|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Gay Marriages
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Paul Limsk
What do you feel about such marriages? Personally I feel it adulterates the meaning and sanctity of marriage. The reasons behind making such unions legal are beyond me. Is it because I am too conservative, too traditional or too religious?
Posted by: b4dd0g
Love is blind i to felt like you at one time but if that is what makes them happy how are we to judge them (Gays) They are really nice people with harts of gold when we get married thy are happy for us so should we be for them ............................................
Hope this helps........
Posted by: VERCETTI
Shouldnt this be in the next forum down, contraversial issues?
Posted by: redwench
i think this belongs in rants and raves 
are you refering to religious marriage or the legal one? any religion has the right to impose its own values on its membership and houses of worship. no religious official should perform a homosexual wedding if he/she believes it to be against whatever values they hold. the legal status is a different matter. the state should not distinguish between hetero and homosexual legal status. whether the state calls it marriage, union, or wetohigwea, it should be used for both sets to describe the legal commitment.
the "sanctity" of marriage is much more undermined by brittney spears and elizabeth taylor than a couple of gay people getting married.
Posted by: Bix VT
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
i think this belongs in rants and raves
the "sanctity" of marriage is much more undermined by brittney spears and elizabeth taylor than a couple of gay people getting married. |
both quoted for truth. especially brittney.
Posted by: VERCETTI
Gay marriage is not a marriage, we shall not chang ethe consitution so that a group of people that want rights that a civil union provides can be satisfied.
Posted by: tovarich
I totally agree with Redwench.A religious marriage has only any value for those who really believe. It's the commitment between partners that really matters. Love is universal.
Posted by: AK47
let them get married
if it shuts them up about the subject, I'm all for it
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VERCETTI
Gay marriage is not a marriage, we shall not chang ethe consitution so that a group of people that want rights that a civil union provides can be satisfied.
|
there is nothing in the constitution that mentions the genders of those involved. im glad you agree that we should not change the constitution. 
Posted by: Null Actor
I think that if you aren't willing to let others live their own lives, then you have no right to communicate.
Posted by: VERCETTI
The sole purpose for the push for an admendment is soley based on the right on inheritance, visitation, life insurance and so on. Lets see, what is covered by civil unions:
Inheritance rights
Visitation rights
Insurance payout rights
Oops, their platform for pushing the admendment just dissapeared. Now maybe they want to give us the real reason for pushing it! To spite us for their alternative lifestyle. If we include them in the definition of marriage, what happens when Paligimist step forward, or barnyard animal lovers? Its an instituion for a reason.
Posted by: AltronHGX
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VERCETTI
what happens when Paligimist step forward, or barnyard animal lovers? Its an instituion for a reason.
|
That is the most hateful trash I have ever read.
Is a barnyard animal a consenting adult that can vote and pay taxes? Do you hear of anyone trying to practice polygamy in this country?
I don't get why people care so much about what other people do. Let them, as long as it's not hurting anybody. As a straight person, what affect do gay people getting married have on my life?
Well, let me tell you:
Nothing.
Posted by: VERCETTI
Yes paligamy goes on all the time, I have heard many examples, if you include this one alt lifestyle as marriage, you have to include them all or its discrimination.
They are hurting the traditional atomic family and causing unstability in the childrens lives that are involved.
Posted by: Erekose
Vercetti, what they are trying to tell you, and what it is that you seem to not know or understand, is that there is no Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual marriage, nor is any homosexual lobbying group trying to get an amendment pushed through. The only persons trying to get an amendment pushed through in regards to homosexual marriage are those who think quite like you, and they are attempting to have passed, as Constitutional Law, a religion's belief on what is or is not "marriage". The biggest reason so many people are up in arms about this is that in the United States of America one of our founding principles is that of freedom from persecution. Separation of Church and State was instituted by our founding fathers to expressly prohibit any one religion from taking a legal hold on the country. True, we let our values and moral determine a lot of how we run the country... but morals are not religious teachings. To have President Bush try to get an amendment passed defining "marriage" in terms of his specific Judeo-Christian religious beliefs is an affront to the very things this country stands for.
</soapbox>
Posted by: VERCETTI
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul Limsk
What do you feel about such marriages? Personally I feel it adulterates the meaning and sanctity of marriage. The reasons behind making such unions legal are beyond me. Is it because I am too conservative, too traditional or too religious?
|
I dont see anything in this topic about the const.
