Why Government Involvement In Marriage?

[rockpond]

This way over-simplifies what I said. There is much more to this issue than "proper care," and in fact the focus is actually more on procreation rather than proper care.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then you are losing me. I'm honestly trying to understand and articulate your position but I can't do it. Can anyone else?

From your post #222... Marriage acts on a check to the innate drive to procreate. So, government has an interest in promoting marriage as a means of making sure that children are born within stable homes with parents who will provide long term care rather than having children who burden the system. Is that not what you are saying?

[wenglund]

Then you are losing me. I'm honestly trying to understand and articulate your position but I can't do it. Can anyone else?

I realize you are trying, and I appreciate that. Perhaps my comments are a bit more complex and require a bit more thought and consideration than you are giving them?

From your post #222... Marriage acts on a check to the innate drive to procreate. So, government has an interest in promoting marriage as a means of making sure that children are born within stable homes with parents who will provide long term care rather than having children who burden the system. Is that not what you are saying?

It isn't exactly what I am saying, it isn't focused where I am focused, nor is it all of what I am saying.

I will happily flesh things out if needs be, and when I get a moment. For now, it would help if you focused more on the procreative aspect of the issue rather than the "proper care." In fact, see if you can think of reasons, other than "proper care" or "STD's" for why the government might have an interest in discouraging heterosexuals indiscriminately having sex and procreating with all sorts of different partners and under all sorts of different life situations and at all sorts of different ages.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 3, 2013 by wenglund

[rockpond]

I realize you are trying, and I appreciate that. Perhaps my comments are a bit more complex and require a bit more thought and consideration than you are giving them?

Wade - I've stuck with you for 12 pages here. I'm starting to feel that I've given your comments more thought and consideration than I should.

It isn't exactly what I am saying, it isn't focused where I am focused, nor is it all of what I am saying.

I will happily flesh things out if needs be, and when I get a moment. For now, it would help if you focused more on the procreative aspect of the issue rather than the "proper care." In fact, see if you can think of reasons, other than "proper care" or "STD's" for why the government might have an interest in discouraging heterosexuals indiscriminately having sex and procreating with all sorts of different partners.

The reason the government would want to discourage indiscriminate sex (aside from health issues) is that we want a stable environment for children with homes and parents who love and provide for them. We don't want children to become wards of the state nor do we want the government to have to pay for their care.

I honestly don't know how to separate out the issue into just a matter of procreation. You've tried and also seem unable to make such a separation. I suspect that this is because such a separation does not rationally exist. Your need to keep procreation as an isolated interest of the government strikes me more as a result of how you desperately want it to support your argument against gay marriage and less as a result of logical thinking.

Edited May 3, 2013 by rockpond

[WmLaw]

If so, then this governmental interest is irrelevant to same-sex couples since they can't procreate (responsibly or otherwise).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And therefore, this interest cannot be used as argument against SSM. Correct?

[WmLaw]

As a teaser, my thinking will run along the lines of determining whether "marriage" is the best or only public policy approach to addressing STD's for heterosexuals and/or homosexuals, and also whether legalizing SSM may in-inadvertently work to increase, rather than decrease, certain sexual diseases among homosexuals--particularly homosexual men.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'll be interested in hearing your logic on this.

[Stone holm]

I'll be interested in hearing your logic on this.

Yeah, so would I since it seems to defy logic. Unless one were to believe that the "open marriages" were to be the norm amongst SSM, it is very difficult to imagine how the possiblity of stabilizing the partners with whom gay/lesbians have sex would lead to an inadvertent in STD.

[wenglund]

Then you are losing me. I'm honestly trying to understand and articulate your position but I can't do it.

I have thought about this and I believe I have figured out why you may be having such a hard time accurately summarizing my arguments. Your summaries of what I say seem, whether inadvertent or intentional, to ignore or down-play or mis-direct the elements of my arguments that are deleterious or fatal to your position, while exaggerating those elements where you may have a fighting chance. It is like you are trying to shoehorn my round arguments into the square hole of your position. Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

And therefore, this interest cannot be used as argument against SSM. Correct?

Quite the contrary.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

I have thought about this and I believe I have figured out why you may be having such a hard time accurately summarizing my arguments. Your summaries of what I say seem, whether inadvertent or intentional, to ignore or down-play or mis-direct the elements of my arguments that are deleterious or fatal to your position, while exaggerating those elements where you may have a fighting chance. It is like you are trying to shoehorn my round arguments into the square hole of your position. Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It might seem that way. But what I see coming from you is a meandering argument that has to keep shifting as you realize that what you are writing doesn't support the conclusion you'd like to reach.

