Homosexual Marriage Adoption And Its Probable Effect On Marriages Generally

[wenglund]

Why is this important to me? I don't see any reason under our Constitution why such people should be denied the right to marry

 

The state conferred right of legal marriage is inherently tied to the meaning of the word "marriage" as well as the vested interest of the state in conferring said right.

 

The intelligent question, then, is: does the Constitution somehow alter the traditional meaning of the word "marriage" and selectively (for homosexual relationships) suspend the state's right to confer marital rights based on rational state interest? 

 

The courts that have ruled against DOMA's and traditional marriage laws have either ignored the traditional meaning of marriage or capriciously imposed their own more open definition of marriage, and have employed extra-Constitutional tests which either ignore or unconstitutionally circumvent rational state interest. It boggles the common-sensical mind.

 

But, this is the upside-down, seemingly mindless world we now live in.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 5, 2014 by wenglund

[jkwilliams]

The state conferred right of legal marriage is inherently tied to the meaning of the word "marriage" as well as the vested interest of the state in conferring said right.

 

The intelligent question, then, is: does the Constitution somehow alter the traditional meaning of the word "marriage" and suspend the state's right to confer marital rights based on rational state interest? 

 

The courts that have ruled in against DOMA's and traditional marriage laws have either ignored the traditional meaning of marriage or capriciously imposed their own more open definition of marriage, and have employed extra-Constitutional tess which either ignore or unconstitutionally circumvent rational state interest. It boggles the common-sensical mind.

 

But, this is the upside-down, seemingly mindless world we now live in.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What you see as an upside-down turning of marriage on its head I see as positive evidence that our Constitution is being applied to citizens equally. As you often say, to each his own.

[wenglund]

Fortunately, the courts have disagreed with this since Loving.

 

I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this. I've discussed this with you many times, and when we've gone through the statistics you've cited, I've repeatedly shown that the statistics don't say what you claim they do and in many cases say the opposite of what you claim. In the end, as you say, the real issue here is that you think these relationships are perverse and harmful, and that's a value judgment. Fair enough. I don't think that's a good enough reason to deny equal protection under the law, and you do. The courts appear to agree with me.

In the end, what matters is how the law is decided, and we are obviously heading toward a decision. I don't think your opposition to same-sex marriage is based on prejudice or bad faith, and I hope you will stop insisting that people like me are just stupid sheep, as that's not the case. I've given this issue a lot of thought and prayer, and we simply disagree.

 

Yes, we have quite divergent views on many levels of this issue. We even have quite different recollections about what you were or weren't able to show statistically. 

 

However, we agree that neither of us are likely to have our views changed much by the other, So, to each their own.

 

And, I agree that you have increasingly more judges in your corner, though while in the past such judicial support really meant something positive, whereas, nowadays, with the marked politicization of the courts, their catering to pop culture, their somewhat unfettering themselves from the Constitution, if not also their flaunting the separation of powers, it has lost much of its credibility and meaningfulness with me--and I feel this way even regarding many cases with which I share some affinity.

 

Oh well...as always, nice talking to you.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Not that it matters, but only in the asinine rulings of certain courts of late does "equal protection" mean "equal benefits." Since when does a tax benefit rationally amount to a protection? Where is the protection to homosexuals in incentivizing legitimate childbearing and optimal child rearing.

 

Simply nutty.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 5, 2014 by wenglund

[california boy]

I understand your need to sweepingly dismiss my documentation through false caricatures, while ironically assuming I am the one pretending. You have a pronounced prejudice against and barrier to material that doesn't fit your mindset. It is becoming an increasingly more common form of censorship among gay activist, not unlike their silencing or dismissive misuse of the word "homophobic."

 

Fortunately, critical thinking readers can click on the links themselves and see your duplicity. What few "right wing christian" websites I linked to (of the 36 links, 3 are clearly Christian, and 6 are clearly right-wing, while 8 are clearly pro-gay, with the remainder either indeterminate or left-leaning media outlets), they each quoted gay activists. They all simply conveyed what gay activist, themselves, believe.

