Five years after Vermont allowed civil unions, the first study to examine the experience has found that legalized same-sex couple relationships appear to be longer-lasting than those without a legal status.
“There are many ways that a legal couple status may support a relationship – more family understanding, acceptance by friends and co-workers, greater commitment that results from a public declaration, and enhanced legal protections in the form of healthcare benefits and community property,” said Robert-Jay Green. “The results of this first study on the topic suggest that same-sex partners who legalized their relationships in Vermont may have been more committed to each other or functioning better prior to obtaining a civil union—or that civil union status itself is helping to preserve their relationships . Future research will help clarify whether various legal statuses actually increase the likelihood that lesbian and gay couples stay together. ”
“In contrast to old myths about same-sex couples being deficient or less viable than male-female couples , this research project shows that same-sex partners who seek to legalize their relationships actually may be among the best functioning couples in this society,” said Green.
None of this surprises me. Simple empiricism, just looking around at the same-sex couples I’ve known for decades offers the same conclusion.
Some of this may eventually seep down into the cracks where professional moralists cluster.
>> Mister Mustard said,
>> What you said. Don’t let the homophobes and hatemongers rule the day.
Thanks for the encouragement.
For me, it’s really that simple: gay people are Americans.
Our views about biology, sociology, religion, politics, etc are irrelevant to their equal rights as citizens.
30 QB. Interesting. So when a dog humps your leg, your view of cross-species sex is…
RBG
I just drop kick them over the fence. But then I hear some people enjoy that kind of thing. Each to their own.
So it’s a good thing to strengthen one percent of relationships at the expense of 99%?
#18, QB,
However, she strikes me as a woman who needs an orgasm more than any white woman in history, with the possible exception Ann Coulter.
Ann Coulter is well taken care of.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. Is there Lyin’ Mike?
#36 – Mr. Fusion,
I can’t imagine why my office network blocks access to that link. I can’t wait to read it when I get home. It sounds rather amusing.
#35 – MikeN,
Um … What??!!? Are you really trying to tell me that you know of marriages so weak that they will fall apart because one or the other member sees a gay married couple walking down the street?
If not, just what the fuck are you talking about when you say “at the expense of 99%?”
In what possible way do you see that my 21 year marriage is going to be weakened when gay and lesbian couples are allowed the same rights I have? I’ve heard people say this flippantly before.
Let’s see if you can give a real argument of just how this is going to hurt the other (probably more like) 85-95% of marriages rather than the 99% you cite? Go ahead tell us. Please.
And when you do, why not also consider the possibility of searching Google Scholar for a nice psychological study that might back up the total bullshit you just spouted?
I’ll be back later to see how you do.
#26 “So is monogamy, abstinence and post-menopause. Should we outlaw those, too?”
Obviously, you have no idea what the word “moral”
means. I said, “There is no reason to get into morals.”
Look it up and you’ll answer your question… It appears that you are the one who is hung up on this behavior emotionally, not I.
Redefining marriage, which is what the push for so-called ‘gay marriage’ does, would change marriages, and is likely to have an effect on marriage as an institution. To say that your marriage or this marriage or that marriage would be effected isn’t the point. Not all marriages are the same, and it is the weakest that would be affected. It is like if you raise the price of chicken soup by 1 cent. Can you tell me you are not going to buy it over one cent? However, the laws of economics tell us that there are people who don’t buy because of that one cent price increase.
#26 “This includes legally marrying their partner, if they want to.”
Exactly, and so should polygamist’s, etc. I haven’t seen one post by you being upset about the
fate of polygamist’s in the U.S. Why? Didn’t you believe in equal rights?
And, I didn’t say anything about gay marriage. Why are you so worked up about my post?
I’m always curious how people arrive at the “definition of marriage”. Personally I see it as an historical artifact from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic (JCI) tradition. Sorry, but it really is one religious strain – the fact that they fight so much among themselves only confirms it.
There are differences of thought, but really the foundation of it is that the purpose of sex is procreation. Marriage is an institution designed to support procreation and the raising of children so they can procreate, and so on.
The whole thing hangs together at this point, but what if sex is not just for procreation? For example, if a couple is unable to have children should they have the right to marry? The usual argument is “yes” so they won’t live in a state of sin. It’s a weak justification, but there you go since there is always “hope” that children could miraculously show up – it’s called the Abraham argument.