Case in point... You began this thread arguing in favor of the government's interest in population growth. Upon realizing that the population growth theory did not work in your favor, you've now asked us to not look at that.

You then shifted toward the idea of a cost/benefit approach in which the government must spend tax dollars in the best way possible to promote procreation. I asked you to delineate how the government spends tax dollars to encourage responsible procreation and you replied that it's too difficult to separate out from the way the government encourages the proper raising of children. The lines are too blurred, you said.

So now we are seeing yet another approach -- the government has an interest in controlling promiscuity and illegitimate childbirths. I'll wait to see where you take this when you have the time to formulate your thoughts. But I'm already intrigued with the ideas you've put forward such as gay marriage possibly increasing the occurrence of STD's.

[Stone holm]

What I am curious about is how does the supposed governments interest in promoting responsible procreation offended by gay marriage since obviously they cannot procreate irresponsibly or responsibly. And what exactly do we mean by "responsible". Is it for example, more responsible for a married couple who are both unemployed and have health issues to procreate than the unmarried couple who have a solid financial basis and no health issues to procreate? Or is there some more subtle issue involved. And when it really comes down to it isn't the "responsible" part really just about child rearing? And possibly public health from an STD standpoint. I mean what other legitimate interest could the government have in voluntary consensual sex?

[wenglund]

I commented:

Suffice it to say that the matter of sexually transmitted diseases/health problems, tends to work against SSM, and for traditional marriage, as a governmental interest in marriage,

To which rockpond replied:

How's that? Wouldn't encouraging committed long-term relationships among gay couples tend to decrease STD's? Isn't abstinence before marriage and monogamy after marriage the best way to prevent transmission of STD's?

To answer your questions rationally necessitates first answering several other questions, such as:

1. Is the problem of STD significant among homosexuals to warrant governmental involvement?

2. Would legalizing SSM have a meaningful impact in decreasing STD's among homosexuals?

2a. What percent of homosexuals tend to marry when it is legally available to them? And, is that percentage significant enough to make a meaningful impact on STD's?

2b. Of those homosexuals who get married or partner up, what percent remain monogamous in those marriages? And, how will the lack of monogomy affect the impact of SSM on STD's among homosexuals?

2c. Of those who get married or enter partnerships, what percentage tend to stay married or stay with the same partner? And, does the lack of durability of homosexual relationships diminish the impact of legalizing SSM on homosexual STD's?

3. Can legalizing SSM inadvertently promote or increase the instances of certain STD's among homosexuals? And, if so, then wouldn't that, to some extent, advise against legalizing SSM?

4. Are there more preferred and more viable alternatives to reducing STD's among homosexuals?

I will answer each of these questions in turn in the following posts. And, while on the surface it may seem that promoting marriage among homosexuals may decrease STD's, it will be shown that, for various reasons, such a public policy strategy won't work, and may even have the opposite unintended consequence, and argues somewhat against legalizing SSM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

1. Is the problem of STD significant among homosexuals to warrant governmental involvement?

According to the Williams Institute, gays and lesbians and bi-sexuals represent about 3.5% of the U.S. population. According to About.com "bisexuals make up 1.8% of the population, while 1.7% are gay or lesbian."

However, Traditioninaction reports that, "Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases...78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs....homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases"

And, according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC):

A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.

The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.

Regarding HIV Infection Rates: "men who have sex with men continue to be infected at escalating rates. White MSM, black MSM, and Hispanic MSM accounted for 28,500 infections in 2010, accounting for nearly two-thirds (63%) of those infected. What's more, HIV infections among MSM youth ages 13-24 have increased since 2008, up from 7,200 in 2008 to 8,800 in 2010."

As for syphilis, "Rates of primary and secondary syphilis disproportionately increased in recent years among black, Hispanic, and young men who have sex with men, CDC researchers reported on Monday. Syphilis has been on the rise since 2000, and studies suggested MSM accounted for a majority of the new cases."

