Hell Freezes Over As Glenn Beck Endorses Marriage Equality

Perhaps you should read it again--or even just the part I quoted. Both are mentioned. Further if you go to the way end of the study, there are nifty charts that are very clear related to specifically all of the above situations.

You are simply wrong or not reading. You understand that, don't you? READ it.

Here..I'll quote it again for you and explicate it:
First, the dissolution rate for male and female same-sex
cohabiters was seven and five times higher, respectively, the rate for marriage. (In other words--homosexual couples, whether lesbians or gay men--were SEVEN TIMES (for men) and FIVE TIMES (for women) more likely to break up than those in heterosexual marriages) Among
cohabiters, the differences were smaller: the dissolution rate for male and female same-sex
cohabiters was approximately double the rate for different-sex cohabiters. (In other words--even cohabitting different sexed couples who don't bother to marry are STILL TWICE as likely to stay together than same sex couples) The direction and
magnitude of the differentials are consistent with previous research in other countries (Andersson
et al., 2006; Kalmijn et al., 2007). (In other words--this ain't the first study to have these findings)

 

You have just humiliated yourself and you aren't able to even understand why.
Your post actually makes my point why cohabitation has no relationship to marriage.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Are you being an obtuse idiot? --gay relationships are statistically less stable. If you're being dumb and insisting on "gay marriage" compared to "traditional marriage" you're breaking the pro-gay marriage agenda which calls for NO DIFFERENCE--yet you want to compare them. tsk tsk.

However, the dirty little secret is that "gay marriage" is NOT traditional marriage for gay people.

Let's first clear something up...are we talking about the sort of "marriage" that straights are expected to have? I mean sexually exclusive , 'til death do you part? Because as I mentioned and you conveniently ignored, many gay people define monogamy differently that what the general populace understands it to be.

"This whole freaking "gay marriage" thing is actually the deconstruction of meaning.. Which is also a DEstabilizing force in society.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/

More...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

http://www.howaboutwe.com/date-report/when-gay-couples-get-married-are-they-monogamous/#

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-vaillancourt/gay-open-relationships_b_1217880.html

http://gaytherapyla.com/category/monogamynon-monogamyopen-relationships

 

Your article compares cohabitating gays with married people. It doesn't talk about gay marriage. It doesn't talk about people that have claimed a lifetime commitment to each other.
This is silly.
I feel sorry for your inability to understand that what you think you are proving and what you are providing simply don't match up.

 

You're in denial. Color me not surprised.

 

You finally read it, didn't you?

 

I don't know where in Hell people get this idea, but it's bloody nonsense.

It's not obligated to "provide" anyone with the right to free speech, or to bear arms, or any other unalienable rights either; but it is required to respect such rights nonetheless.

Of course none of this has any bearing on "gay marriage", since homosexuals aren't the least bit interested in exercising the right of marriage.

 

Maybe you can enlighten us as to why, in every state where gay marriage has been legalized, thousands of couples have lined up to get licenses the minute their new freedom is announced.

 

Because those licenses give them a fraudulent sense of equality with people who are married, obviously.

 

And you STILL didn't. Status quo.

 

So it's the great admiration they have of the straight people that break their vows 50% of the time.
Now I get it.
Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

Sweety,
it simply isn't an article about people that have made a life-long commitment. What is so hard about that to understand?

 

GB was on Stossel the other night, and he actually sounded like he is becoming a libertarian.

 

One wonders what you would accept as persuasive evidence.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Badgett-Herman-Marriage-Dissolution-Nov-2011.pdf

Personally, I have 12-1/2 years in an exclusive relationship with my same-sex partner. One of my brothers has been married and divorced 3 times. The other in on his second marriage.

I notice that you failed to address any of the points I raised.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

Darlin...they way manymanymany gay people define "life-long commitment" is not at all the way they are suggesting it is publicly....keep ignoring the truth--I linked you to FIVE articles concerning what "commitment" means to a large segment of homosexuals in relationships they "call" monogamous. They are not.