11 states have a const banning it, more will follow. One ofthe reasons Bush got elected. One speech Kerry gave in Missouri, he was for it in the AM speecha dn against in the PM speech.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AK47
let them get married
if it shuts them up about the subject, I'm all for it
|
Word.
Posted by: VERCETTI
I have strong feelings on this matter, and the last Pugh poll showed 68% of America has strong feelings too like mine, but nevertheless, I will remove myself from this conversation, I just dont have time to researcha dn provide links to my data, just went through this debate at a political forum...lol
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VERCETTI
Oops, their platform for pushing the admendment just dissapeared. Now maybe they want to give us the real reason for pushing it! To spite us for their alternative lifestyle. If we include them in the definition of marriage, what happens when Paligimist step forward, or barnyard animal lovers? Its an instituion for a reason.
|
Hello straw man!
Seriously, if you can't let other people live their lives, then you have no right to exist in a community or society. Go be a ****ing hermit on a mountain, and be comfortable in your homophobic bubble that no one is getting gay married anywhere near you.
Posted by: redwench
lets see, i wonder how many people supported segregation in the 40s and 50s.
everything one doesnt approve of shouldnt be legislated. or someday, someone is going to disapprove of those nice christian values you think we all share. now, i would be fascinated to know how children are going to be unstabilized if homosexual marriage is permitted vs. it being forbidden.
the only people interested in a constitutional amendment re this matter are the religious right. no one else feels a need for one.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
re: gay marriage...
This Roman Catholic doesn't care ... do you care?
Posted by: IceBreaker
The Vatican does have an archaic vision on this matter, but there are other religions that deal with homosexuality even far more...drastically...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul Limsk
What do you feel about such marriages? Personally I feel it adulterates the meaning and sanctity of marriage.
|
If it comes down to a mere question of semantics, and if that is all that irks you - well we need not use the word "marriage" when referring to same-sex unions. Latin alphabet has 26 letters, plenty of combinations available, I'm sure they'll come up with a better-suited word
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VERCETTI
The sole purpose for the push for an admendment is soley based on the right on inheritance, visitation, life insurance and so on. Lets see, what is covered by civil unions:
Inheritance rights
Visitation rights
Insurance payout rights
|
Irrelevant - we're talking about consenting adults If marriage can be covered by these pecuniary privileges, why not same-sex unions? How would it affect you?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VERCETTI
They are hurting the traditional atomic family and causing unstability in the childrens lives that are involved.
|
But that is another matter. They can prevent gay couples from adopting children if that is preferable, but we're not talking about adoption here - but legal union. So I ask you again: how would assigning a legal framework to same-sex unions affect YOU?
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
But that is another matter. They can prevent gay couples from adopting children if that is preferable, but we're not talking about adoption here - but legal union. So I ask you again: how would assigning a legal framework to same-sex unions affect YOU?
|
I'd take the question further. If gay couples can get married, using the word married, which nowadays has little of the religious connotations (when you consider you can get married by a judge, and there is no religion involved), how does it affect you personally? How does it ruin your life? How does it make your day more difficult?
And don't pull that 'sanctity' of marriage bullshit on me. There's nothing sacred about marriage these days, even among the religious nutballs.
Posted by: IceBreaker
I take it you're asking him that question...
As for my take on this, they can either 1) just call it 'legal union'/'civil union' (which is also what marriage is about from the legal point of view), 2) make up a new word, or 3) use the word 'marriage', change its definition in the dictionary accordingly & let the churches, mosques & synagogues use the term "holy marriage" for all I care.
Details, details... http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/d4w4.gif
Posted by: 9:35
This is the same religious thinking thats destroying this country. The argument that gay people are "destroying the sanctity of marriage" is ****ing stupid. Redwench mentioned Britney Spears, but what about all those reality TV shows that try to marry people? Do they bother you? Of course not, they aren't intruding on anyone. I haven't heard of any housewives suffering severe trauma because two dudes got married 2,000 miles away. Marriage wasn't even created by Christians, so quit thinking we have some obligation to keep marriage within their specifications.
