I am convinced that was the right thing...

[ews]

Got any support data for that? Because I did a quick search on "divorce rates by religion" that brought up the following:


[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"11% of the adult population is currently divorced.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience."[/FONT]
Divorce rates:
Jews - 30%
Born again Christians - 27%
Other Christians - 24%
Atheist/Agnostic - 21%

"The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people."

"conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all."

These are from four different sources:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
http://philosopherdad.blogspot.com/2007/04/divorce-rates-and-religion.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm
http://religion.propeller.com/story...s-highest-for-christians-lowest-for-atheists/

Those articles are probably based on the same data, but it took me 10 seconds to find them. Can you find any that support your assertion that deity-based marriages are more stable?

The [IMO] means ‘In My Opinion’ I haven’t even looked for data and I have no dipstick to measure the commitment one has to their church and its teachings.

Jews – 30% would that be Jews by birth or Jews that have gone to a synagogue before or a Jew that practices Judaism on a daily basis? Same question for ‘Born again Christians’ however I would also ask if at the time of their divorce are they still Born again Christians. I would say the stats on the Atheist/Agnostic are spot-on, and again, IMO.

 

[God-free]

Who else can we make happy by changing laws. Let's open all the prisons, I'm sure they (convicts) would be happy to get out and roam free...

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. But, if you're serious...

Societal laws are meant to benefit all of the members of a society. Giving homosexuals the right to marry harms no-one and benefits previously ignored members of society. Opening the prisons so the criminals/convicts could roam free would be detrimental to law abiding members of society.

The reality is that no matter what the government says, I will not considered homosexuals married. I hope that they will be able to accept that, but I think I will be made the criminal.

Not to worry. I'm sure your disapproval regarding the private conduct of these consenting adults will not keep them awake at night.

 

[jamielindas]

I can't agree, but to be fair, I don't think that states or feds should have anything to do with any marriage.

than who determines what marriage is? the society in which the pair live? I could get on board with this. I live in the bay area, so I think it is safe to say my local society is on board.

 

[Steezie]

than who determines what marriage is? the society in which the pair live? I could get on board with this. I live in the bay area, so I think it is safe to say my local society is on board.

Civil unions for everyone with religious marriage being optional and non-governmentally recognized?

 

[Skaloop]

Civil unions for everyone with religious marriage being optional and non-governmentally recognized?

How 'bout marriage for everyone with religious unions being optional and non-governmentally recognized?

 

[jamielindas]

Who else can we make happy by changing laws. Let's open all the prisons, I'm sure they (convicts) would be happy to get out and roam free...

Most people in prisons are in there because they have violated someone's rights (murder: right to life, theft, right to own property, etc). Exactly what right does me being legally and socially bound to my significant other take from you? Your right to discriminate against me? m'eh?

The reality is that no matter what the government says, I will not considered homosexuals married. I hope that they will be able to accept that, but I think I will be made the criminal.

why on earth would you be made a criminal for thinking that? You can considered anyone you want married or not, but that doesn't affect their legal standing. If I know a heterosexual couple that have an open marriage (sleep with other people), I can choose to not consider them married... it doesn't change their legal standing though. It's silly to think anyone would criminalize you for your opinion. The thing is, you just can't make that opinion law... because it is a religious one

 

[jamielindas]

Civil unions for everyone with religious marriage being optional and non-governmentally recognized?

so you're saying we should invalidate the marriage of couple that didn't get married in a church, synagogue, temple, etc? should we call all those people civil unioned?

 

[Steezie]

so you're saying we should invalidate the marriage of couple that didn't get married in a church, synagogue, temple, etc? should we call all those people civil unioned?

Call it whatever you want, call it Eggplant for all I care. But the best idea seems to be that EVERYBODY who wants to get married gets a governmentally recognized union officiated by a government official. If you want to get a religious cerimony that is not legally recognized by the government, you can do that too

 

[DeathMagus]

Call it whatever you want, call it Eggplant for all I care. But the best idea seems to be that EVERYBODY who wants to get married gets a governmentally recognized union officiated by a government official. If you want to get a religious cerimony that is not legally recognized by the government, you can do that too

I've always liked this idea. If people want to "get hitched" (since we're arguing about name here, using marriage seemed inappropriate) they should be able to legally. If a religious group wants to maintain a special exclusive club, more power to them. The needn't have legal status for it, however.

