Can Anti-Same Sex M Advocates Address These Facts?

[NYcarbineer]

I haven't heard a compelling reason to change the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Neither have the voters in any venue where it has been put to a vote.

I don't think opponents of it have a thing in the world to explain. It's up to those who want to change the law to make the case.

Keep in mind that no one is preventing anyone from getting married. Even here in TN any two people can get married.
The state won't sanction such a thing and won't award benefits to such a union. Any reason why they should? I don't see one.

Yes, there's a very good reason they should. Because they do it for heterosexual couples. There's no good reason heterosexual couples should receive special treatment.

 

[Qball]

Not only are they empty statistics, they're falsely correlative. MA has some of the toughest divorce laws in the country. They always have. It's harder in MA than in most states to actually dissolve a marriage, which thus means, fewer people actually do so. Showing the rate of divorce without also showing the rate of marriage doesn't prove anything. I remember the NYT reporting on MA's low divorce rate and gay marriage being a mixed blessing for LGBTs two years ago (seen here) that mentioned some of the same points. I'm not aware of PA's divorce laws (though I'd guess they're probably as stringent given laws usually don't vary much within certain regions) or DC's divorce laws and rate of marriage, but just mentioning one type of statistic isn't a great argument.

I'd say when people say gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage, they're not necessarily talking about divorce. To many social conservatives, divorce is a separate issue affecting marriage, and many would likely tell you it's a bigger threat than gay marriage. Social conservatives see marriage as a unique union between a man and a woman for the primary purposes of having and rearing children and perpetuating that ideal in society. They think normalizing gay marriage will further pervert the purpose of marriage in society. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say it's the cause of that perversion, but it could be a definite factor (i.e. no-fault divorce, which many social conservatives opposed in the 70s) which is why they so adamantly oppose it.

Your ability to criticize data is woefully demolished by the fact you made such an unbelievably ridiculous claim to explain MA's lowest divorce State. MA is a "no fault" State:

Uh yeah, I knew that. Every state has no-fault divorce, though not all no-fault divorce laws are the same. There's more to dissolution of marriage than fault vs. no-fault. Alimony laws, child support laws, property rights -- they all play a part in the dissolution of marriage. Not only that, but you ignore (or are generally ignorant of) other social and economic factors that might affect marriage and divorce in a given state. States with high costs of living, high taxes, states where the general population skews older (for example, MA has the 11th highest median age, PA has the 5th highest), states where there's a preponderance of religious activity, states with a large metropolitan area (which coincides with income and education level, which can affect when and if people marry, and if one or both spouses have money), and if there's a general trend of people being in long-term cohabiting relationships where there isn't such a push for marriage, all those factors play a part in the marriage/divorce issue. That's what I was referring to, so I don't know why you're trying to be a little smart-ass like you caught me pulling a fast one. You just took raw stats and came to your own (unfounded, falsely correlative) conclusions.

 

[LuckyDan]

I haven't heard a compelling reason to change the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Neither have the voters in any venue where it has been put to a vote.

I don't think opponents of it have a thing in the world to explain. It's up to those who want to change the law to make the case.

Keep in mind that no one is preventing anyone from getting married. Even here in TN any two people can get married.
The state won't sanction such a thing and won't award benefits to such a union. Any reason why they should? I don't see one.

Yes, there's a very good reason they should. Because they do it for heterosexual couples. There's no good reason heterosexual couples should receive special treatment.

Heterosexual couples fit the definition of marriage. One man and one woman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind that no one is preventing anyone from getting married. Even here in TN any two people can get married.
The state won't sanction such a thing and won't award benefits to such a union. Any reason why they should? I don't see one.

Yes, there's a very good reason they should. Because they do it for heterosexual couples. There's no good reason heterosexual couples should receive special treatment.

Heterosexual couples fit the definition of marriage. One man and one woman.

There is no inviolable definition of marriage. Polygamy is marriage by definition.

 

[LuckyDan]

Yes, there's a very good reason they should. Because they do it for heterosexual couples. There's no good reason heterosexual couples should receive special treatment.

Heterosexual couples fit the definition of marriage. One man and one woman.