Quote:
|
They are hurting the traditional atomic family and causing unstability in the childrens lives that are involved.
|
LOL
Show me a study that clearly states "children who grow up in a same-sex family are more unstable than those who grow up in a mother-father family." When you can't, because there is no such study, maybe you should stop believing whichever propaganda machine is feeding you these lies.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
Show me a study that clearly states "children who grow up in a same-sex family are more unstable than those who grow up in a mother-father family." When you can't, because there is no such study, maybe you should stop believing whichever propaganda machine is feeding you these lies.
|
Aaaaaaaactually, I think I read a study a year or two back that said that children who grew up with that situation end up better adjusted.
Posted by: SKYHN
A man and a woman with children who divorce and force a bitter custody battle and possible foster care for the children also destroy the sanctity of marriage far more than 2 gay people ever will.
Posted by: justinious
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
Marriage wasn't even created by Christians, so quit thinking we have some obligation to keep marriage within their specifications.
|
http://www.opentechsupport.net/foru...cons/icon14.gif
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul Limsk
What do you feel about such marriages? Personally I feel it adulterates the meaning and sanctity of marriage. The reasons behind making such unions legal are beyond me. Is it because I am too conservative, too traditional or too religious?
|
In answer to this the original question, I tend to agree that I do not understand why there is a need for same sex orientated people to 'get married' [I don't like the term, but we seem to be stuck with it]
What has appeared on the posts appear to have drifted from this original question, so may I propose another question.
What happens in 'these marriages' when the people involved split up, like people male/female in marriage often do?
Does this blow some of the arguments about children etc out of the window. Would the 'Law' then not have an even more difficult time(More money for lawyers-yippee) than it does deciding custody, paternity, pension rights, who has the house, the car, ad infinitum?
After all 'marriage' is only a word for living together?
Posted by: redwench
well, no. it confers a bunch of legal rights that people living together do not have. everything from tax breaks to medical decisions to death benefits. and it makes these things much easier for the courts, as the family court judge can make the decisions you listed easily, rather than one party needing to file in civil court to get them. the lawyers make less money 
the real question is why do you want to treat homosexual couples differently than heterosexual ones in a legal sense? that someone finds that kind of relationship abhorrent, wrong, sinful or disgusting is not a reason to treat it any differently under the law. the governments job is not to make those judgements for consenting adults, only for non-consentual (criminal) behavior. these people arent endangering anyone or their property. i dont think anyone really wants the government interfering, through ommission or commission, in their private lives. which is what this is. it is no different than saying that interracial couples cannot be married, or interfaith couples cannot be married.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
well, no. it confers a bunch of legal rights that people living together do not have. everything from tax breaks to medical decisions to death benefits. and it makes these things much easier for the courts, as the family court judge can make the decisions you listed easily, rather than one party needing to file in civil court to get them. the lawyers make less money |
So in essence what you are saying is that a straight couple living together deserve no rights because they are not 'married' like a homosexual couple? They only have the rights of like two homosexual living together. Have I got this right. [I'm only asking for I don not understand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
the real question is why do you want to treat homosexual couples differently than heterosexual ones in a legal sense? that someone finds that kind of relationship abhorrent, wrong, sinful or disgusting is not a reason to treat it any differently under the law. the governments job is not to make those judgements for consenting adults, only for non-consentual (criminal) behavior. these people arent endangering anyone or their property. i dont think anyone really wants the government interfering, through ommission or commission, in their private lives. which is what this is. it is no different than saying that interracial couples cannot be married, or interfaith couples cannot be married.
|
I don't, but what you are saying is that they should be treated with MORE than a hetrosexual couple. Again minority rules! Suppose you chose a President by the same rules of minority rules? To me it does not make sense, sorry but I must be having a thick day.