 

You may not like what your fellow gays may have to say, but that is your problem, not mine. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are right. Most people have become pretty dismissive of your arguments, and for good reason. Not a single one of them have been held up in an actual court of law where statements have to be backed up in actual fact. The very heart of your position is not based on law. You take the position that society has to benefit for the government to pass a law. But even you must know that for the government to pass laws against something there has to prove damage. This is something that ANY lawyer fighting gay marriage has been able to do despite literal millions spent trying to justify denying the right to marry

And yes when I see posts ranting that gays are anti family, pawns of satan recruiting children in our schools,etc they just come across as hateful reteric against gays. It is not that hard to dismiss such posts. I think your arguments will only continue to be dismissed The law is clearly in the side of gay marriage. Perhaps youy should do more intent study of the accrual facts presented in the courts then the blogs of right wingers. And perhaps you just like every Mormon does not speak doctrine or what you believe neither does every gay person share the same position. Just because you have found some gay blogger that supports your position doesn't give you a valid argument that the law will recognize

[Vookman]

So I didn't realize I got slammed until I looked at things tonight.  I had cited a study about same sex marriage in the Netherlands.  In the Netherlands, there are roughly 16.5 million people during the period from 2001-2011, the latest for official government marriage statistics.  There were 761,010 heterosexual marriages, and roughly 14,800 same sex marriages, nearly equally divided between men and women.

 

Roughly 25% of the population is under age 20.  So of 12.2 million adults, if 2% of the population is homosexual, then 244,000 people are gay, and, therefore, only 12% of the homosexual population has availed itself of the right to marriage.  Oh wait, that is exactly what I wrote.  

 

Now, if you wanted to assert that 3% of the population is gay, that number drops to 8.8%.  There were also 1,078 same sex divorces, or roughly 7.2% of the marriages were dissolved during the 10 year statistical period.

 

But here are some additional "irrelevant" statistics. Roughly 70% of all adults in the Netherlands are coupled, in a committed relationship, and 80% of those are married.  By contrast, there are an estimated 50,000 same sex couples, or abut 20% of the total adult homosexual population, and of that about 30% are married.  So again, statistics bear out that rates of coupling and marriage are substantially lower between the straight and homosexual communities.  

 

It is interesting that while there was a huge base of already married people in the Netherlands, as one would expect, the rate of marriage is relatively stable.  By contrast, same sex marriage peaked in its first years, and has trailed off.  

 

So the insignificance of the impact of gay marriage on the total population is exactly as I stated.

[jkwilliams]

So I didn't realize I got slammed until I looked at things tonight.  I had cited a study about same sex marriage in the Netherlands.  In the Netherlands, there are roughly 16.5 million people during the period from 2001-2011, the latest for official government marriage statistics.  There were 761,010 heterosexual marriages, and roughly 14,800 same sex marriages, nearly equally divided between men and women.

 

Roughly 25% of the population is under age 20.  So of 12.2 million adults, if 2% of the population is homosexual, then 244,000 people are gay, and, therefore, only 12% of the homosexual population has availed itself of the right to marriage.  Oh wait, that is exactly what I wrote.

 

Now, if you wanted to assert that 3% of the population is gay, that number drops to 8.8%.  There were also 1,078 same sex divorces, or roughly 7.2% of the marriages were dissolved during the 10 year statistical period.

 

But here are some additional "irrelevant" statistics. Roughly 70% of all adults in the Netherlands are coupled, in a committed relationship, and 80% of those are married.  By contrast, there are an estimated 50,000 same sex couples, or abut 20% of the total adult homosexual population, and of that about 30% are married.  So again, statistics bear out that rates of coupling and marriage are substantially lower between the straight and homosexual communities.  

 

It is interesting that while there was a huge base of already married people in the Netherlands, as one would expect, the rate of marriage is relatively stable.  By contrast, same sex marriage peaked in its first years, and has trailed off.  

 

So the insignificance of the impact of gay marriage on the total population is exactly as I stated.