There is no inviolable definition of marriage. Polygamy is marriage by definition.

Polygamy is illegal.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

What has the rate of entering into a matrimonial state done over the same time period? Recent years have seen a trend towards cohabitation.

Can a divorce happen without a marriage?

Exactly my point.

 

[gautama]

I haven't heard a compelling reason to change the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Neither have the voters in any venue where it has been put to a vote.

I don't think opponents of it have a thing in the world to explain. It's up to those who want to change the law to make the case.

Keep in mind that no one is preventing anyone from getting married. Even here in TN any two people can get married.
The state won't sanction such a thing and won't award benefits to such a union. Any reason why they should? I don't see one.

Yes, there's a very good reason they should. Because they do it for heterosexual couples. There's no good reason heterosexual couples should receive special treatment.

The NYCRAPPER STILL doesn't geddit.....and probably never will.

The Abnormal Freaks, turtle and Kangaroo fuckers are not considered qualified because they are NOT considered a FAMILY UNIT (with the central premise of PROCREATION) by the Govt which relies on the definition of MARRIAGE established by the Organized Religions of the World.

Queers like the NYCRAPPER, no matter HOW THEY WANT IT....and HOW MANY TIMES THEY WHINE ABOUT IT....are NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FACT ...... that they are ABNORMAL FREAKS ..... and will never be NORMALS.....because THEY ARE NOT NORMAL !!!!

 

[gautama]

Yes, there's a very good reason they should. Because they do it for heterosexual couples. There's no good reason heterosexual couples should receive special treatment.

Heterosexual couples fit the definition of marriage. One man and one woman.

There is no inviolable definition of marriage. Polygamy is marriage by definition.

I'm OK with that. But again, The Govt relies on the Organized Religions of the World's definition, and Abnormal Freaks like you, Turtle, Kangaroo, and Do nut fuckers, etc....are not recognized and NEVER WILL BE you obtuse idiotic QUEER moron.

D'you think the Devout Religious followers of the Organized Religions of the World in America ~ 80%+ will ever SIGNIFICANTLY change in the next couple of centuries ????

Then you Abnormal Freaks are fighting a losing battle.

However, if this gives you some respite from dicking each other in the butt-hole, then go fer it.

 

[Qball]

Gautama, I'm sure you're probably being mostly tongue-in-cheek, but can we lay off the queer/abnormal freaks stuff? It's not helping anything. Though conservatives are hardly the sole purveyors of that type of rhetoric, it just reinforces a certain nasty stereotype that we're homophobic bigots who don't want people have rights, and there's more to us than that...well, at least there is to me.

 

[CurveLight]

Not only are they empty statistics, they're falsely correlative. MA has some of the toughest divorce laws in the country. They always have. It's harder in MA than in most states to actually dissolve a marriage, which thus means, fewer people actually do so. Showing the rate of divorce without also showing the rate of marriage doesn't prove anything. I remember the NYT reporting on MA's low divorce rate and gay marriage being a mixed blessing for LGBTs two years ago (seen here) that mentioned some of the same points. I'm not aware of PA's divorce laws (though I'd guess they're probably as stringent given laws usually don't vary much within certain regions) or DC's divorce laws and rate of marriage, but just mentioning one type of statistic isn't a great argument.

I'd say when people say gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage, they're not necessarily talking about divorce. To many social conservatives, divorce is a separate issue affecting marriage, and many would likely tell you it's a bigger threat than gay marriage. Social conservatives see marriage as a unique union between a man and a woman for the primary purposes of having and rearing children and perpetuating that ideal in society. They think normalizing gay marriage will further pervert the purpose of marriage in society. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say it's the cause of that perversion, but it could be a definite factor (i.e. no-fault divorce, which many social conservatives opposed in the 70s) which is why they so adamantly oppose it.