In terms of Hepatitis C: "Of 4,724 MSM with an HCV test included, 124 (4 percent) had only positive test results, 2,798 (93 percent) had only negative and 92 (3 percent) had both. HCV incidence in 1990 ranged from 0.9 to 2.2 per 1,000 person-years, depending on the analysis strategy. Incidence increased through 1995, when it ranged from an estimated 5.5 and 8.1 per 1,000 person-years. Substantial increases occurred from 2002 on, with incidence ranging between 16.8 and 30.0 per 1,000 person-years in 2005 and between 23.4 and 51.1 per 1,000 person-years in 2007."

And, lest we think that homosexual STD's aren't a problem among lesbians,"The risk behavior profile of exclusive WSW (women who have sex with women) was similar to all wsw."[43]( "Sexually Transmitted Infections," 347.) One reason for this is because lesbians "were significantly more likely to report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user)."[44] (FRC)

I could go on, but I think it is clear that the answer to my question #1 is, STD's are very much a problem among homosexuals, particularly men, far more so than among heterosexuals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 6, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Some people may suggest that the huge disparity in proportional rates of STD's among homosexuals as compared with heterosexuals, may be because heterosexuals have been encouraged by the government and by society to get married and to be monogamous, thereby reducing the risk of STD's, and if so, then it may make sense to encourage legalizing SSM as a way of reducing STD's among homosexuals.

Again, on the surface this seems to make sense. However, lets test this proposition by answering the following questions:

2. Would legalizing SSM have a meaningful impact in decreasing STD's among homosexuals?

2a. What percent of homosexuals tend to marry when it is legally available to them? And, is that percentage significant enough to make a meaningful impact on STD's?

Since Massachusetts was the first state to legalize SSM (May 17, 2004), let's look at the numbers to see what they suggest. According to the data I have collected, Mass. has a total population of around 6.6 million, with an adult population of about 5.2 million. The percentage of the total population that self-identify as gay or lesbian or bi-sexual is about 4.4%. This means that there are approximately 292,430 GLB's. Since 2004 there have been about 8100 same-sex marriages, which represents only about 5.5 percent of the self-identified GLB population, or 0.3 percent of the total adult population.

The statistics are a little better for civil unions, which are legally equivolent to marriage, in Vermont (legalized in 2000). Of the more than 461 thousand people living in Vermont, about 8,900 self-identified as GLB, of which 1872 legally coupled up into civil unions, representing about 21 percent of the GLB population for that state, and 0.4 precent of the total adult population.

Either way, we are talking about a statistically insignificant number of homosexual who get married when they are legally able to.

So, in anser to questions 2 and 2a, if SSM is offered as a means of redusing STD's among homosexuals, and at best only 1 in 5 homosexuals avail themselves of that incentive, as compared with more than 50% of heterosexual adults who are currently married (more the 70% of heterosexual adults will marry at some point in their life), it is unlikely to have much of an impact on reducing STD's, particularly if the homosexuals who get married or partner up are more likely to be a part of the 23 percent of homosexuals who haven't contracted STD's.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

2b. Of those homosexuals who get married or partner up, what percent remain monogamous in those marriages/partnerships? And, how will the lack of monogomy affect the impact of SSM on STD's among homosexuals?

To make matters worse, having in mind the low rate of homosexuals getting married when legally able, it may be of interest to learn that, 'Research suggests one salient difference between same-sex, especially gay male couples, and different-sex couples relates to the acceptability of sex with people outside of the relationship. A 2010 study by University of Toronto sociologist Adam Isaiah Green in the Canadian Journal of Sociology involving 30 same-sex married couples around Toronto found that two-thirds of same-sex spouses (40% female, 60% male) did not believe marriage needed always to be monogamous. In fact, nearly half of male same-sex spouses (47%) had an explicit agreement that allowed for non-monogamy.'" (WSJ Blog)

"There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from FRC)

Regarding homosexual couples, "The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which 'many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern.'[17] David H. Demo, et al., editors, Handbook of Family Diversity (New York:Oxford University Press, 2000): 73.(ibid)

"Homosexuals...are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good "marital" relationship.[20] Bradley P. Hayton, 'To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples,' (Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 1993): 9."(ibid)

"Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) (3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978."(ibid)

"41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs ( . Fields, Dr. E. 'Is Homosexual Activity Normal?' Marietta, GA." (ibid)

The Examiner reports: "In a study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollack found that: 'Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of ‘committed’ typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.'”