So, wait, you're saying that gay marriage has an insignificant effect on the total population? No argument here. I thought you guys believed it was going to bring down the whole institution of marriage, or something.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So I didn't realize I got slammed until I looked at things tonight.  I had cited a study about same sex marriage in the Netherlands.  In the Netherlands, there are roughly 16.5 million people during the period from 2001-2011, the latest for official government marriage statistics.  There were 761,010 heterosexual marriages, and roughly 14,800 same sex marriages, nearly equally divided between men and women.

 

Roughly 25% of the population is under age 20.  So of 12.2 million adults, if 2% of the population is homosexual, then 244,000 people are gay, and, therefore, only 12% of the homosexual population has availed itself of the right to marriage.  Oh wait, that is exactly what I wrote.  

 

Now, if you wanted to assert that 3% of the population is gay, that number drops to 8.8%.  There were also 1,078 same sex divorces, or roughly 7.2% of the marriages were dissolved during the 10 year statistical period.

 

But here are some additional "irrelevant" statistics. Roughly 70% of all adults in the Netherlands are coupled, in a committed relationship, and 80% of those are married.  By contrast, there are an estimated 50,000 same sex couples, or abut 20% of the total adult homosexual population, and of that about 30% are married.  So again, statistics bear out that rates of coupling and marriage are substantially lower between the straight and homosexual communities.  

 

It is interesting that while there was a huge base of already married people in the Netherlands, as one would expect, the rate of marriage is relatively stable.  By contrast, same sex marriage peaked in its first years, and has trailed off.  

 

So the insignificance of the impact of gay marriage on the total population is exactly as I stated.

Interestingly, based on your statistics, About 1.9% of all marriages entered during the period were gay marriages. About exactly what you'd expect.

[jkwilliams]

Interestingly, based on your statistics, About 1.9% of all marriages entered during the period were gay marriages. About exactly what you'd expect.

Yes, it's shocking that about 2% of the adult population accounted for about 2% of the marriages.

[stemelbow]

I'd say the link in the OP represents some terrible reasoning. Gay people have been ostracized and treated as weirdos by many. Sometimes, generally speaking, people are products of their environment. To say gay marriage will promote more openness in marriage and thus redefines marriage misses the boat. Of course gay marriage adds a new element to the concept of marriage, but as it is, if marriage was more traditionally a part of the gay community perhaps it'll help promote not hinder committed relationships.

eh....this is all going to be moot at some point because as it is, the opponents of SSM seem to fail to make a very decent case. SSM will be universal and all the arm and gum flapping about it now, will be gone.

[Vookman]

You are misreading the data.  Of current marriages since 2001, a little less than 2% are same sex.  But there are several things obscured by quoting that number:

1.  It is not 2% of the population.  It is .22% of the adult population.  Raw number is 29,600 people out of some 12.2 million people.

 

2.  The first two or three years, when you would expect a surge to catch up to the overall rate of heterosexual marriages, as a percentage, were the only years they were above the marriage rate.  Since then they are averaging about 1% of all marriages.

 

3.  The rate of "coupling" among same sex couples is roughly 1/3 the rate of heterosexual couples.  Estimated raw number is 100,000 people out of the 12.2 million adults, or 0.82% of the total population, and just a hair over 20% of the same sex population.  By contrast, about 66% of the heterosexual adults are coupled and living together.

 

4.  I have no issues with same sex attractions enjoying the same rights to couple as anyone else.  I wish they wouldn't call it marriage because it isn't marriage in any historic or traditional sense, but at the end of the day that is semantics.  Where I think they damage society is in the attempt to claim the same rights of parenting as traditionally married couples.  This is not good for all children in those situations, just as it is not good for all children to not have both male and female parental figures in their lives.