Posted by: redwench
youre not making any sense. why would 2 people just living together get the same legal rights as 2 people entered into a legal marriage? and no, heterosexual couples living together dont have those benefits by law either, except in the case of children that they had together. i suppose the UK could have different laws.
i expect homosexual marriages to be treated the same as heterosexual ones. ditto for unmarried couples that live together of both types. as heterosexual couples currently have the option to get married if they so choose, i wouldnt expect them to recieve the same benefits as those that enjoin in unholy matrimony.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
as heterosexual couples currently have the option to get married if they so choose, i wouldn't expect them to recieve the same benefits as those that enjoin in unholy matrimony.
|
I concur
but... unholy? *OUCH* If that is how you see it, then over 95% of the french - ie. those who prefer living together rather than getting married - must seem like a morally depraved bunch of heathen to you http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/wam.gif
Posted by: redwench
of course the french are a morally depraved bunch of heathen. as are americans, brits, brazilians, aussies, etc etc
aint nothing holy about marriage
Posted by: IceBreaker
whoops - read somewhat hastily, I thought you were referring to 'Living together without being married' as "unholy matrimony". Slight misunderstanding, sorry 'bout that ^^
PS. marriage is not very popular in France, but I thought it was highly valued - and far more entrenched - in the US & UK...
Posted by: redwench
oh, i value it quite highly. still nothing holy about it.......muahahaha
Posted by: IceBreaker
Over here, in the late 90s more than 2/3 of marriages ended up in divorce (adultery was and has always been the main ground hehe...) - a figure triple that of 1973...
But I suppose marriage does have its benefits, legally speaking - especially when it comes to the wife's marital duties http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbima...ies/pleased.gif
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
|
You will be single forever.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
You will be single forever.
|
Also has its benefits - for similarly opposite reasons :|
Posted by: Null Actor
the funniest part of this thread is that the thread starter probably doesn't know where it went and couldn't reply if he wanted to.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Over here, in the late 90s more than 2/3 of marriages ended up in divorce (adultery was and has always been the main ground hehe...) - a figure triple that of 1973...
But I suppose marriage does have its benefits, legally speaking - especially when it comes to the wife's marital duties http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbima...ies/pleased.gif |
1. That marriage statistic is wrong. Every time a marriage/divorce statistic is made, they compare the marriages and divorces made in whichever year the study takes place. What they don't take into account is the existing marriages, a key factor in determining how many marriages end in divorce.
2. I'm glad you found another way to alienate yourself from society.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
That marriage statistic is wrong.Every time a marriage/divorce statistic is made, they compare the marriages and divorces made in whichever year the study takes place. What they don't take into account is the existing marriages
|
Actually it's 1/3 -> divorces, not the other 2/3. But that changes nothing to what you just said -
Such a peremptory statement - now are you the fact master! Hail to him whose knowledge & expertise trumps that of qualified scholars & statisticians!
If what you said were true, then their stating "X% of marriages end up in divorce" simply wouldn't make sense as the time periods concerning 1) the marriages made in the year of study and 2) the marriages that ended in that same year, would not be the same. Ipso facto, this very method you describe wouldn't make sense. Are you suggesting that those who come up with the statistics would make the mistake of resorting to a method of calculation which is so patently incoherent & without basis? If so, can you substantiate this - at least in the country you live in, for starters?
And in the mean time, here's a neat little collection of figures - recent divorce statistics in France (source: National Institute of Statistics, and Ministry of Justice ; ). Now take for example the 1st row & consider the figures in the marriage, divorce & percentage columns:
in 1985, 269419 marriages, 107505 divorces.
Now according to you, the percentage of divorces displayed should be:
(107505/269419)*100 ~ 39.9%
BUT: you will notice a discrepancy between that figure & the one actually shown, which is only 30.4%.
Quite a difference, I believe...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
2. I'm glad you found another way to alienate yourself from society.
|
Coming from you, that comment is somewhat reassuring...
Posted by: redwench
now children.......
divorce statistics are compiled in many ways. the simplest is the one niner refers to. the most complex tracks first marriages for their lifetime, which is of course the most accurate. its also the most difficult, since it requires couples to be correlated in very small groups.
now, for the important question. why would the french, of all people, be perturbed by infidelity in a marriage?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
now, for the important question. why would the french, of all people, be perturbed by infidelity in a marriage?
|
Ah, but that's the point - they wouldn't. Not in the least ^^
In fact adultery seems deeply embedded in the french way of life. A marriage without infidelity has long been something of a chimera. Besides, this IS a secular state (it has been so ever since 1905), remember? ; )
Posted by: 9:35
uh no that fact is not right "according to me." if you say so and so many marriages end in divorce, you have to take in account the previously existing marriages.
you don't get it even after i clearly explained it, so i'm not going to bother clarifying it any further
Posted by: redwench
ah, so adultery is just a way of getting the courts to ok it? i believe that was done here before they started the no-fault divorces.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
uh no that fact is not right "according to me." if you say so and so many marriages end in divorce, you have to take in account the previously existing marriages.
you don't get it even after i clearly explained it, so i'm not going to bother clarifying it any further
|
It is you who didn't get it. You made out that they used erroneous methods such as the one you described, where they only took into account the marriages that were made in the year the census was taken. I proved you otherwise.
