California Court Upholds Prop 8

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

Are you going to keep posting your cherry picked stats, or are you going to directly address the reference I provided:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/Couples%20Marr%20Regis%20Diss.pdf

Did you even look at this? The above is a recent, peer-reviewed, published article based on real research comprehensively looking at the percentage of same sex relationships across all states that offer some form of legal recognition. You might find it refreshing, in contrast with your sources, which include a lame excerpt from a random blog. In case you missed it:

Key findings:

  • In the states that provide legal recognition, more than 40% of same-sex couples have married, entered a civil union, or registered their relationships.

  • The percent of same-sex couples that dissolve their relationships each year closely tracks the figure for different-sex couples (about 2%).

It’s amazing what happens when you systematically look at the data, instead of cherry picking this and that to suit a preexisting agenda.

For example, take a look at page 6 in the journal article. You will notice that the longer that legal same sex relationships are in place, the more gay couples take advantage of those legal relationships. In Vermont, where it has been in place 8 years, fully 51% of gay couples have chosen a civil union.

Now look at the figure on page 18 of the journal article. By 2029, nearly 90% of same sex couples are projected to seek marriage or legal recognition.

The research concludes:

Data from the states that have already extended legal recognition to same-sex couples support the conclusion that same-sex couples are entering into these relationships at significant rates, with over 40% of same-sex couples already in legally recognized relationships in those states. While the proportion of legally recognized same-sex couples is still substantially smaller than the percentage of different-sex couples who are married, we predict that the rates will reach parity within the next twenty years.

142

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
In case anyone is interested in real research, rather than the NARTH statistics provided by Zeb,

I’ll say it now for the second time as you must have missed the first, the following statistics are NOT from the NARTH site, nor do I have to go on the NARTH site to demonstrate through reliable statistics that homosexuals are NOT taking advantage of the marriage laws in various states and countries where it is or has been legal:

Last time I checked California had a population of about 37 MILLION people. If your previous claims of the general population are true and 5% of the 37 million are gay that means that there are approximately 1,850,000 homosexuals in California. I would say that about 1% of the gay population marrying is indeed dismal. It is you that makes outlandish claims that gays want this right and are just chomping at the bit to get this privilige. They get it and what happens? 99% couldn’t care less!

The above is based upon YOUR claim that 18,000 gays filed for a marriage license (I’ll give that to you but filed does not mean married does it?).

[b]What about Canada? Tell me forlife is the Canadian census a right wing group?

"less than one-in-20 gays took advantage of Canada’s decision to legalize marriage in June 2005, according to a census a year later.[/b]

Back to the US:

" 1.9 to 4.7 percent of Belgium’s gay population had married, 5.9 to 16.7 percent of Massachusetts’ gay population and 2.6 to 6.3 percent of Dutch gays had married.

Let’s go abroad again shall we?

[b] Australia

"When actually asked, for instance, as they were during the Private Lives Report produced by La Trobe University in 2006, most of the gay partners surveyed indicated that they had no intention of ever “formalising’ their relationships.” [/b]

[b]Spain:

“But the number of gay marriages there have been since the approval of the law is tiny, almost ridiculous. A handful of gay marriages when compared with the Spanish gay population. For example, in my region, which gathers a population of two million people (gay people are estimated between 5% and 10% of the population), there have been only two gay marriages during the two years and a half passed since the approval of the gay marriage law (June 2005). Yes. Two gay marriages. One and one. This is between 0,002% and 0,004% of the possible gay marriages.”[/b]

http://www.news.com.au/...5000117,00.html

Comment on what I’ve posted forlife I’m interested in what you have to say. But please drop that rheteric regarding NARTH as nothing I’ve posted comes from their site.

[/quote]

So what is your point?

That there is truth in numbers?

It seem s to me that if 1% of 1% of all people do want to marry it is probably not that big of a deal.