Your ability to criticize data is woefully demolished by the fact you made such an unbelievably ridiculous claim to explain MA's lowest divorce State. MA is a "no fault" State:

Uh yeah, I knew that. Every state has no-fault divorce, though not all no-fault divorce laws are the same. There's more to dissolution of marriage than fault vs. no-fault. Alimony laws, child support laws, property rights -- they all play a part in the dissolution of marriage. Not only that, but you ignore (or are generally ignorant of) other social and economic factors that might affect marriage and divorce in a given state. States with high costs of living, high taxes, states where the general population skews older (for example, MA has the 11th highest median age, PA has the 5th highest), states where there's a preponderance of religious activity, states with a large metropolitan area (which coincides with income and education level, which can affect when and if people marry, and if one or both spouses have money), and if there's a general trend of people being in long-term cohabiting relationships where there isn't such a push for marriage, all those factors play a part in the marriage/divorce issue. That's what I was referring to, so I don't know why you're trying to be a little smart-ass like you caught me pulling a fast one. You just took raw stats and came to your own (unfounded, falsely correlative) conclusions.

You cited divorce laws as the reason. That is what I responded to. Now you want to kick and scream and change your claim. Let's make this simple: why don't you back up your claim with facts? Thanks.

 

[Father Time]

how about we just get the government totally out of controlling who can or cant get married and remove all legal attachments to marriage
return it to the religions to decide what is and isnt marriage and have the states do legal contracts only

Great idea but if you think the cons and the religious complain about 'destroying marriage' now, wait till you propose we remove marriage from the law entirely. Could be fun to watch, especially if/when they imply that the only way marriage can get value is if the government sanctions it.

 

[gautama]

What has the rate of entering into a matrimonial state done over the same time period? Recent years have seen a trend towards cohabitation.

Can a divorce happen without a marriage?

Exactly my point.

That Abnormal Freak simply doesn't geddit.

The Govt doesn't give a shit whether Abnormal Freaks, Kangaroo and turtle fuckers, etc., marry or not, divorce or not......these entities are simply NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE GOV'T...... GEDDIT ???????

I give up......some Abnormal Freaks are just too Abnormal for me to deal with.

 

[CurveLight]

What has the rate of entering into a matrimonial state done over the same time period? Recent years have seen a trend towards cohabitation.

Can a divorce happen without a marriage?

Exactly my point.

You don't get it. Please show us all how divorce rates are calculated.

 

[Father Time]

Legalizing same-sex marriage would send the message that it's OK to be gay. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for making it legal so I could be wrong.

Giving blacks the vote would send a message that its OK to be black. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for blacks voting so I could be wrong.

Giving women the vote would send a message that its OK to be of the 'lesser sex'. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for women voting so I could be wrong.

Giving inter-racial couples the right to marry would send a message that its OK to be in an inter-racial couple. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for allowing inter-racial marriage so I could be wrong.

 

[Father Time]

I haven't heard a compelling reason to change the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Neither have the voters in any venue where it has been put to a vote.

I don't think opponents of it have a thing in the world to explain. It's up to those who want to change the law to make the case.

That's assuming the law was made using logic and reason which as you can see by any number of stupid laws on the books is not the case. So basically it's appeal to tradition.

And although I can't speak for any other state, here in California the Prop 8 side was lying their freaking heads off. "It'll be taught to kids and you can't opt out" "it will lead to hate speech laws" "your church may be forced to marry gays". If that's the only way the anti gay marraige crowds can win ...

 

[gautama]

how about we just get the government totally out of controlling who can or cant get married and remove all legal attachments to marriage
return it to the religions to decide what is and isnt marriage and have the states do legal contracts only

Great idea but if you think the cons and the religious complain about 'destroying marriage' now, wait till you propose we remove marriage from the law entirely. Could be fun to watch, especially if/when they imply that the only way marriage can get value is if the government sanctions it.

Father of Queer BULLSHIT,

Being an Abnormal Freak, what you simply cannot undersatnd is that nobody GIVES A SHIT whether you marry or not, divorce or not, propose that only kangaroos can **** rabbits, etc......

YOU ARE FREAKS......NOBODY GIVES A SHIT WHAT FREAKS THINK OR WANT......except for the inconsequential "bleeding hearts".....and they are idiots .....so they are also ignored.

That's it.

I've had it with these fools.

 

[Father Time]

As a Christian I can tell you we will never advocate ssm. That is not our idea but God's he states that very clearly in the Bible. Wouldn't we be a hypocrite if we did?

