Same-sex Marriage.

[_wenglund]

Sorry to see you go, Wade. I've tried to focus on your arguments, not you personally. If I've failed, I apologize.

Not to worry. You succeeded. I am the one who failed. I intended to inform, and ended up bizarre.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Bazooka]

Wade, you stopped responding to my posts, why?

[_Darth J]

I accept your surrender, Wade.

...and, no doubt, my resounding defeat. You're the best.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Say, Wade---

On this page of your blog: http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/06 ... risis.html

You state the following: ""A 2004 study of registered partnerships in Sweden reported that gay male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples. Lesbian couples were nearly three times more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples."

The "See HERE" link is to this article on Reason magazine: http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/05/t ... x-marriage

You shared that quote above, but decidedly omitted the very next paragraph:

But how salient are higher divorce rates among gays and lesbians for making public policy? Consider that a 2008 study in the journal Family Relations by Rice University sociologist Jenifer Bratter found that in the U.S. black-husband/white-wife marriages were twice as likely to end in divorce as white/white couples, and Asian-husband/white-wife couples were 59 percent more likely. Yet few would argue that interracial marriages should be prohibited because their children are at substantially greater risk of experiencing the social, psychological, and economic disadvantages stemming from a higher interracial divorce rate.

You said that you believe interracial couples have an equal protection right to marry, as articulated in Loving v. Virginia. So why is the higher divorce rate a valid argument against same-sex marriage, which you disfavor, but not a valid argument against interracial marriage, which you claim to favor?

I also notice that you decidedly omitted this little tidbit from your source:

However, data are reassuring from the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, which includes 78 lesbian families who used donor sperm to have children and have been followed since the 1980s. A 2012 study compared quality-of-life measurements of adolescents from lesbian families with those from a matched set of adolescents raised in different-sex homes. The researchers reported that “adolescents reared by lesbian mothers from birth do not manifest more adjustment difficulties (e.g., depression, anxiety, and disruptive behaviors) than those reared by heterosexual parents.”

But I thought that horrific parenting was an unintended consequence of same-sex marriage, so how can your own source have said this?

[_Chap]

There could be a reason for this, a reason that was not based on the postulate that the very varied group of people on this board are all in some way hardened moral reprobates.

It could just be that you don't, sadly, have anything to say that is particularly interesting, valuable or original.

I have no doubt that you are correct.

Maybe you should leave the moral opinionating to those with a gift for it, and instead do something practical like visiting lonely old people and doing their shopping and gardening for them. Then they will feel good, and so will you, and the world will be a slightly better place.

A great suggestion. I wish I had thought of it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You talk really, really Christ-like Wade.

But you know what? It isn't supposed to be about talking. And if I believed in that stuff any more, which I don't, I'd want to be really sure that I could walk that walk before I talked that talk.

Just imagine a certain guy turned up again, and found you pretending to be him when it was really just a big passive-aggression act. Would he be just a little bit annoyed about it? Could be ...

[_wenglund]

Wade, you stopped responding to my posts, why?

I am evidently too "stupid" to realize that I had stopped responding. Please accept my apology.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Bazooka]

Wade, you stopped responding to my posts, why?

I am evidently too "stupid" to realize that I had stopped responding. Please accept my apology.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I haven't called you stupid.
I have stated that your viewpoint about cost benefit being a good way of determining matrimonial rights, is stupid.
I accept your apology for not responding.

(sackcloth and ashes....not a good look, imho)

[Gadianton]

Say, Wade---

On this page of your blog: http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/06 ... risis.html

You state the following: ""A 2004 study of registered partnerships in Sweden reported that gay male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples. Lesbian couples were nearly three times more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples."

The "See HERE" link is to this article on Reason magazine: http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/05/t ... x-marriage

You shared that quote above, but decidedly omitted the very next paragraph:

I will add "devious" to the growing list of character flaws.

But how salient are higher divorce rates among gays and lesbians for making public policy? Consider that a 2008 study in the journal Family Relations by Rice University sociologist Jenifer Bratter found that in the U.S. black-husband/white-wife marriages were twice as likely to end in divorce as white/white couples, and Asian-husband/white-wife couples were 59 percent more likely. Yet few would argue that interracial marriages should be prohibited because their children are at substantially greater risk of experiencing the social, psychological, and economic disadvantages stemming from a higher interracial divorce rate.

You said that you believe interracial couples have an equal protection right to marry, as articulated in Loving v. Virginia. So why is the higher divorce rate a valid argument against same-sex marriage, which you disfavor, but not a valid argument against interracial marriage, which you claim to favor?

Great find. Sadly, even though I was aware of what you quoted above, I am so "stupid" that I didn't realize that my blog was making an argument against same-sex marriage.

I also notice that you decidedly omitted this little tidbit from your source:

However, data are reassuring from the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, which includes 78 lesbian families who used donor sperm to have children and have been followed since the 1980s. A 2012 study compared quality-of-life measurements of adolescents from lesbian families with those from a matched set of adolescents raised in different-sex homes. The researchers reported that “adolescents reared by lesbian mothers from birth do not manifest more adjustment difficulties (e.g., depression, anxiety, and disruptive behaviors) than those reared by heterosexual parents.”

But I thought that horrific parenting was an unintended consequence of same-sex marriage, so how can your own source have said this?

I am so "stupid" that I was completely unaware that "horrific parenting" was an unintended consequence of SSM, though I do recall speaking about "stable homes"

Not that is will matter here, but what I actually said in my post on Same-Sex Marriage--Destructive Compassion: The destructive compassion of liberals was further exacerbated when they determined to help the children of same-sex couples by hopefully providing them with a stable, loving, two-parent home, with the same federal and state benefits as children of heterosexual parents. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) Again, in some respects, this was a noble cause.

However, they have attempted to achieve this objective through legalizing same-sex marriage.

And, regardless that the noble cause could have been better achieved through other means than mangling the several millennium-old definition of marriage (such as through child/family-focused legislation or civil unions, etc.), and regardless that very few homosexual couples choose to live in the same household (30%--see HERE), and regardless that relatively few homosexual couples choose to marry (about 6%, see HERE), and regardless that relatively few same-sex couples end up with children (about 19% and declining--see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), then instead of producing stable homes for those children, liberals have encouraged, through government sanction, the very relationships that not only broke-up traditional homes to begin with (most of the children of same-sex couples came from prior opposite-sex relationships, many of which were destroyed by the homosexual spouse/parent leaving the opposite-sex marriage for a homosexual relationship--see HERE and HERE and HERE), but which are culturally short-lived (see HERE) and inclined towards infidelity (see HERE), and "nearly three times more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples." (See HERE, See also John Smoot's article on how same-sex marriage is worst for children--HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

(sackcloth and ashes....not a good look, imho)

I will add fashion faux pas to the list.

Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

You talk really, really Christ-like Wade.

But you know what? It isn't supposed to be about talking. And if I believed in that stuff any more, which I don't, I'd want to be really sure that I could walk that walk before I talked that talk.

Just imagine a certain guy turned up again, and found you pretending to be him when it was really just a big passive-aggression act. Would he be just a little bit annoyed about it? Could be ...

I will add disingenuous (pretending to be Christ-like) and passive-aggression to my growing list. It is good for me to learn how I am coming across to people, particularly when I have evidently fooled myself into believe I have changed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_krose]

... the several millennium-old definition of marriage...

You keep saying things like this. How is it that you don't know it isn't true?

Marriage as an exclusively monogamous love match is a very recent phenomenon in most societies.

====
It's too bad you have become overwhelmed and decided to resort to feigned self-deprecation.