And this statement ("such a % of marriages ends in divorce") is quoted from a TV report that dates back to end of 2002 on a public TV channel where they cited the same sources as the link I just posted.
Posted by: IceBreaker
And redwench> actually, adultery is not considered a serious fault during a divorce case, although it can go against the "culprit"; on the other hand (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe that in the US it is in fact considered a serious fault, so much so that for example a wife who was caught cheating can even be denied alimony by this fact alone.
And by the way, "infidelity" extends way beyond the confines of marriage :|
Posted by: redwench
nah, the us has had no-fault divorces for a good 20 years or more. alimony, like child support, is pretty codified. the judge (actually the clerk probably) just plugs numbers into a formula to determine what, if any, alimony is ordered.
adultery used to be a big deal in divorce proceedings, but that was way back when. now its just the people involved that turn it into a drama.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
It is you who didn't get it. You made out that they used erroneous methods such as the one you described, where they only took into account the marriages that were made in the year the census was taken. I proved you otherwise.
And this statement ("such a % of marriages ends in divorce") is quoted from a TV report that dates back to end of 2002 on a public TV channel where they cited the same sources as the link I just posted.
|
OH OKAY, it was a television report. It must be true then.
I don't see what you're disagreeing with here. Are you saying there is a more accurate way of calculating how many marriages end in divorce than to compare all the marriages that have ever happened to all the divorces that ended them? If so, by all meansm explain
Posted by: IceBreaker
yes a TV report - and like I said they went by the statistics provided by the Ministry of Justice - now of course, if you know better (...)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
I don't see what you're disagreeing with here. Are you saying there is a more accurate way of calculating how many marriages end in divorce than to compare all the marriages that have ever happened to all the divorces that ended them?
|
Okay...
(count=3) No, what I disagree with is this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
1. That marriage statistic is wrong. Every time a marriage/divorce statistic is made, they compare the marriages and divorces made in whichever year the study takes place. What they don't take into account is the existing marriages
|
and as I pointed out, you were wrong. That is NOT how they proceed.
Clear enough?
Posted by: 9:35
you did a bad job of not answering this question
Quote:
|
I don't see what you're disagreeing with here. Are you saying there is a more accurate way of calculating how many marriages end in divorce than to compare all the marriages that have ever happened to all the divorces that ended them? If so, by all meansm explain
|
the link you provided showed the marriages and divorces made in the coresponding years. it is a good graph that will show you how many marriages and divorces were made in a certain country and in a certain year. it does not, however, accurately reflect the the ratio of marriages and divorces for that year. you said:
Quote:
|
Over here, in the late 90s more than 2/3 of marriages ended up in divorce
|
and later said
Quote:
|
Actually it's 1/3 -> divorces, not the other 2/3. But that changes noth
|
but i won't blame you because you seem to have a hard time getting facts straight before saying them. to say "2/3 or 1/3 (depending which hour and state of mind you're in) END in divorce" implies that you are taking all marriages, not just the marriages from a single year but all of them and comparing them to all the divorces that ever ended them. The number probably comes out to 1/8 ot 1/10.
after taking ten seconds to google this, i found a good article that supports this theory pretty well, and explains why i said every time a marriage statistic is made they pretty much get it wrong:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm
Quote:
A spokesperson for the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics told me that the rumor appears to have originated from a misreading of the facts. It was true, he said, if you looked at all the marriages and divorces within a single year, you'd find that there were twice as many marriages as divorces. In 1981, for example, there were 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces. At first glance, that would seem like a 50-percent divorce rate.
