Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

…Right, but it seems like one of the major arguments against gay marriage (and one you mentioned) is that is doesn’t create a nuclear family unit and that it therefore erodes the sanctity of marriage. If that is the case, then why isn’t there a huge outcry against divorce being legal as divorce has done far more to directly destroy family units than gay marriage. Just wondering why?..

[/quote]

If you’ll go back a few short decades there indeed was a huge outcry against no-fault divorce.

It was all but drowned out by those who laughed at slippery slope arguments.

Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.

Twain[/quote]

True, I just find it interesting that there are tons of threads here about the immorality of gay marriage, but almost none about the immorality of divorce. Just wondering why one topic gets so much attention while the other gets almost none.[/quote]

Because it’s a whole lot easier to keep hold of your cows when they are still safely secured inside your barn than to try and go rounding them up once they’ve got out.

82

The real divorce rate for first time marrieds is about 20%. The reason that it skyrockets to about 50% is for all of those two, three and four time losers. Those getting married and divorced multiple times changes the average.

83

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The real divorce rate for first time marrieds is about 20%. The reason that it skyrockets to about 50% is for all of those two, three and four time losers. Those getting married and divorced multiple times changes the average.[/quote]

Do you think people should be only given one shot at marriage? If you get married then divorce, you should be disallowed to remarry?

84

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The real divorce rate for first time marrieds is about 20%. The reason that it skyrockets to about 50% is for all of those two, three and four time losers. Those getting married and divorced multiple times changes the average.[/quote]

Do you have any proof of that stat, or is it an interwebz thumb suck?

85

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The real divorce rate for first time marrieds is about 20%. The reason that it skyrockets to about 50% is for all of those two, three and four time losers. Those getting married and divorced multiple times changes the average.[/quote]

Do you think people should be only given one shot at marriage? If you get married then divorce, you should be disallowed to remarry?[/quote]

No, just explaining why the divorce rate hovers around 50%. In reality someone who has been married say 4 times skews that statistic and causes it to look worse than it really is.

86

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

…The idea of marriage has already made its way into our laws so its a little to late to take that back, now its time to extend them to cover everyone.

[/quote]

Yes, even for polygamists. Right?
[/quote]

Right, nothing wrong with them either.[/quote]

So you’re all for me and my 159 concubines getting hitched?[/quote]

Contracts don’t have to be limited to just 2 people.

87

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The real divorce rate for first time marrieds is about 20%. The reason that it skyrockets to about 50% is for all of those two, three and four time losers. Those getting married and divorced multiple times changes the average.[/quote]

Do you have any proof of that stat, or is it an interwebz thumb suck?[/quote]

Yeah, there’s some web sites which can demonstrate what I’ve said. But isn’t it logical anyway? Statistics can be a strange ball of wax. We know practically speaking that if 100 couples marry that exactly half of them are not going to be divorced. Yet, that is what most believe. What is happening is that a smaller share of them are getting divorced and then remarried and then divorced again. And this is what causes the divorce rate to look far worse than it is for one time married couples.

There are other sites out there as well that address this issue. It’t nothing new but seems to be overlooked when this topic comes up.

http://fabulously40.com/blog/id/finding-love-the-second-time-around-1129

http://joeljmiller.com/the-lost-mystery-of-marriage/

88

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The real divorce rate for first time marrieds is about 20%. The reason that it skyrockets to about 50% is for all of those two, three and four time losers. Those getting married and divorced multiple times changes the average.[/quote]

Do you have any proof of that stat, or is it an interwebz thumb suck?[/quote]

Yeah, there’s some web sites which can demonstrate what I’ve said. But isn’t it logical anyway? Statistics can be a strange ball of wax. We know practically speaking that if 100 couples marry that exactly half of them are not going to be divorced. Yet, that is what most believe. What is happening is that a smaller share of them are getting divorced and then remarried and then divorced again. And this is what causes the divorce rate to look far worse than it is for one time married couples.

