47 percent respectively. Let's take 45% as a fair approximation for both. Therefore, following your quote, the likelihood of male SSM ending in divorce is 45 + (45 * 0.50) = 67.5%, and the likelihood of female SSM ending in divorce is 45 + (45 * 1.67) = 110% . That's one hell of a divorce rate, even for a bunch of sun-starved, stoic Nordic types. Just curious--what is it that you find so incredibly fascinating about homosexual non-monogamy that has led you to do all this research. Do tell. FB There you go again. You have allowed your prejudice to overcome your brains. None of that "gem" comes from me not one word. It is not a pseudo fact. When you have to misrepresent the argument that should tell you that you are wrong. Culpably so. The fact that you are insulting me, as well, is proof enough that you have lost the argument. You really need to watch your tone, honey. It does your argument no good to come across as a bitch afraid of the truth. Your remarks here are why I will not join this forum and will probably not write anything more. I can easily match you insult for insult; bitchery for bitchery. I just don't want to. It is neither adult nor edifying. I left the 10th grade locker room decades ago. "The polyamorous sorts on which you seem to wish to build your argument are not the ones clamoring for licenses." LOL! Every single article I cited discussed married or partnered gay couples. They were not polyamorous sorts. They were couples concerned enough about their relationship to seek help from therapists. You really need to pay attention. The fact that you don't tells me that there is no point in continuing to try to discuss anything with you. But I live in the hope that the light of natural reason will prevail and so I will finish up my point in the hope that someone who is open to reality will derive something useful from it. I don't give a damn about homosexuals qua homosexuals. I care very much about children who have long since become commodities to be purchased, designed to order, or killed depending on what adults want, as they pursue their selfish and adolescent obsessions. The denigration of marriage is very much aimed at its abolition and this is the engine that is driving a huge host of societal ills. Traditional marriage is vital to healthy families and healthy families are vital to healthy societies. Oops. I better "prove" that our chattering elites are hell-bent on destroying marriage. It seems so obvious to me but, then, I pay attention to what is going on. Let me see. Here again is something I wrote about a couple of years ago. While the enemies of traditional society don't usually come out and tell us plainly what they have in mind, they did in one place I can point to easily. The Law Commission of Canada submitted a report to Parliament called Beyond Conjugality in 2001. Its bibliography is a who’s who of anti-marriage and gay marriage activists, the most important of whom was the author of the Gores' book “Joined at the Heart.” It too argues that “love”, not laws, make a family. Not kinship; love. I guess that was the reasoning behind a judge awarding full custody of the biological child of one lesbian to her ex partner who had no biological tie to the child at all. "Love" trumps kinship. In any case, the report contained 3 main recommendations: First, judges are told to consider only whether the individuals before them are "functionally interdependent," regardless of their actual marital status. So by that reckoning, a household consisting of an adult child still living with his mother might be treated as the functional equivalent of a married couple. Second, it recommended creating a legal structure that allows people to register their personal relationships with the government. Not only could heterosexual couples register as official partners, so could gay couples, adult children living with parents, and siblings or friends sharing a house. You have to look in the footnotes to find out that they don’t see any reason to limit such partnerships to two people. I guess even in Canada that was too big a mouthful to swallow. Yet. Third, gay marriage should be legalized. The report makes clear that the abolition of marriage is the ultimate aim. They don’t quite recommend it because, as they say sadly, the public won’t accept that.
|
|