I said originally that the government is interested in STABILIZING relationships. Heterosexual marriage is STABILIZING (or it USED to be, it is admittedly falling apart). I suppose it's better to call it "historically stabilizing." Same sex marriage is relatively new phenomenon. And, many of those entering into what they like to liken to traditional hetero-marriage (claiming they just want it "equal") don't even consider "marriage" to be what they want! They want STUFF--not the responsibilities of marriage.

It all MERCENARY--it's money and normalization and many of the proponants are not being HONEST that they don't really want the opportunity to spend their lives devoted to one person exclusively.. IT'S THE DIRTY SECRET, and you keep ignoring it for OBVIOUS reasons.

The article describes relationships--homosexual relationships of all sorts do NOT measure up to their heterosexual counterparts. QUIT LYING.

 

So that's a no--there is no legitimate comparison between the long-term stability of hetero couples and gay couples suggesting gay coupling is stable. GOT IT.



http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Badgett-Herman-Marriage-Dissolution-Nov-2011.pdf

Consider the issues with this study as clarified in the quite liberal Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frederick-hertz/divorce-marriage-rates-fo_b_1085024.html

And I've been married for 22 years!

You HAVE no point. Personal anecdotes are NONSENSE.

When are you jokers going to address how lots of gay people define "monogamy." Are you exclusively monogamous with your partner? Is that "traditional stabilizing attribute" of marriage something YOU value? How about other gay couples you know. Is sexual exclusivity inherent in "committed" gay relationships in your experience. What say you to the FACTS presented in the multiple articles I linked to concerning this issue.

Again--it is the "dirty little secret" that amounts to a fraud being perpetrated on the average public who assumes that WORDS (like monogamy) mean what they have always meant--but, they don't and they people changing the definitions don't bother to make it clear because they KNOW it would be rejected and they wouldn't get the goods they want.

 

Who said anything about that?

No, they are merely envious that straight people can make vows that matter.

You certainly get it as well as anyone can who is bound and determined not to get it.

 

Wrong!! It should be left up to individuals not the state...

 

Monogamous does not equal life-long commitment.
You are comparing apples and oranges and compounding it with each subsequent post.
Your characterization of gay people is a cartoon, and born from an agenda and not experience with these people.

 

You didn't read that HuffingtonPost article very carefully.
It shoots you down where you stand.

- - - Updated - - -

How does one "get" ignorant horse pucky?

 

As in no - nothing will satisfy you. Got it.

(emphasis added)

So a few points:

1) You're quoting one person's opinion of the data compiled in the study, not a source that refutes its findings.

2) Note that the author says "I suspect", not "I know" or "I can prove". Suspicions aren't worth a lot.

3) Note the type of couples the author thinks are staying together. People who have already been together for some time prior to marriage. Oh, but we're supposed to regard them as unstable according to your reading of this opinion piece. Nevermind that they may have been together in a stable relationship way longer than marriage has been available to them.

My sincere congratulations.

I generally agree, but you've in fact missed my point, which is that heterosexuality is no guarantee of stability, and that homosexuality is no guarantee of instability.

1) When are you going to address the points I raised in my initial post?

2) I've been quite civil. If you're going to resort to namecalling and YELLING, and refuse to address my points, then I'll just go back to ignoring you.

Yes, and I already said so. We've been exclusive from the very start.

Yes, it is. Is it something YOU value? I don't remember seeing anything in the law that requires couples to value this in order to have their marriage recognized, though.

Who do you think you are to give me the third degree about my relationship? Who appointed you judge and jury? Why should my relationship be subjected to more scrutiny than those of any heterosexual couple? There is no shortage of adultery in heterosexual marriages, and some who practice 'open' marriage as well. Should the legal recognition of those marriages be revoked due to their "destabilizing" effect?