Virtually none of those divorces were among the people who had married during that year, however, and the statistic failed to take into account the 54 million marriages that already existed, the majority of which would not see divorce.
|
i know this deals with the untied states but the context exposes whatever argument you had. if 1/3 marriages ended in divorce in any part of the world, divorce lawyers would be a lot more rich than they already are
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
the link you provided showed the marriages and divorces made in the coresponding years. it is a good graph that will show you how many marriages and divorces were made in a certain country and in a certain year. it does not, however, accurately reflect the the ratio of marriages and divorces for that year.
|
And you did a bad job of evading the answer. you said that to come up with the percentage they:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
they compare the marriages and divorces made in whichever year the study takes place.
|
And I showed you this was WRONG, period. As you could see yourself on the chart no matter how your try to read it - although left to right & top do down is preferable ; ) - you will notice that the percentage shown does NOT match the one that you claimed they were showing (ie. by taking into account only that year's number of marriages). Therefore, to answer your statement: No, they do NOT rely only on "the marriages and divorces made in whichever year the study takes place."
And as for that question of yours - which had no reason to be, but whatever -
Quote:
|
Are you saying there is a more accurate way of calculating how many marriages end in divorce than to compare all the marriages that have ever happened to all the divorces that ended them?
|
Obviously no. But as I said, this has no bearing on the fact that you accused them - rather pompously & wihtout basis at that - of proceeding in a certain way when making their statistics, and as shown in the chart, you were wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
but i won't blame you because you seem to have a hard time getting facts straight before saying them. to say "2/3 or 1/3 (depending which hour and state of mind you're in) END in divorce" implies that you are taking all marriages, not just the marriages from a single year but all of them and comparing them to all the divorces that ever ended them. The number probably comes out to 1/8 ot 1/10.
after taking ten seconds to google this, i found a good article that supports this theory pretty well, and explains why i said every time a marriage statistic is made they pretty much get it wrong:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm
i know this deals with the untied states but the context exposes whatever argument you had. if 1/3 marriages ended in divorce in any part of the world, divorce lawyers would be a lot more rich than they already are |
yes it was 1/3 not 2/3 - let's keep it at that ok m8? :|
Listen, you're looking for contention where there is none - not surprising, actually. No one said that going by only the marriages made in the year the census is taken is the correct way to proceed. And again, as my link points out, that is not how they proceed. I only said that according to the report - and figures provided by the Ministry of Justice - "1 marriage out of 3 ended (yes, ENDED) in divorce". I suppose that means that every marriage had 1 chance in 3 of ending in a divorce - although like you said that figure would be surprising, but those were their words whether you like it or not.
Now how exactly did they come up with that I don't know - and I don't care.
But the lawyers who specialize in matrimonial law must be (very) rich I suppose - although there are quite a number of divorces 1) that are settled amicably, possibly to avoid more court & lawyer costs and 2) where one or both of the parties get State help and can even end up without having paid a cent for the proceedings, which partly explains the high taxes that usually characterizes a welfare state.
Posted by: 9:35
your statistic is still wrong. its not that bad because the united states got it wrong too and we're really smart. i guess you can continue touting around a bad statistic, it really doesn't matter to me, but i know that nowhere in this world do 1/3 marriages end in divorce.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Just as a clarification, for I tend to think rather old fashion these days, that if someone has gone to the trouble to find a web site for someone else the least that person could do is say thank you, not berate the writer who did not take part in the survey only presenting the findings.
Anyway for your amusement or otherwise I supply the following for your digestion which is taken from the following website:
http://www.eustatistics.gov.uk/yearbook.asp
This supplies the information as follows:
Fewer and later marriages;more marital breakdowns In 2002, there were only five marriages per 1 000 inhabitants in the EU compared with almost eight in 1970. The average age at which people first get married has increased: for men, from 26 years in 1980 to over 30 today, and for women from 23 to 28 years. The proportion of divorces is estimated at 15 % for marriages entered into in 1960, and at around 30 % for those entered into in 1985.
Fewer children,and later in life The completed fertility of post-war generations
has been steadily declining since the mid-1960s, but the total fertility rate remains rela-tively stable at almost 1.5. The completed fertility changes far less abruptly over time and is now around 1.7, still well below the reproduction level (2.1 children per woman).
A rise in births outside marriage The proportion of births outside marriage continues
to increase, basically reflecting the growing popularity of cohabitation: from 6 % of
all births in 1970 to over 30 % in 2002. In Sweden, more than half (56 %) of the children born in 2002 had unmarried parents.