 

5.  It is typical of any disagreement to try to portray the worst behavior on one side's case, to the best cases on the other.  Thus you will hear in the marriage debate the children of abuse are better in a same sex home than nowhere to go at all.  That may be true.  But that is an aberration of reality.  When 30% of kids in same sex couples struggle with gender attraction identification, a rate 3x that of heterosexual marriages, then some consideration must be given to the reality of the damage likely inflicted on those who have no voice.  Children are not pets, and you don't have a right to them just because you have established residence with someone.  They deserve access to their biological parents, and if those are unavailable for some reason, they deserve adoption into qualified heterosexual homes first, and then to non-traditional environments as need dictates.  In the Netherlands few same sex couples have children they are exclusively raising, as surrogate child bearing is illegal for pay, and highly regulated for even altruistic motives.  After 13 years of essentially unencumbered social equality, the Dutch still are unconvinced  that same sex marriages are good for raising children.  This even though pro-same sex researchers acknowledge that the rate of things such as discrimination against same sex couples is now on a par with typical other ignorant acts, such as ethnic discrimination.  In other words, there are always ignorant or prejudiced people, but the Dutch society as a whole has now accepted same sex marriage as an institution on the same footing as other normal evolving integration issues.  And they still don't think as a society that it is optimal or even equivalent for a child to be raised exclusively by same sex parents.  In fact a few years ago there was a huge row about same sex foster parents.  The government came out to support that practice, but still has not eased the methods of exclusive parenting to same sex couples of children brought into the union.

 

So don't read more into the data than is there.  Gays still choose to not couple largely because, in my opinion, there is no economic benefit from entering an agreement which you are likely going to terminate because of a promiscuous life style.  I see that evidence in the data.  It is easier to be serially partnered and remain single, and not risk long term responsibility for economic division of assets.  

[wenglund]

You are right. Most people have become pretty dismissive of your arguments, and for good reason. Not a single one of them have been held up in an actual court of law where statements have to be backed up in actual fact. The very heart of your position is not based on law. You take the position that society has to benefit for the government to pass a law. But even you must know that for the government to pass laws against something there has to prove damage. This is something that ANY lawyer fighting gay marriage has been able to do despite literal millions spent trying to justify denying the right to marry

And yes when I see posts ranting that gays are anti family, pawns of satan recruiting children in our schools,etc they just come across as hateful reteric against gays. It is not that hard to dismiss such posts. I think your arguments will only continue to be dismissed The law is clearly in the side of gay marriage. Perhaps youy should do more intent study of the accrual facts presented in the courts then the blogs of right wingers. And perhaps you just like every Mormon does not speak doctrine or what you believe neither does every gay person share the same position. Just because you have found some gay blogger that supports your position doesn't give you a valid argument that the law will recognize

 

All your self-serving hemming and hawing and fallacious appeals to majority do not negate the duplicitous misrepresentations of your prior post, nor does it effectively sweep under the rug the disturbing sentiments of some of your fellow gay activists--which are quite contrary to my position (making me seriously doubt that you read any of the material you so eagerly dismissed given your false assumption that the quotes somehow support my position).. It amounts to little more than an unwarranted emotive brush-off, a verbalized dismissive flick of the limp wrist.

 

But, enjoy your day nevertheless.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 5, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Yes, it's shocking that about 2% of the adult population accounted for about 2% of the marriages.

 

No doubt the shock comes from finally recognizing that the vast majority of the heterosexual adult population had previously been married, whereas the homosexuals had not. When one rightly looks at this contextualizing factor, it puts the respective marriage rates in proper perspective, which looms somewhat paltry for homosexuals. In other words, the point isn't so much the respective rates at which the parties got married during a certain time period, but the proportional rate that the respective populations ultimately availed themselves of marriage when possible.

 

For example, as intimated in a fairly recent update to my blog post on  SSM: Too Few: Washington state officials recently released figures showing that over the last year that gay marriage was legal, around 17 percent of the marriages in the state were same-sex couples. (See HERE) "About 7,071 same-sex couples got married in Washington between December 6, 2012, and the most recent complete month of data, September 2013. There were 42,408 total marriages in the state during that time, according to the Washington State Department of Health. So far, most of Washington state's same-sex marriages, 62 percent, were between two women....During the five years before Washington's gay marriage law, when the state had what was affectionately called "everything but marriage," only 9,500 couples registered themselves as domestic partners, including about 950 who were not gay, said state Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle....About a quarter of the gay couples who got married this past year in Washington were from another state. " (ibid)

 

In one respect this seem rather impressive and at odds with what I claim above. If gay adults represent 1.7 % (see HERE) of the 5,312,045 adult population in Washington (see HERE), this means that about 12% of the gay population got married in one year as compared with .14% for heterosexuals. In other words, proportionately there were more than 8 times as many gays that got married as heterosexuals.