143

[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you going to keep posting your cherry picked stats[/quote]

The Canadian census is cherry picked? I could go on but it’s obvious you have no legitimate answers for why gays do NOT want to marry.

144

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Are you going to keep posting your cherry picked stats

The Canadian census is cherry picked? I could go on but it’s obvious you have no legitimate answers for why gays do NOT want to marry.[/quote]

How is that relevant?

A lot of heterosexual couples do not marry either?

145

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Canadian census is cherry picked? I could go on but it’s obvious you have no legitimate answers for why gays do NOT want to marry.[/quote]

Is that all you have to say in response to a detailed post full of data that directly contradict what you’ve been claiming in this thread? Seriously?

Yes, taking a single stat from Canada is cherry picking, as is quoting from a random blog. To make an informed judgment on the number of gay couples that seek legal unions, you have to look at every state that currently allows legal unions and actually do the math.

That is exactly what the published research articled did which I shared, and which you continue to ignore.

They found that 40% of gay couples currently have a legal union in states that allow it, and project that this statistic will continue to rise over the next 20 years, until same sex couples are on complete parity with straight couples.

146

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The Canadian census is cherry picked? I could go on but it’s obvious you have no legitimate answers for why gays do NOT want to marry.

Is that all you have to say in response to a detailed post full of data that directly contradict what you’ve been claiming in this thread? Seriously?

Yes, taking a single stat from Canada is cherry picking, as is quoting from a random blog. To make an informed judgment on the number of gay couples that seek legal unions, you have to look at every state that currently allows legal unions and actually do the math.

That is exactly what the published research articled did which I shared, and which you continue to ignore.

They found that 40% of gay couples currently have a legal union in states that allow it, and project that this statistic will continue to rise over the next 20 years, until same sex couples are on complete parity with straight couples.[/quote]

If there are very few of whatever is defined as “couples” that could be the same thing.

147

Come on forlife all the sagets and lesbos in oak lawn are nothing but cheaters. Hell they hit on me all the time when I got my wedding ring off. 3 sagets work with me and they are in a committed and forever lasting relationship, yet they fudgepack other holes.
Sorry forlife you lose. Still like yall since yall tip great. See you at riverchon tonite:)

148

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The Canadian census is cherry picked? I could go on but it’s obvious you have no legitimate answers for why gays do NOT want to marry.

Is that all you have to say in response to a detailed post full of data that directly contradict what you’ve been claiming in this thread? Seriously?

Yes, taking a single stat from Canada is cherry picking, as is quoting from a random blog. To make an informed judgment on the number of gay couples that seek legal unions, you have to look at every state that currently allows legal unions and actually do the math.

That is exactly what the published research articled did which I shared, and which you continue to ignore.

They found that 40% of gay couples currently have a legal union in states that allow it, and project that this statistic will continue to rise over the next 20 years, until same sex couples are on complete parity with straight couples.[/quote]

Forlife,

They can say plenty of things about me, but one thing they cannot say is that I don’t learn from experience.

I’ve put up detailed post after detailed post and you have not directly addressed any of them other than to accuse me of gleaming NARTH stats which I have not done (that was weak by the way).

We are at the point in our little debate where I either begin repeating myself as I did with you 3 years ago (wow was it that long ago?) or I simply say address the data that I posted or we’re done talking.

I choose to learn from my previous experience with you and insist that you address my previous posts or I’ll be moving on. While this is fun believe it or not I have even better ways to spend my time.

Your choice my friend.

149

[quote]jre67t wrote:
Come on forlife all the sagets and lesbos in oak lawn are nothing but cheaters. Hell they hit on me all the time when I got my wedding ring off. 3 sagets work with me and they are in a committed and forever lasting relationship, yet they fudgepack other holes.
Sorry forlife you lose. Still like yall since yall tip great. See you at riverchon tonite:)[/quote]

Um, why are you wandering around oak lawn with your wedding ring off?

Sounds like you may be projecting your infidelity onto other people. Come out of the closet already and live with a little integrity and self-respect.