This of course only gives information about Europe, NOT the US, but no doubt you have your own sources for statistics?
PS Could it be that French women are much more sexy than others, hence reason for divorce rate?
Or is that French men are better lovers most others?
Posted by: BooRadley
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VERCETTI
Gay marriage is not a marriage, we shall not chang ethe consitution so that a group of people that want rights that a civil union provides can be satisfied.
|
It's not the gays who want to change the constitution, it's the Republicans.
Posted by: Paul Limsk
The discussion in this thread has deviated from the gist of my original post. In the natural order of things, a marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Must the Constitution need to be that specific, even concerning that which is so obvious?
Posted by: redwench
um, marriage is not natural. sex is natural, as are life and death. marriage is a legal institution.
Posted by: Shalome
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul Limsk
The discussion in this thread has deviated from the gist of my original post. In the natural order of things, a marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Must the Constitution need to be that specific, even concerning that which is so obvious?
|
Actually, in the "natural order of things," men would impregnate as many women as possible in order to spread their genetic line as wide as possible.
There is nothing "natural" about marriage. It is a legalistic construction devised to make transfer of property right and inheritance more defined. It is about property.
When did the Constitution start defining interpersonal relationships and making laws based on who you sleep with? Oh, that's right.. it didn't.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BooRadley
It's not the gays who want to change the constitution, it's the Republicans.
|
Does this mean all homosexuals are Republicans OR All Republicans are Homosexual?
Posted by: BooRadley
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Oldcrocd
Does this mean all homosexuals are Republicans OR All Republicans are Homosexual?
|
The Republicans are the ones who want a Constitutional Amendment to change the Constitution to ban homosexual marriage. As it stands, the Constitution doensn't mention marriage at all, and the homosexuals are just fine with that.
The GOP, not the homosexuals, are the ones who want to change the Constitution.
Posted by: Null Actor
I have a perfect solution for this entire problem. Change "marriage" with "wedding" and change "married" to "wed.
Posted by: redwench
i have a better one. forbid all marriages via an amendment to the constitution. if you want your property to go to the person you live with instead of your parents/children, write a will.
Posted by: laborat
Certainly, traditional concepts concerning marriage and dowry and property have been discarded by more than a minority of voters and non-voters. Red is right that the person with the dough ought to be able to say where he wants his assets upon his death to go.
The gay community has sought access to the traditional marriage definition, which would include the involvement and support of the clergy. This has not turned out to be a good political way to solve the problems they see.
Again, separating marriage/union from legal obligation brings it's own set of headaches, the state feels has already been remedied. issues like child support, divesture of assests, and spouse support. While most who seek common law union or marriage by magistrate, need the necessary legal protections in place, regardless of gender or traditional... like company or corporate medical insurance plans that cover illness, catastrophic illness, and things like checkups, lab tests, eyeglasses and normal dental matainence.
Marriage should resemble aspects of the copywrite laws...like the author/authors of the song gets ownership copywrite from the moment of conception. If I announce to the world I am married...then I should be able to register that pronouncement with the state with the full legitmacy behind as traditional marriage licenses now have. It is none of any bodies business whether it is a gay union, a non-traditional union, or traditional union. As long as me and somebody else declare to the world we are married we ought to be...in the eyes of God as well as the State.
But that's just my view, and though it makes sense...there are 1000's of competing variation on this theme out there trying to be the way everyone can go with and both sides, the pro side and the dissenting side, can live with.
happy new year 2005
Be a good year to solve some problems instead of continuing a national debate where no one side will give an inch, on this issue or any other.
Dear Labby
Posted by: Paul Limsk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shalome
Actually, in the "natural order of things," men would impregnate as many women as possible in order to spread their genetic line as wide as possible.
There is nothing "natural" about marriage. It is a legalistic construction devised to make transfer of property right and inheritance more defined. It is about property.
When did the Constitution start defining interpersonal relationships and making laws based on who you sleep with? Oh, that's right.. it didn't.
|
It's not simply about property. Our forebears were wise enough to institutionalise marriage so as to ensure order and stability. As I have said, the Constitution need not be specific with regards to that which are obvious.
A marriage, in the natural order of things, is a union of a man and a woman. Gay/Lesbian marriages aren't. It's as clear as that. Remember Sodom and Gommorah?