The big “morality” argument that MikeN and others are poking at but won’t say out loud is that same sex couples have no hope of having children, therefore they shouldn’t marry. That whole argument is straining at that point since I know same sex couples with children. The JCI guys argue that those children aren’t “naturally occurring”, but according to that line of thinking children from outside a sanctioned marriage aren’t either. The whole thing gets pretty flimsy in a hurry.
The problem is that the whole definition strains unless you take a pretty dogmatic, puritanical view of marriage. This means that the church and/or state must tightly control who has sex and for what purposes through marriage. This conflicts pretty quickly with Western sensibilities and laws.
Personally I see this as a question of state and/or church control over sexuality at it’s core. The JCI tradition has focused on imbuing our society with a view that gay and lesbian sex should be illegal (or even better, immoral) and has built it into our thinking for about 1700 years. Other societies think differently (e.g. Greek, pre-Christian Roman, aboriginal societies, Buddhists, etc).
Fascists, communists, and other totalitarian state structures have arisen from the JCI schools of thought and suppress or terrorize gays and lesbians since, at their core, they are challenging state control. This no different than challenging church control – and I don’t care what the altruistic motives are.
Sorry for the long rant. One last thing that I find ironic about all this. This is really about personal rights vs. state control and that is primarily why gay and lesbians want to the right to marry. I get that. However, I’m no expert on this but it seems to me that marriage is kind of contrary to much of gay culture.
42 QB. I think we all need to take a sober cue from #28 bobbo’s anti-binary “continuum” model in order to be less dipodal and seweragy to include marriage between the natural opposite sexes even when producing children is not or can not be the goal.
Or, I’m sorry bobbo, maybe you were extending that flexibility to marrying sheep & monkeys and other such weird arrangements as some cultures are wont to do.
(At this point I added a pile of funny examples of the latter but the DU filter insists upon filtering me out. So I bisected the post and now trying to disguise and add that list separately.)
Anyway: With enough support anybody can “marry” anything.
RBG
Man mar-ries dog
1atinyurl.com/6kfx6vflipper
Selvakumar, a 33-year-old farm labourer from the southern state of Tamil Nadu, married the four-year-old stray bitch…
Man mar-ries goat
1anews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stmflipper
The goat died.
Man mar-ries horse
1atinyurl.com/575uwvflipper
Well, Jerry Springer…
Historical king mar-ries horse
1atinyurl.com/6de5rdflipper
“Sacred kings,” had to wed the local goddess of the land.
Girl mar-ries dog
1atinyurl.com/esj9flipper
“Members of the village jury asked us to get her married to a dog or to face the bad omen”
Woman mar-ries dolphin
1atinyurl.com/dwv9eflipper
“It’s not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He’s the love of my life,”
Woman mar-ries Eiffel Tower
1atinyurl.com/6cqns5flipper
A woman who has a bizarre fetish for inanimate objects…
Ellen mar-ries Portia
1atinyurl.com/6r78zcflipper
With enough support anybody can “mar-ry” anything.
RBG
Note: replace “1a” with “http://” in front of the link; remove the “flipper” at the end of the link and forgive the “mar-ries” as my attempt to circumvent the DU spam filter which would not let me post this.
#44 “forgive the “mar-ries” as my attempt to circumvent the DU spam filter which would not let me post this.”
DU won’t let you post the word marries ?
RGB said: “QB. I think we all need to take a sober cue from #28 bobbo’s anti-binary “continuum” model”
bobbo’s far more interesting when he’s not sober. 😉
45 Paddy-O. I bet they do allow “marry”. But at one point I was simultaneously trying multiple things (thinking “man marries dog” spam-like)in hopes of hitting the offending item. My guess is that you can’t have too many http:// in one post.
RBG
#40 – MikeN,
Redefining marriage, which is what the push for so-called ‘gay marriage’ does, would change marriages, and is likely to have an effect on marriage as an institution. To say that your marriage or this marriage or that marriage would be effected isn’t the point. Not all marriages are the same, and it is the weakest that would be affected. It is like if you raise the price of chicken soup by 1 cent. Can you tell me you are not going to buy it over one cent? However, the laws of economics tell us that there are people who don’t buy because of that one cent price increase.
OK, Mikey, let’s try this again.