Again, I could go on citing these kinds of alarming statistics, but hopefully the point is made. (An good list of studies about homosexual infidelity and lack of durability in their relationships is available HERE)

So, in answer to question 2b, given that STD's tend to be transmitted by having sex with multiple partners (particularly strangers), and given that at best 1in 5 homosexuals will avail themselves of marriage, and of that 21%, most will not remain monogamous, there is even less of a chance that legalizing SSM will have much of a meaningful impact, if at all, in reducing STD's among homosexuals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 6, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

2c. Of those who get married or enter partnerships, what percentage tend to stay married or stay with the same partner? And, does the lack of durability of homosexual relationships diminish the impact of legalizing SSM on homosexual STD's?

In addition to the high rate of infidelity among homosexuals even in committed and legally sanctioned relationships, the lack of durability of homosexual relationships, including those that are legally sanctioned, also works against legalizing SSM as a viable means for reducing STD's among homosexuals.

The FRC reports: "The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4-"Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships," GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, www.glcensus.org.] While this 'snapshot in time' is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages."

Even with these somewhat alarming durability statistics, there is a seeming bright-spot. According to Wikipedia, "As of 2011, for states with available data, dissolution rates for same sex couples are slightly lower on average than divorce rates of different-sex couples. The percentage of those same sex couples who end their legal relationship is 1.1% on average, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually.^[4]"

However, this may be due to various factors, such as: 1) the relative newness of legalized SSM (less than 10 years as compared with thousands of years for legalized traditional marriage), which may not be enough time to to get an accurate sense of how things will go (remember that 71% of homosexual relationships last less than 7 year--see HERE) ; and 2) given the relatively low rate of marriage among homosexuals, its likely that those who do marry, are the few who are really committed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

To make matters worse, having in mind the low rate of homosexuals getting married when legally able, it may be of interest to learn that, 'Research suggests one salient difference between same-sex, especially gay male couples, and different-sex couples relates to the acceptability of sex with people outside of the relationship. A 2010 study by University of Toronto sociologist Adam Isaiah Green in the Canadian Journal of Sociology involving 30 same-sex married couples around Toronto found that two-thirds of same-sex spouses (40% female, 60% male) did not believe marriage needed always to be monogamous. In fact, nearly half of male same-sex spouses (47%) had an explicit agreement that allowed for non-monogamy.'" (WSJ Blog)

"There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from FRC)

Regarding homosexual couples, "The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which 'many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern.'[17] David H. Demo, et al., editors, Handbook of Family Diversity (New York:Oxford University Press, 2000): 73.(ibid)

"Homosexuals...are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good "marital" relationship.[20] Bradley P. Hayton, 'To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples,' (Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 1993): 9."(ibid)

"Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) (3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978."(ibid)

"41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs ( . Fields, Dr. E. 'Is Homosexual Activity Normal?' Marietta, GA." (ibid)

The Examiner reports: "In a study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollack found that: 'Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of ‘committed’ typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.'”

Again, I could go on citing these kinds of alarming statistics, but hopefully the point is made. (An good list of studies about homosexual infidelity and lack of durability in their relationships is available HERE)

So, in answer to question 2b, given that STD's tend to be transmitted by having sex with multiple partners (particularly strangers), and given that at best 1in 5 homosexuals will avail themselves of marriage, and of that 21%, most will not remain monogamous, there is even less of a chance that legalizing SSM will have much of a meaningful impact, if at all, in reducing STD's among homosexuals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For decades (if not longer) we shunned them from our churches. We told them that they were an abomination before God. In some cases, they were kicked out of their homes and put on the street. Up until just a couple of years ago they had to hide who they were for the honor of serving (and dying for) our country. We've told them that their love is unworthy, unequal and less than our love. In the 90's, the people of my state voted in favor of making it legal to discriminate against them (our church filed a SCOTUS brief supporting that vote).

I could go on. But homosexuals don't yet have full equality. Where they do have marriage it is relatively new. And, there are still far more areas of the country where they don't have the option of marriage. Their marriages are not recognized on a federal level and are invalid when they cross state lines.

So, I'm gonna lean toward cutting them some slack. As you've said, heterosexuals have had quite some time to work on this marriage and monogamy thing. Given our "head start", I'm not sure we can stand too tall on the moral high ground. But, by all means, continue with your data. Meanwhile, you might want to consider how "heterosexuals" might look if someone started lumping them into a single homogeneous data point.