There are other sites out there as well that address this issue. It’t nothing new but seems to be overlooked when this topic comes up.

http://fabulously40.com/blog/id/finding-love-the-second-time-around-1129

http://joeljmiller.com/the-lost-mystery-of-marriage/

[/quote]

I’m familiar with stats and how they can be skewed to achieve desired results. However,that still seems like an anecdotal thumbsuck. My understanding is that statistically, apparently 41% of first marriages end in divorce. The other 10% often added is those that skew the stats as you say by multiple marriages. So what you may like to believe intuitively as ‘making sense’ doesn’t necessarily correlate to real world information. Many people that divorce don’t remarry, and you would need a massive amount of multiple remarriers to skew up your 20% claim to the 50% levels.

Perhaps someone with more statistical know how could chime in on the subject…

89

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The real divorce rate for first time marrieds is about 20%. The reason that it skyrockets to about 50% is for all of those two, three and four time losers. Those getting married and divorced multiple times changes the average.[/quote]

Do you have any proof of that stat, or is it an interwebz thumb suck?[/quote]

Yeah, there’s some web sites which can demonstrate what I’ve said. But isn’t it logical anyway? Statistics can be a strange ball of wax. We know practically speaking that if 100 couples marry that exactly half of them are not going to be divorced. Yet, that is what most believe. What is happening is that a smaller share of them are getting divorced and then remarried and then divorced again. And this is what causes the divorce rate to look far worse than it is for one time married couples.

There are other sites out there as well that address this issue. It’t nothing new but seems to be overlooked when this topic comes up.

http://fabulously40.com/blog/id/finding-love-the-second-time-around-1129

http://joeljmiller.com/the-lost-mystery-of-marriage/

[/quote]

I’m familiar with stats and how they can be skewed to achieve desired results. However,that still seems like an anecdotal thumbsuck. My understanding is that statistically, apparently 41% of first marriages end in divorce. The other 10% often added is those that skew the stats as you say by multiple marriages. So what you may like to believe intuitively as ‘making sense’ doesn’t necessarily correlate to real world information. Many people that divorce don’t remarry, and you would need a massive amount of multiple remarriers to skew up your 20% claim to the 50% levels.

Perhaps someone with more statistical know how could chime in on the subject…[/quote]

Thanks for posting that link it was very informative.

I knew that the divorce rate was considerably lower than the 50% plus that was touted.

90

Here’s yet one more site that kicks around this interesting topic.

91

Has anyone in here been divorced? Statistically there must be a few

92

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The real divorce rate for first time marrieds is about 20%. The reason that it skyrockets to about 50% is for all of those two, three and four time losers. Those getting married and divorced multiple times changes the average.[/quote]

Do you have any proof of that stat, or is it an interwebz thumb suck?[/quote]

Yeah, there’s some web sites which can demonstrate what I’ve said. But isn’t it logical anyway? Statistics can be a strange ball of wax. We know practically speaking that if 100 couples marry that exactly half of them are not going to be divorced. Yet, that is what most believe. What is happening is that a smaller share of them are getting divorced and then remarried and then divorced again. And this is what causes the divorce rate to look far worse than it is for one time married couples.

There are other sites out there as well that address this issue. It’t nothing new but seems to be overlooked when this topic comes up.

http://fabulously40.com/blog/id/finding-love-the-second-time-around-1129

http://joeljmiller.com/the-lost-mystery-of-marriage/

[/quote]

I’m familiar with stats and how they can be skewed to achieve desired results. However,that still seems like an anecdotal thumbsuck. My understanding is that statistically, apparently 41% of first marriages end in divorce. The other 10% often added is those that skew the stats as you say by multiple marriages. So what you may like to believe intuitively as ‘making sense’ doesn’t necessarily correlate to real world information. Many people that divorce don’t remarry, and you would need a massive amount of multiple remarriers to skew up your 20% claim to the 50% levels.

Perhaps someone with more statistical know how could chime in on the subject…[/quote]

Thanks for posting that link it was very informative.