How is even the weakest marriage of all or the institution of marriage affected, even in the slightest possible way by allowing gays to have their rights?
I claim there is no answer to this. It does not even have the effect of raising the cost of a case of soup by one cent, let alone raising the per can price by that much. The effect is quite simply non-existent. Go ahead explain what you believe the effect will actually be? Will a straight couple not marry? Will a bad marriage of a straight couple break up? What do you think the effect will be?
I claim there is no effect and you’re just blowing it out your ass.
So, to all those who support gay marriage (I could care less one way or another) do you support polygamy and “other” forms of marriage currently not allowed?
#42 – QB,
I’ve had a vasectomy and have no children. What does this do to my 21 year and counting marriage? Would you outlaw it?
As for marriage coming from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology, bullshit in the extreme. People have been about as close as we are today to monogamy, i.e. pursuing a mixed reproductive strategy, for as long as humans have existed. Tribal peoples encountering technological civilizations only recently had all the pomp and circumstance around marriage that JCI society does, including marriages between tribes to avoid inbreeding. There is nothing unique about JCI marriages. Hindus, Buddhists, and many others have had marriages for many centuries as well. Nor does there need to be any involvement from any mythology for people to agree to spend their lives together.
Sorry. I think you have come to some highly western biased opinions.
#49 – Paddy-O,
As long as it’s truly polygamy not solely polygyny or polyandry. As long as it’s not discriminatory, in other words. Yes.
Marriage is for Lovers, as I have said for a long time.
Actually, I support people marrying in any manner they choose rather than the state or a church telling me that. Although I’m not church going kind of person (no really) I think they should not be “forced” to perform any marriages they don’t want to.
From a practical point of view, I struggle with the age of consent which I see as a far bigger issue than gay or polygamous marriage. 16 seems fine to me, but this is also arbitrary and I don’t have good, solid reasoning for changing it, raising it, lowering it, or whatever.
#51 “As long as it’s truly polygamy not solely polygyny or polyandry. As long as it’s not discriminatory, in other words. Yes.”
How about with animals?
#53 – Paddy-O,
How about with animals?
Yes. I would even allow an ass like you to marry.*
Are you planning to tell me how your sheep is going to say “I do”?
Please stay on topic here.
* Damn!! I’m once again guilty of insulting perfectly good-natured animals, donkeys in this case, by comparing them to humans.
#52 – QB,
Although I’m not church going kind of person (no really) I think they should not be “forced” to perform any marriages they don’t want to.
I didn’t hear anyone suggest that religious institutions be required to perform such marriages. Some religious leaders may choose to do so. Some may not. Some religious institutions also do not allow marriage between people of different faiths, even if they are very similar. This is about laws allowing such marriages. Justices of the peace can perform weddings.
Its amazing. Lyin Mike is correct on so many issues here.
Gay marriage is a danger to marriage. Here in California with its recent enforcement by the courts, I had to tell my wifey that our relationship had been torn assunder because of this new law. How can I stay married to her when Frank and George down the block can get married and act just as wifey and I do? Its like, it makes ME gay too. What a terrible assault on my masculinity.
But it does figure that Mikey would get the continuum issue wrong. My other big jag of course is “its defintional.” Marriage is defintional. Once defined, it can be located on several different continuums. “Degree of ease in getting out” of would be one such continuum.
Mikey is so uniformily stupid though, I have to think he is “mostly” putting us on. Can anyone really be so retro and still function in society?
Scott, in Canada we’re a little farther down the road on this issue and when the marriage laws were being appended a few years some actions were in court around this. There are wackos everywhere.
Paddy-O, animals can’t consent, so obviously no. Obviously that brings up another problem. Is meat murder? 😉
#54 “Yes. I would even allow an ass like you to marry.*”
LOL
I’ve seen polygamy threads here before. Why haven’t you been all over it complaining about the discrimination?
It’s too easy nailing libs. Like shooting fish in a barrel…
Paddy-O: “Why haven’t you been all over it complaining about the discrimination?
It’s too easy nailing libs.”
So, as a conservative you’re more interested in government control on this issue?
#56, bobbo. Congratulations, that was breath-takingly silly.
#59 “So, as a conservative you’re more interested in government control on this issue?”
Naw, it’s just fun highlighting the hypocrisy of the left.