150

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I choose to learn from my previous experience with you and insist that you address my previous posts or I’ll be moving on.
[/quote]

Meanwhile, you continue to blatantly ignore the comprehensive research that I provided, which actually looks at ALL the data from every state that allows some form of legal union for same sex couples. Nice.

151

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I choose to learn from my previous experience with you and insist that you address my previous posts or I’ll be moving on.

Meanwhile, you continue to blatantly ignore the comprehensive research that I provided, which actually looks at ALL the data from every state that allows some form of legal union for same sex couples. Nice.[/quote]

Am I caught in a revolving door?

What about the Canadian census and the other pertinent data I posted from Australia, Spain and the states where gay marriage is legal?

I don’t see any difference in your evasive tactics from the last time we tangled.

Bye forlife and the best to you and yours.

Please try to stay healthy don’t become yet another homosexual statistic.

152

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I choose to learn from my previous experience with you and insist that you address my previous posts or I’ll be moving on.

Meanwhile, you continue to blatantly ignore the comprehensive research that I provided, which actually looks at ALL the data from every state that allows some form of legal union for same sex couples. Nice.

Am I caught in a revolving door?

What about the Canadian census and the other pertinent data I posted from Australia, Spain and the states where gay marriage is legal?

[/quote]

Yeah, what about them?

How do they strengthen your case?

So at worst there will be 5 gay married couples in all of the US?

153

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t see any difference in your evasive tactics from the last time we tangled.
[/quote]

Ditto.

Please keep working on that open mind of yours, the country is moving forward and don’t want you to be left in the dust :slight_smile:

154

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I don’t see any difference in your evasive tactics from the last time we tangled.

Ditto.

Please keep working on that open mind of yours, the country is moving forward and don’t want you to be left in the dust :)[/quote]

The country is moving downward (in many ways) at a fairly rapid rate. I’d rather be left in the dust than board a plane that is destined to crash.

155

[quote]lixy wrote:
forlife wrote:
Fair enough, if you STOP extrapolating the tactics of a small minority to the rest of the gay population.

You must be new here.[/quote]

Yet unlike Muslims, homosexuals are quick to speak out against the actions of other homosexuals. Perhaps if Muslim leaders would break their code of silence and publicly denounce the actions of extremist they would get the same latitude?

156

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The country is moving downward (in many ways) at a fairly rapid rate. I’d rather be left in the dust than board a plane that is destined to crash.[/quote]

Sounds familiar. Social progress is always fought tooth and nail by conservatives (often but not always fundamentalist Christian), who wield their holy book like a hammer, portraying themselves as the real victims, and bemoaning the demise of society as we know it. It was true on social progress for blacks, it was true on social progress for women, and it is now proving true on social progress for gays.

In another generation, people with your views will be thought of in the same light as we consider racial bigots and misogynists today.

–Francis P. Blair Jr., accepting the Democratic nomination for Vice President, 1868
Democratic Senator from Missouri, 1869-72
His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol

157
158

New Hampshire today became the sixth state to legalize same sex marriage:

[quote]Filed at 7:45 p.m. ET

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) – New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage after the Senate and House passed key language on religious rights and Gov. John Lynch – who personally opposes gay marriage – signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon.[/quote]

159

[quote]NeelyDan wrote:

Lol, sometimes truth is funnier than fiction. So much for preserving “traditional marriage” :slight_smile:

160

WOW, i never thought that being gay in america would be such a hot subject in our society! At what point did America (which was founded based upon Christian values that condemmed homosexuality) feel the need to recognize gay partnerships instead of focusing on MORE important subjects like…oh I don’t know…the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the horrible state of the economy, North Korea’s actions, and the highest unemployment rate in over 25 years?

To all homosexual men…If you want to have anal sex…go ahead and do it in the confines of your own home…why do you need a state to recognize you as a couple? Is it like a gay ego thing? At least the gay men are helping with population control! lol!