I knew that the divorce rate was considerably lower than the 50% plus that was touted.[/quote]

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-13.pdf

And on page 8 you have the statistical breakdown of single v. multiple marriages if you’re interested in the stats…

93

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The real divorce rate for first time marrieds is about 20%. The reason that it skyrockets to about 50% is for all of those two, three and four time losers. Those getting married and divorced multiple times changes the average.[/quote]

Do you have any proof of that stat, or is it an interwebz thumb suck?[/quote]

Yeah, there’s some web sites which can demonstrate what I’ve said. But isn’t it logical anyway? Statistics can be a strange ball of wax. We know practically speaking that if 100 couples marry that exactly half of them are not going to be divorced. Yet, that is what most believe. What is happening is that a smaller share of them are getting divorced and then remarried and then divorced again. And this is what causes the divorce rate to look far worse than it is for one time married couples.

There are other sites out there as well that address this issue. It’t nothing new but seems to be overlooked when this topic comes up.

http://fabulously40.com/blog/id/finding-love-the-second-time-around-1129

http://joeljmiller.com/the-lost-mystery-of-marriage/

[/quote]

I’m familiar with stats and how they can be skewed to achieve desired results. However,that still seems like an anecdotal thumbsuck. My understanding is that statistically, apparently 41% of first marriages end in divorce. The other 10% often added is those that skew the stats as you say by multiple marriages. So what you may like to believe intuitively as ‘making sense’ doesn’t necessarily correlate to real world information. Many people that divorce don’t remarry, and you would need a massive amount of multiple remarriers to skew up your 20% claim to the 50% levels.

Perhaps someone with more statistical know how could chime in on the subject…[/quote]

Thanks for posting that link it was very informative.

I knew that the divorce rate was considerably lower than the 50% plus that was touted.[/quote]

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-13.pdf

And on page 8 you have the statistical breakdown of single v. multiple marriages if you’re interested in the stats…
[/quote]

I saw that which only proved that the more times you marry the more likely that you will be divorced. And this was my original assertion. But logically that should not come as a surprise to anyone.

94

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The real divorce rate for first time marrieds is about 20%. The reason that it skyrockets to about 50% is for all of those two, three and four time losers. Those getting married and divorced multiple times changes the average.[/quote]

Do you have any proof of that stat, or is it an interwebz thumb suck?[/quote]

Yeah, there’s some web sites which can demonstrate what I’ve said. But isn’t it logical anyway? Statistics can be a strange ball of wax. We know practically speaking that if 100 couples marry that exactly half of them are not going to be divorced. Yet, that is what most believe. What is happening is that a smaller share of them are getting divorced and then remarried and then divorced again. And this is what causes the divorce rate to look far worse than it is for one time married couples.

There are other sites out there as well that address this issue. It’t nothing new but seems to be overlooked when this topic comes up.

http://fabulously40.com/blog/id/finding-love-the-second-time-around-1129

http://joeljmiller.com/the-lost-mystery-of-marriage/

[/quote]

I’m familiar with stats and how they can be skewed to achieve desired results. However,that still seems like an anecdotal thumbsuck. My understanding is that statistically, apparently 41% of first marriages end in divorce. The other 10% often added is those that skew the stats as you say by multiple marriages. So what you may like to believe intuitively as ‘making sense’ doesn’t necessarily correlate to real world information. Many people that divorce don’t remarry, and you would need a massive amount of multiple remarriers to skew up your 20% claim to the 50% levels.

Perhaps someone with more statistical know how could chime in on the subject…[/quote]

Thanks for posting that link it was very informative.

I knew that the divorce rate was considerably lower than the 50% plus that was touted.[/quote]

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-13.pdf

And on page 8 you have the statistical breakdown of single v. multiple marriages if you’re interested in the stats…
[/quote]

I saw that which only proved that the more times you marry the more likely that you will be divorced. And this was my original assertion. But logically that should not come as a surprise to anyone.[/quote]

Page 2 deals with the first marriage issue directly. We can safely discount the 20% as erroneous, no matter where it came from. Agreed?

95

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I was under the impression that enjoying significant tax, employment, government, medical, estate and death benefits without providing the reciprocal compensation of a socially favored nuclear family unit, social stability, and the children to further stabilize the above mentioned society and fund it via their own taxation, was indeed something that affected me and the rest of society.

