Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So did ya make that up, about the accidental drownings? Jc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Can you logically explain how a ban on same sex marriage could affect divorce rate among heterosexuals? That's nonsense.
I'll retract this much: There wasn't a considerable increase in divorce rates in those states that had banned gay marriage. According to the link, divorce rates remained fairly stable. But there was a considerable decrease in the divorce rates in those states that had not banned it. (For your comparison to work, it would still need to show that a decrease in available swimming classes/people who know how to swim led to a decrease in accidental drownings.)
The two links support one another. It makes perfect sense that if gays are less likely to divorce, the divorce rates will be lower in states where they are permitted to marry at least as far as the state is officially concerned.
To all the people on here who have to keep quoting the Bible saying it doesn't limit marriage to a man and a woman, why is this whole thing a big deal after states approved registered civil unions and domestic partnerships? It IS a fight over a WORD. Come on. How much will your life be better if you get the MARRIAGE word instead of the CIVIL UNION word? It'll just mean that you won the pissing match and you can go to bed with a feather in your cap.
So did ya make that up, about the accidental drownings? Jc...
You never realized that amongst drivers involved in car accidents there were more of those with valid car insurance than without?
Its only logical to get rid of car insurance altogether, isnt it?
Statistics is a *****. No other science gets more abused but between you ans me corelation does not imply causation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I'll retract this much: There wasn't a considerable increase in divorce rates in those states that had banned gay marriage. According to the link, divorce rates remained fairly stable. But there was a considerable decrease in the divorce rates in those states that had not banned it. (For your comparison to work, it would still need to show that a decrease in available swimming classes/people who know how to swim led to a decrease in accidental drownings.)
The two links support one another. It makes perfect sense that if gays are less likely to divorce, the divorce rates will be lower in states where they are permitted to marry at least as far as the state is officially concerned.
I don't understand however any correlation between same sex marriage and divorce rates. Even if there was a statistically significant number of ssm's in any state (there is not) any improvement in divorce rates would be purely statistical i.e. would not mean that heterosexual marriages in that state are less likely to end up in a divorce.
He's just against equal rights...that's all. I said it's childish to be against rights and equality. That's totally okay, but please be prepared for people to take up their first amendment rights as well. You can be a homophpobe. That's not name calling. It's simply stating your position. If you're upset, then change your position. If not, just own it and be grown up about it. Either way it really doesn't matter.
No, no paranoia and fear. Please provide specific examples of fear and or paranoia. When I state over and over again that it really doesn't matter, it kind of discredits your argument.
To be honest, in about 20 years, as Fox News even noted, you'll be on the wrong side of history anyways. ?Hence why it doesn't matter.
If it didn't matter, you wouldn't be name calling.
Why would I be on the wrong side of history, since you haven't a clue where I stand.
Why don't you just own up and tell everyone you're a heterophobe.
Better yet, tell us some of your best friends are heterosexuals so you CAN'T be a heterophobe!
To all the people on here who have to keep quoting the Bible saying it doesn't limit marriage to a man and a woman, why is this whole thing a big deal after states approved registered civil unions and domestic partnerships? It IS a fight over a WORD. Come on. How much will your life be better if you get the MARRIAGE word instead of the CIVIL UNION word? It'll just mean that you won the pissing match and you can go to bed with a feather in your cap.
Many states have constitutional bans on civil unions, and domestic partnerships. In the states that say they have the same rights as marriage there are repeated instances of them not being treated the same. AND the federal government does not recognize ANY civil unions/domestic partnerships, so they are not equal.
Statistics is a *****. No other science gets more abused but between you ans me corelation does not imply causation.
Why thank you professor, I'll keep that in mind. It's "correlation" with two r's, BTW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
I don't understand however any correlation between same sex marriage and divorce rates. Even if there was a statistically significant number of ssm's in any state (there is not) any improvement in divorce rates would be purely statistical i.e. would not mean that heterosexual marriages in that state are less likely to end up in a divorce.
Its purely coincidental.
Again, I'm not talking about heterosexual marriages, but the average divorce rates concerning all marriages in the state. And it makes sense to me. I don't find it so hard to believe that gay marriage could make up roughly 5-8% of all marriages in a state that allows it. (If you go with 5, it would allow for 3 percent of that difference to be explained by some other means. That's pretty generous, IMO. Still you'd be left with 5 percent unexplained.) This is not to mention the other study I provided, which more directly compares the likelihood of the two "types" of marriage failing.
Without all that, however, coincidence might have it that 5% or fewer of the marriages in a state just happen to not end in divorce, but not 8 (what is really 9, if you compare it to -1.) You're the one who brought up statistical significance so you should know what I'm talking about.
I'm willing to agree that this doesn't prove anything, but it's a stronger argument than the lack of evidence to the contrary...
Why thank you professor, I'll keep that in mind. It's "correlation" with two r's, BTW.
Thanks. Wanna cookie?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Again, I'm not talking about heterosexual marriages, but the average divorce rates concerning all marriages in the state. And it makes sense to me. I don't find it so hard to believe that gay marriage could make up roughly 5-8% of all marriages in a state that allows it. (If you go with 5, it would allow for 3 percent of that difference to be explained by some other means. That's pretty generous, IMO. Still you'd be left with 5 percent unexplained.) This is not to mention the other study I provided, which more directly compares the likelihood of the two "types" of marriage failing.
Without all that, however, coincidence might have it that 5% or fewer of the marriages in a state just happen to not end in divorce, but not 8 (what is really 9, if you compare it to -1.) You're the one who brought up statistical significance so you should know what I'm talking about.
I'm willing to agree that this doesn't prove anything, but it's a stronger argument than the lack of evidence to the contrary...
Stop the BS.. there is not enough same sex marriages in any state to be significantly relevant or to affect stats.
This is purely coincidental.
If it didn't matter, you wouldn't be name calling.
Why would I be on the wrong side of history, since you haven't a clue where I stand.
Why don't you just own up and tell everyone you're a heterophobe.
Better yet, tell us some of your best friends are heterosexuals so you CAN'T be a heterophobe!
What? You're not making any sense. You're against gay marriage. I'm a heterophobe for wanting equal rights? In what world does that make sense? I'm not against straight marriage. I'm not against straight people or trying in any way to deny rights. Do you not see how dumb your argument is?
If you're (not you personally) against marriage for all, except in a non-legal ceremonial sense, then fine. Just as long as churches have the option to perform ceremonies for gay people without people getting hyper offended, as the right typically likes to do.
However, if you (not you personally) believe that legally recognized marriages are only for straight people, then you're homophobic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