[wenglund]

Having demonstrated that legalizing SSM would have little if any meaningful impact in lowering STD's among homosexuals, and when one weighs this against the sizable costs of legalizing SSM, it is clear that the costs would far outweigh any nominal benefits, and so on this basis, it wouldn't make sense to legalize SSM.

Now, let's go one step further and answer the next question:

3. Can legalizing SSM inadvertently promote or result in the increase in STD's among homosexuals? And, if so, then wouldn't that, to some extent, advise against legalizing SSM?

Research reported by massresistence states: "Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000. As the homosexual lobby group MassEquality wrote to their supporters after successfully persuading the Legislature to spend that money: "With the rate of HIV infections rising dramatically in Massachusetts, it's clear the fight against AIDS is far from over."

And, it isn't just HIV and AIDS that is on the rise in Massachusetts since SSM was legalized, but other STD's as well: "New data for 2007 indicate that infectious syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia are on the rise in Massachusetts. These increases represent a ten-year high of reported chlamydia and infectious syphilis cases. The increase in gonorrhea represents a reversal of a decline in reported cases since 2004." (see HERE). See also this report on the increase of viral hepatitis.

So, legalizing SSM didn't decrease STD's like HIV and AIDs (which finding comports with my analysis above), but instead STD's increased.

Further more, there is a sexually transmitted disease that is pretty much unique to homosexual males, and the disease isn't so much a function of having sex with multiple partners and strangers, but more so a function of the nature of the sexual activity itself. In fact, it is specifically named after homosexual men, and is called "gay bowel syndrome." And, while gay activist have attempted to eradicate the name for reasons of political correctness, the ano-rectal disease/infections/damage, is no less real and no less prevalent.(see HERE.

Since "gay bowel syndrome" (or whatrever one may want to call it) is a function of the unhealthy nature of gay male sex act, and since legalizing SSM would, in a way, put the government's seal of approval on and promote that unhealthy sex act, then legalizing SSM would essentially encourage and increase this particular sexually transmitted disease.

So, the answer to question #3 is, on several levels, yes, legalizing SSM may inadvertently result in an increase in STD's, and thus militates against legalizing SSM.

To recap the answers to question 1 - 3, while the high rates of STD's among homosexuals compared to heterosexual may, on the surface, prompt one to conjecture that legalizing SSM may help to lower STD, statistics and reasoning demonstrate the opposite.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

which represents only about 5.5 percent of the self-identified GLB population.....

Of the more than 461 thousand people living in Vermont, about 8,900 self-identified as GLB, of which 1872 legally coupled up into civil unions, representing about 21 percent of the GLB population for that state, and 0.4 precent of the total adult population.

Any indication why there is such a significant difference between civil unions in Vermont (20%) and marriage in Mass (5%)?

And is there evidence that now gay marriage is legal in Vermont that those who had civil unions are switching over (or does the law do this anyway) to gay marriage or that the rate of either civil union or gay marriage is going up as was predicted when there were those saying that civil union not being identical to marriage would not have the same positive effects that heterosexual marriage has on their participants, is there any evidence of gays moving more aggressively toward marriage now that it is approved for all? or any change in the quality or type of relationship when it changes from a civil union to a marriage?

Sorry if this is off topic, Wade, these questions occurred to me when I did a bit a research on Vermont...you may have answered already, my interest in these threads varies overtime so I may have missed some important info.

Edited May 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Found this little off topic sort of tidbit:

A comprehensive UCLA March 2009 study concluded that extending marriage to same-sex couples would boost Vermont's economy by over $30.6 million in business activity over three years, which would in turn generate increases in state and local government sales tax and fee revenues by $3.3 million and create approximately 700 new jobs.[17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Vermont

It would be interested to see if this came to pass as predicted, it being three years from Sept 2009 when the law went into effect.

[Calm]

"Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) (3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978."(ibid)

These stats are 30+ years old and have not included significant cultural landmarks including the generally successful push for gay marriage...iow those entering the homosexual community at this point are likely anticipating recognition of gay marriage within ten years or so all over the states with may a few whole outs, if they will to live by the ideal of chastity and fidelity that exists in the parallel heterosexual community, applying it to their own, they can anticipate that they will be able to be married in probably five years or so in many places...a time frame that a heterosexual individual would see as a reasonable life agenda (college and work for 5 years gaining financial security, then marriage). It would seem to me there is no need for an attitude of "I will never have a normal life of love and marriage, family and home so why bother even trying", an attitude that might lead to high levels of sexual promiscuity.