1) I don't make it my business to inquire into other people's sex lives. They don't generally volunteer that information, either.
2) I don't live in a 'gayborhood'. My partner and I are not social people. The extent of our contact with other people (gay or straight) is limited to:

- a quarterly Euchre match with two straight female friends (my former coworkers)

- parties we attend during the Christmas holiday with my partner's straight friends from his college days

- my partner bowling on a gay league once a week part of the year; I usually meet him and one or both of his team members for dinner prior. We don't see any of these people in the off season, and rarely socialize with them outside of the league games. One of his team members is single, the other has been in a relationship with his partner longer than my partner and I have been together. I don't know if they're "traditionally monogamous. I don't know them well enough to ask, and wouldn't anyway as it's not my place to do so.

- time we spend with family members - all of them straight (so far as we know).

- getting together twice a year (holiday cookie baking and the 4th of July to go watch fireworks) with my partner's stylist (also gay and a former bowling league team member. He's single).

- I do have a distant cousin who is gay, but we just talk on the phone once in a while, as he lives several hours away. I'm not sure how long he and his partner have been together; not as long as my partner and I, but not much less. I don't know if they're exclusive or not. Again, not my place to ask.

Edit - forgot to mention the people I see at work. Don't know more than a few who are gay, and they're single as far as I know. I don't inquire into the sex lives of my coworkers, either.

That's seriously it. We much prefer each others' company to that of other people. Not very informative, is it?

Yes. I can think of only one gay couple we've known who added "a third" to their longstanding relationship: One of my partner's friends who has since died (heart trouble) and his partner. This "monogamish" stuff that people talk must be a big city thing or something that a younger generation experiments with; it's not part of my experience, holds no appeal to me, nor to anyone I've known save for the singular instance above.

Like you said, anecdotal experience doesn't count for much.

I say:

1) You need to go back to my initial post and address my points.

2) As someone else once said, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics".

Believe whatever you like, as you obviously will.

But to accuse me of perpetrating a fraud by wishing to marry the man I have chosen to spend the rest of my life with in an exclusive relationship is to lie. And I don't appreciate being disrespected this way.

 

You better check your definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy

Ummmm...I sourced gay sites. If they are a cartoon, then they are playing the joke themselves.

You're wrong on that, but I respect their privacy, so I won't be giving details.

 

Indeed. There's no shortage of "serial monogamists" around.

 

You are allowed to marry whom you choose. And that right should apply to anyone.
For example, you may want to marry one woman whom you fall in love with because she has blue eyes and blond hair. Would you find it "equal right" if the law of the State or the Federal law told you you can ONLY exercise your right to marriage if you choose to marry a woman who has black hair and brown eyes, because that complements your fair skin and blue eyes?

Does the fact that the State or the Federal law allows you to marry ONE TYPE of woman, but not another, feel like they are respected YOUR rights to choose a spouse?

Do you think that when the States were able to make interracial marriage illegal, it was still respecting everyone's right to marry EQUALLY, because Blacks were "allowed" to marry Blacks and Whites were allowed to marry Whites?

Funny how you guys believe that your second amendment gives you EVERY RIGHT to own ANY firearm you choose. . .and you scream "murder of your Constitutional rights" if anyone even suggest putting some logical limitation on the type of weapons that a private citizen should have access to. . .but you have no problem. . .in fact you ADVOCATE restricting the right for a man or a woman to FREELY CHOOSE whom they want to marry and spend the rest of their life with, maybe even raise children with!

Guess what, I personally feel that my life (and my human right to choose my own destiny) would be a LOT MORE, and more NEGATIVELY impacted by a law that refuse me the right to choose my spouse, than by allowing me to own a handgun but putting restriction on owning an assault weapon! And, I believe that the society in general is ALSO more negatively impacted by the proliferation of assault weapons than by the union of two people of the same sex or two people of different races!

If you wanted to marry a man, you would WANT that RIGHT to be respected.

It is not because you have no interest in marrying a man (I assume!) that the ONLY right to marriage that shouldbe legal should be LIMITED by the "decision" of a Federal or State court, especially if that decision is made based mostly on RELIGIOUS dogmas!