A. Christianity does not own the concept of marraige.
B. If ssm passed, churches wouldn't be forced to marry gays so you can let it pass and not allow it in your church. The logic saying you're a hypocrite is akin to saying "God doesn't like atheists so if we allow people to be atheists we're hypocrites".
C. In the passage in Leviticus saying God doesn't like homosexuals he also says you should kill them. Just saying.

We know we will never be perfect. But we do try to follow the instruction of the Bible as closely as we can that is the whole point.

Ok then give other people the freedom to commit what you think is a sin, and don't do it yourself. How is this so hard?

The secular world likes to label us as to what they think we should be like.

Would this be anything like the bible labeling people sinners?

Like I said God says no to ssm or homosexuality period. Again I say that is not our words but God's.

God should not be the basis of law especially when you have people who don't believe in him (which probably exist everywhere).

I do not say that ssm will destroy the traditional marriage. We are saying is God does not approve and we are not to disagree with him. Do u understand what I am telling you?

Why yes you're saying that you're unproven God and bible should be the foundation of our law which I think is insane and completely unfair to anyone who doesn't agree with your religion.

One more thing I assure you their are many Churches that reach out to the lost the hungry and the homeless. The churches are one of the last refuge that when somebody needs help the church will step out and try and help them I have been apart of that on many occasions. One church cannot help everybody in this world but we try and cover as much as we can.

How does that make you qualified to craft laws or decide what's moral?

 

[Father Time]

how about we just get the government totally out of controlling who can or cant get married and remove all legal attachments to marriage
return it to the religions to decide what is and isnt marriage and have the states do legal contracts only

Great idea but if you think the cons and the religious complain about 'destroying marriage' now, wait till you propose we remove marriage from the law entirely. Could be fun to watch, especially if/when they imply that the only way marriage can get value is if the government sanctions it.

Father of Queer BULLSHIT,

Being an Abnormal Freak, what you simply cannot undersatnd is that nobody GIVES A SHIT whether you marry or not, divorce or not, propose that only kangaroos can **** rabbits, etc......

YOU ARE FREAKS......NOBODY GIVES A SHIT WHAT FREAKS THINK OR WANT......except for the inconsequential "bleeding hearts".....and they are idiots .....so they are also ignored.

Provably untrue, just look at Charlie Bass, Sunni Man and all the conservative groups who obsess over homosexuals and ssm.

 

[Qball]

Your ability to criticize data is woefully demolished by the fact you made such an unbelievably ridiculous claim to explain MA's lowest divorce State. MA is a "no fault" State:

Uh yeah, I knew that. Every state has no-fault divorce, though not all no-fault divorce laws are the same. There's more to dissolution of marriage than fault vs. no-fault. Alimony laws, child support laws, property rights -- they all play a part in the dissolution of marriage. Not only that, but you ignore (or are generally ignorant of) other social and economic factors that might affect marriage and divorce in a given state. States with high costs of living, high taxes, states where the general population skews older (for example, MA has the 11th highest median age, PA has the 5th highest), states where there's a preponderance of religious activity, states with a large metropolitan area (which coincides with income and education level, which can affect when and if people marry, and if one or both spouses have money), and if there's a general trend of people being in long-term cohabiting relationships where there isn't such a push for marriage, all those factors play a part in the marriage/divorce issue. That's what I was referring to, so I don't know why you're trying to be a little smart-ass like you caught me pulling a fast one. You just took raw stats and came to your own (unfounded, falsely correlative) conclusions.

You cited divorce laws as the reason. That is what I responded to. Now you want to kick and scream and change your claim. Let's make this simple: why don't you back up your claim with facts? Thanks.

Yes I did say divorce laws were a reason. There's more to "divorce laws" than whether the state is has no-fault divorce. And though I could back up everything I just said, I wont. You don't have any reason to disagree with me, but you're trying save face by saying I'm "kicking and screaming" when I just showed you how you were wrong. You had sense enough to Google and find that site you posted. What don't you agree with and why?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

We need abikersailor to weigh in here so we can have a real homo's opinion on this.