I am therefore wondering if there are more current studies showing any decrease in levels of frequency of contacts, etc. due to the promise of being able to live a stable family life.

In countries that have longtime legally promoted longtime SS unions or marriages, do those relationships indicate a significant decrease of sexual activity outside of marriage (it would be interesting to find out how many entered the relationship with the idea of committing to a monogamous relationship and then later changed the parameters (as happens among heterosexuals) as opposed to those who entered the union/marriage with the concept of it being open (as happens at times among heterosexuals, though not as often...at least in the past).

I would like to see evidences of actual change in the relationships themselves from having been able to live with a legal or religiously sanctioned relationship. Did it change behaviours or did it just provide protections and financial support for behaviours already in place...IOW did it make their lives easier or better (I know this would be a subjective judgment, the standard here would be did these individuals live closer to the 'ideal' monogamous relationship thus avoiding STDs and other emotional, mental and physical health issues as well as financial ones?

[Calm]

s you've said, heterosexuals have had quite some time to work on this marriage and monogamy thing. Given our "head start", I'm not sure we can stand too tall on the moral high ground. But, by all means, continue with your data. Meanwhile, you might want to consider how "heterosexuals" might look if someone started lumping them into a single homogeneous data point.

I am curious as to how long you might think it would take for the 'pull' of the larger heterosexual community norms to start having an effect on 'normalizing' homosexual marital/union relationships? Will it take decades or quicker due to a younger group coming up knowing that the possibility of marriage is likely available to them so that becomes their ideal rather than simply adapting the current prevalent lifestyle of the gay communities around them (assuming the standards vary from place to place just as they do among heterosexuals).

And considering the current sense of fluidity that the norms of a heterosexual marriage relationship appear to be in at the moment, will the addition of a group whose practices of marriage differ from the norm contribute to a change of the norms over time pull those norms further into fluidity or will absorbing an outlying group that has been putting pressure in various ways create greater stability for both as they readjust into their new relationship to each other....they no longer would need to be seen as competing or contrasting or even of destructive of each other, but both could function as almost 'identical pillars of society'...both promoting marriage as a longterm, monogamous, faithful environment that promotes not only greater physical and mental health (according to the stats) for the adults involved, but also for the children (with the lower levels of 'parental turnover' and greater stability in their lives).

[Calm]

So, legalizing SSM didn't decrease STD's like HIV and AIDs (which finding comports with my analysis above), but instead STD's increased.

Any explanation as to why this happened? Edited May 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Since "gay bowel syndrome" (or whatrever one may want to call it) is a function of the unhealthy nature of gay male sex act, and since legalizing SSM would, in a way, put the government's seal of approval on and promote that unhealthy sex act, then legalizing SSM would essentially encourage and increase this particular sexually transmitted disease.

Gay sex is not illegal, if not a legally subsidized or supported act. Why would legalizing gay marriage likely increase the occurrence of homosexual activity, especially among many communities that have been living without government sanctions for their sexual activities for so long?

Is there evidence that this is likely to happen? If they were having sex outside of marriage without any real limitations with each other in general as a community (save for those individuals who personally choose to live a different lifestyle), what restriction would marriage remove that is considered an actual restriction of any significance among the gay communities today?

Edited May 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

For decades (if not longer) we shunned them from our churches. We told them that they were an abomination before God. In some cases, they were kicked out of their homes and put on the street. Up until just a couple of years ago they had to hide who they were for the honor of serving (and dying for) our country. We've told them that their love is unworthy, unequal and less than our love. In the 90's, the people of my state voted in favor of making it legal to discriminate against them (our church filed a SCOTUS brief supporting that vote).

I could go on. But homosexuals don't yet have full equality. Where they do have marriage it is relatively new. And, there are still far more areas of the country where they don't have the option of marriage. Their marriages are not recognized on a federal level and are invalid when they cross state lines.

So, I'm gonna lean toward cutting them some slack. As you've said, heterosexuals have had quite some time to work on this marriage and monogamy thing. Given our "head start", I'm not sure we can stand too tall on the moral high ground. But, by all means, continue with your data. Meanwhile, you might want to consider how "heterosexuals" might look if someone started lumping them into a single homogeneous data point.