I should probably just shut my bigoted hole, though. [/quote]

So how “socially favoured” is your mixed marriage in Japan? Based on what you’ve told us about Japanese culture, you haven’t produced a “socially favoured” child or family. [/quote]

*Nuclear family unit? Check
*Children? Check (when my next son is born in August, we will actually be ABOVE the necessary average amount of children needed to insure population growth…a BIG problem here currently, with our socialized infrastructure)
*Citizen children who will eventually provide much needed taxes to the ever growing pool of retirees here? Check

Not sure what point you were trying to make with this. If I “married” a Japanese man I would be privy to a whole host of quite costly benefits WITHOUT providing the essential, reciprocal children necessary to perpetually fund such an arrangement.

And that’s not even the only good reason I have. [/quote]

Kinda a wishy-washy answer that skipped his point though.

Question one: How long have you been here? (why do you speak Japanese?)
Question two: When are you going home?

lol
[/quote]

It’s only wishy washy if you do what you and raj are apparently doing and read into my original statement meanings that were never intended.

I am speaking in purely utilitarian terms, for the moment. In this case, “socially favored” would be that marriage arrangement that serves to replenish and regrow the population, provide new, productive taxpayers to support the upside down triangle of a welfare based infrastructure we have here, and has the highest likelihood of producing a child that will turn into a law-abiding, productive member of society who goes on to form a family of his own and not a criminal baby-daddy or similar who will tend to drain resources rather than augment them.

Speaking honestly, I really do not understand what you and raj are trying to demonstrate.

Is this society racist? Youbetcha. Do I care? Sure as hell do, particularly with a son being born into it. Does it have anything at all to do with my point? Not one thing. The nuclear family unit of a single mother and a father happens to be the most beneficial arrangement overall, for this society or America, racist or not racist.

Let’s turn this on its head for a second, you guys that are arguing for the “right” of gays to be married to be officially recognized, do you disagree with this statement:

The superior familial arrangement for a stable, healthy society, and the most beneficial environment for a child to be raised in, is that of a single mother and a single father, married and living together.

If not, how so?

96

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Also do you think two childless 55 year olds should be allowed to get married? I mean they would be getting a host of benefits without producing children.[/quote]

Of course. We are encouraging a model, not trying to nitpick all law into anarchy.

A male and a female represent that model, a male and a male or a female and a female do not.

Talk about the logical repercussions of sticking to the standards you set. If you want to get silly, remember that it works the other way. I don’t want to ever hear another word from you about somebody exaggerating the slipperiness of the slope. Because that is EXACTLY what you are doing here.

97

The people that gave him money need to have their heads examined.

To think he’s actually going to do anything about gay marriage…

He’s laughing at the dupes all the way to the bank.

98

ALternative headline: “Obvious Supporter of Gay Marriage FinallY Ends Long, Cynical Charade of Trying to Opportunistcally Having It Both Ways”.

This isn’t a revelation, it is a dog-bites-man story, really.

And the President continues to be dishonest about the issue. He says he’s a federalist on the issue - i.e., he thinks states should have the authority to decided for themselvs on the issues - but his administration no longer defends DOMA, which was put in place precisely to allow the states to decide for themselves and not have to have another’s state’s decision forced upon it.

There’s nothing courageous about this announcement, either - from all accounts, Obama didn’t jump, rather he was pushed by the actions of Biden and his SecEd taking resolute positions before Obama as well as the highly publicized NC vote. Some are even suggesting that people in his administration did it on purpose to force Obama’s hand to finally come out and admit it. So much of “leadership” on the issue.

In any event, in the recent NC vote on constitutionalizing a ban on gay marriage, blacks voted for the amendment 2-1. Wow.

99

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

…The idea of marriage has already made its way into our laws so its a little to late to take that back, now its time to extend them to cover everyone.

[/quote]

Yes, even for polygamists. Right?
[/quote]

I doubt any one objects to polygamy . I would bet the objection comes from cults that run off the young men and monopolize the young females for a perversely coerced lopsided marriage

100

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

…The idea of marriage has already made its way into our laws so its a little to late to take that back, now its time to extend them to cover everyone.

[/quote]

Yes, even for polygamists. Right?
[/quote]

I doubt any one objects to polygamy .[/quote]

The latest survey’s show that the majority are opposed to polygamy marriage. But then again they are also opposed to gay marriage. But that doesn’t mean much when liberal judges have their way.