Posted by: Paul Limsk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
um, marriage is not natural. sex is natural, as are life and death. marriage is a legal institution.
|
Agreed, sex is natural...... and it is an act between a male and a female. Same gender sex is unnatural. Anyone will surely agree with that.
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul Limsk
It's not simply about property. Our forebears were wise enough to institutionalise marriage so as to ensure order and stability.
|
yes, it was indeed about property. marriage was the transfer of a female's ownership from father to another man. a nice bit of formalized slave acquisition. it also, as mentioned earlier, formalized inheritance. it is not now, nor ever has been, about order and stabiliity other than that.
Quote:
|
As I have said, the Constitution need not be specific with regards to that which are obvious.
|
i see. well, its obvious to me that all men cant think rationally because they are not in tune with nature's cycles. they therefore should not be permitted to vote, hold public office, or leave the house unaccompanied.
Quote:
|
A marriage, in the natural order of things, is a union of a man and a woman. Gay/Lesbian marriages aren't. It's as clear as that.
|
no marriage, including heterosexual ones, is natural, period. it is an institution invented by man, and as such, can be changed at any time.
Quote:
|
Remember Sodom and Gommorah?
|
unless you were actually there at the time, and took pictures, mythology is irrelevant.
Quote:
|
Agreed, sex is natural...... and it is an act between a male and a female. Same gender sex is unnatural. Anyone will surely agree with that.
|
no, it is not unnatural. it is abnormal, statistically speaking, but it is not artificially induced. that something isnt the norm does not make it unnatural. unless you want to call dwarves unnatural. and i think they would have something to say about that.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
yes, it was indeed about property. marriage was the transfer of a female's ownership from father to another man. a nice bit of formalized slave acquisition. it also, as mentioned earlier, formalized inheritance. it is not now, nor ever has been, about order and stabiliity other than that.
|
Hey Red, calm down, some of us are on your side! Its only a thread. Unless the law is different over there, if a woman made a will she could transfer her property to anyone she likes. Just because she gets married her property does not transfer to her husband, at least in the UK she is dealt with under the law as a separate person, likewise for a pension etc.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
i see. well, its obvious to me that all men cant think rationally because they are not in tune with nature's cycles. they therefore should not be permitted to vote, hold public office, or leave the house unaccompanied.
|
Something most women have spoken about before! (Calm down Red let the children say what they want and maybe, just maybe they will learn)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
unless you were actually there at the time, and took pictures, mythology is irrelevant.
|
Totally agree, whats the web address?
Posted by: redwench
i am perfectly calm, as always.
Posted by: BooRadley
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul Limsk
A marriage, in the natural order of things, is a union of a man and a woman.
|
Nah. It's the union of a man and several women, in the natural order of things. So we should void your marriage if you don't have several wives.
Quote:
|
Gay/Lesbian marriages aren't. It's as clear as that. Remember Sodom and Gommorah?
|
Keep your fairy tales out of my government. You people need to move to some deserted island somewhere if you want theocratic rule. We overthru that 2.25 centuries ago, here. Our forbearers were wise enough to keep the bible out of the Constitution.
Posted by: BooRadley
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul Limsk
Agreed, sex is natural...... and it is an act between a male and a female. Same gender sex is unnatural. Anyone will surely agree with that.
|
Why? People have always humped all manner of things, including each other. Why do you feel that gay sex is unnatural? Can you explain your reasoning, or is this just emotion driven gibberish based on your own feelings of disgust at the idea of gay sex?
I think it's pretty nasty, m'self, but that doesn't make it unnatural. People have a very natural urge to orgasm from time to time. The means of achieving that vary from one person to the next.
Even if it were unnatural, what does that have to do with the government? Coke-a-Cola is unnatural. Should that be banned? How about steel? Steel deosn't occour naturally, either. It's forged in fire. Should that be banned? It's highly unnatural, after all.
Posted by: laborat
Boo,
I would say you are dangerously close to trolling this thread for reaction. Find a side to this argument you agree with and stick to it!! Red baiters will not be tolerated.
Posted by: BooRadley
I've been arguing one side. Banning gay marriage is retarded, especially if you have to change the Constitution to do it. I don't see where you think I've changed my side.
|
|
|
|
|