I am continually stunned by the seeming ease at which you so blithely pass over otherwise deeply concerning statistics and argumentation and move quickly on to repeat, with near zombie-like devotion, the party line.

But, then, I am reminded that you are not alone. Millions of good and decent people like yourself have allowed themselves to be uncritically indoctrinated for year by the near imperceptibly twisted appeals to emotion from highly skilled propagandist. It is as though you and many others have unwittingly joined the growing throngs of the cult of pop culture.

Be that as it may, and not that it may do any good, but I will try once again to straighten out (pun intended) the twists and to interject reason amidst all the emoting, and this as a lead-in to answering the final question.

First of all, this isn't about love, otherwise we would all be enthusiastically for it. Rather, it is about aberrant, and demonstrably unhealthy sexual behavior and the move to mangle a perfectly useful legal term in order to give the government's seal of approval and promote that aberrant sexual behavior, with the hope of putting it on par with the sacred act of procreation.

This is not about equality. It is asinine to think that aberrant, ungodly, and demonstrably harmful sexual behaviors are equal to the divinely instituted act of procreation, and it is just as asinine to try and make them equal. Metaphorically, two locks rubbing together and two keys poking each other will never equal the functionality of a lock and a key. As hard as you may try to see it otherwise, homosexually will never provide equal benefit to society as heterosexuality. There really isn't an equitable comparison here.

And, this is also not specifically about same-sex attraction, itself. Church leaders have counseled us to treat people with SSA with the same level of love and kindness and concern as we would people with propensities or impulses to behave in ways that are harmful and ungodly.

However, that we are to love and embrace the sinner (so to speak), doesn't mean we are to love and embrace the sin. Again, quite the contrary. Our love for the sinner ought to compel us to shun and shame the harmful sin.

Too oft these days, in our upside-down world, people love and embrace the sin confusedly thinking this is how to love and embrace the sinner. You and they act as if you are doing homosexuals a favor and that it is somehow compassionate to condone and encourage demonstrably unhealthy sexual behaviors. Again, quite the contrary.

You also seem to assume that shame and shunning can't be a good thing. Whereas, sometimes it may be what is best. In a collective sense, at times it is a variation of the fight-or-flight instinct that motivates us to protect ourselves from harm and danger and to work towards safety and growth. Some portions of society, and you throughout this thread, have evidently grown so averse to pain and discomfort that you dysfunctionally seek to dull our sense (and consciences) with pop cultural "pain-killers" rather than listen to what our collective bodies are telling us, and take action against the offending cause of the pain and discomfort.

There is good reason that societies and religions have, as with adultery and promiscuity and other social taboos, shunned and shamed homosexual behavior. It is deleterious the welfare and progress of society, and it runs contrary to the order of nature and social evolution, as well as it being an affront to the will of God. And, if you would open your eyes, and turn your ears from man to God, and un-dull you senses, you might just see and hear, particularly when I point them out to you, all the negative unintended consequences of sheepishly catering to pop culture in this regard. I won't hold my breath.

With this in mind, I will answer the final question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 6, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

4. Are there more preferred and more viable alternatives to reducing STD's among homosexuals?

Looking at the relatively recent history of STD's among homosexuals, there have been several approaches that have been tried to correct the problem. There have been expensive publicity and educational campaigns waged to try and decrease homosexual STD's, with limited and only short-term affect. There has also been a move to mimic the approach used to curb heterosexual STD's by encouraging fidelity and formally committed relationships, which, in the case of homosexuals, not only had the opposite affect (as demonstrated above), but may have inadvertently and unwittingly diminished the meaningfulness of marriage for heterosexuals, thus diminishing the effectiveness of the approach used to heterosexual STD's.

There may have been other strategies that have been employed without success, but I can't think of them right now.

This raises the nagging question, then, has there been an approach that has worked long-term in reducing homosexual STD's?

The answer is, yes, and I hinted at it in my previous post. The one thing that has worked well in the past, and for hundreds if not thousands of years, is social shunning and shaming of homosexual behaviors.

Yet, in our collective brilliance and warped sense of compassion as a so-called modern society, we have virtually eliminated that effective and truly loving and humane and protective strategy, and are now suffering the unintended consequences--most of which are visited on the heads of those towards whom people were trying to be compassionate and accepting to begin with. Again,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 6, 2013 by wenglund