However, in another respect it is underwhelming, particularly when one considers all the adults in the state of Washington who were already married or in domestic partnerships. When given the opportunity to legally marry, only 12% of the gay population thus far opted to marry and are currently married in Washington, as contrasted with on average about 95% of heterosexuals who have married and 55% who are currently married (see HERE).

It is even more underwhelming when one considers the fact that 5303 in-state gay couples married, whereas there were already approximately 8550 gay couples in Washington who were in domestic partnerships. (See HERE)  In other words, at best only 62% of the gay domestic partnerships in the state opted to convert to marriages.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 5, 2014 by wenglund

[jkwilliams]

I've never understood the argument that says that rights should be withheld from some people because other people don't exercise those rights. That's like saying that, because 40% of Americans don't vote, the other 60% shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[wenglund]

I've never understood the argument that says that rights should be withheld from some people because other people don't exercise those rights. That's like saying that, because 40% of Americans don't vote, the other 60% shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

I have yet to see this argument made here except perhaps from a person made of straw.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 5, 2014 by wenglund

[jkwilliams]

I have yet to see that argument made except perhaps from a person made of straw.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Then why do we keep seeing from you and others the argument that few gay couples are interested in getting married? How do you see that as relevant to whether same-sex couples should be denied due process?

[wenglund]

Then why do we keep seeing from you and others the argument that few gay couples are interested in getting married? How do you see that as relevant to whether same-sex couples should be denied due process?

 

As explained to you in the past, it isn't so much intended as an argument for or against, but a means of putting the issue into comparative perspective, and a way of assessing priorities and whether the costs (time, energy, money, etc.) was or is worth it.

 

Whereas, actual arguments against mangling the legal definition of marriage and against government promotion selectively of homosexual behaviors and relationships (through official sanctions and conferring benefits) essentially take the form that legalizing SSM is irrational and devolutionary on multiple levels. 

 

These rational arguments against legalizing SSM stand in stark contrast to the insipid, irrelevant, oft emotive and un-thought-out notion of equality.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Thread banned for slurs and insults.

[jkwilliams]

As explained to you in the past, it isn't so much intended as an argument for or against, but a means of putting the issue into comparative perspective, and a way of assessing priorities and whether the costs (time, energy, money, etc.) was or is worth it.

 

Whereas, actual arguments against mangling the legal definition of marriage and against government promotion selectively of homosexual behaviors and relationships (through official sanctions and conferring benefits) essentially take the form that legalizing SSM is irrational and devolutionary on multiple levels. 

 

These rational arguments against legalizing SSM stand in stark contrast to the insipid, irrelevant, oft emotive and un-thought-out notion of equality.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Considering that you've failed to show any real costs, you can't really put it perspective. My notion of equality is based on the principles outlined in the Constitution of equal protection and due process. I am happy to have principled disagreement with you and others, but kindly leave the accusations of stupidity, emotion, and ignorance out of this. It doesn't help your cause in the least. I suppose I could choose to be offended, but then that would suppose I believe you have accurately assessed my character and intelligence or that you have any interest in accurately doing so.

[USU78]

I've never understood the argument that says that rights should be withheld from some people because other people don't exercise those rights. That's like saying that, because 40% of Americans don't vote, the other 60% shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

What rights?

 

They have the right to live however they want, be taxed as they must, vote if they choose, work as they will, &cetera.

 

Oh . . . right to marry?  Sure:  go head and marry, which by every person's definition prior to about 10 years ago meant and still means marry somebody of the other sex.  If you've got somebody willing to put up with the inevitable filandery.

[USU78]

If Wade can be banned for posting as he did in the face of the slurs he faced, this whole thread should be shut down.

 

Of course . . . maybe that was the OP's whole point . . .

[Skylla]

This thread is done.

 

Skylla