 

[jamielindas]

Call it whatever you want, call it Eggplant for all I care. But the best idea seems to be that EVERYBODY who wants to get married gets a governmentally recognized union officiated by a government official. If you want to get a religious cerimony that is not legally recognized by the government, you can do that too

So civil marriage would disappear and marriage would stay a religious concept and civil union would be a secular concept.
In doing so, you invalidate tons of heterosexual marriages... can you understand why many heterosexual people would have a problem with that? That they would resist giving up the title of married... do you see that?

it's not just a legal or a religious concept... it is also a social concept. Being married is about being socially recognized as well. Not just the benefits, but the responsibilities. Society holds you responsible for your spouse, society gives you benefits for taking on that responsibility.

that's what gay couples want too, and even if you get the legal benefits intact, I know heterosexual couples married outside a religious institution would scream at the thought of giving that up (or more correctly, having it taken away).

 

[jamielindas]

I've always liked this idea. If people want to "get hitched" (since we're arguing about name here, using marriage seemed inappropriate) they should be able to legally. If a religious group wants to maintain a special exclusive club, more power to them. The needn't have legal status for it, however.

You raise an excellent point, if someone is suggesting separating the two, are they comfortable saying that religious marriage has no legal meaning then?

 

[Steezie]

So civil marriage would disappear and marriage would stay a religious concept and civil union would be a secular concept.
In doing so, you invalidate tons of heterosexual marriages... can you understand why many heterosexual people would have a problem with that? That they would resist giving up the title of married... do you see that?

Who said anything about invalidating any marriages? Pre-reform marriages would be untouched.

it's not just a legal or a religious concept... it is also a social concept. Being married is about being socially recognized as well. Not just the benefits, but the responsibilities. Society holds you responsible for your spouse, society gives you benefits for taking on that responsibility.

Why are legal and religious marriages different? Regardless if you got married in a court or a church, you're still married

that's what gay couples want too, and even if you get the legal benefits intact, I know heterosexual couples married outside a religious institution would scream at the thought of giving that up (or more correctly, having it taken away).

As Im sure whites screamed at the idea of allowing white people to marry black people in the 50's, but times change and attitudes have to change with them

 

[Trevorocity]

The reality is that no matter what the government says, I will not considered homosexuals married. I hope that they will be able to accept that, but I think I will be made the criminal.

We'll live.

 

[jamielindas]

Who said anything about invalidating any marriages? Pre-reform marriages would be untouched.

So if gay couples get married between now and november, and in november a ban is amended to the constitution, will those pre-amendment marriages be valid?

Why are legal and religious marriages different? Regardless if you got married in a court or a church, you're still married

wait? what? That's what I'm for... I thought you were the one suggesting getting rid of secular marriage and calling that unions and leaving marriage as a religious, non government recognized thing? Wasn't that your suggestion? I was just stating why that would be difficult to make happen (particularly if it had any retroactive effect)

As Im sure whites screamed at the idea of allowing white people to marry black people in the 50's, but times change and attitudes have to change with them

Society moves forward... I hope it doesn't fall back after this wonderful step it has made...

 

[jamielindas]

Got any support data for that? Because I did a quick search on "divorce rates by religion" that brought up the following:


[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"11% of the adult population is currently divorced.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience."[/FONT]
Divorce rates:
Jews - 30%
Born again Christians - 27%
Other Christians - 24%
Atheist/Agnostic - 21%

"The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people."

"conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all."

These are from four different sources:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
http://philosopherdad.blogspot.com/2007/04/divorce-rates-and-religion.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm
http://religion.propeller.com/story...s-highest-for-christians-lowest-for-atheists/

Those articles are probably based on the same data, but it took me 10 seconds to find them. Can you find any that support your assertion that deity-based marriages are more stable?

Aren't the countries with the highest number of atheists also the countries with the lowest divorce rates? I read that a while back... i should look it up

 

[Steezie]

So if gay couples get married between now and november, and in november a ban is amended to the constitution, will those pre-amendment marriages be valid?

In that highly unlikely scenario, probably not.

wait? what? That's what I'm for... I thought you were the one suggesting getting rid of secular marriage and calling that unions and leaving marriage as a religious, non government recognized thing? Wasn't that your suggestion? I was just stating why that would be difficult to make happen (particularly if it had any retroactive effect)

You wanted a way to NOT invalidate pre-reform marriage. My solution is simply to let it be grandfathered out. No new religious AND secular marriage. You can still get both, just not at the same time and religious marriages are not recognized by the state.

Society moves forward... I hope it doesn't fall back after this wonderful step it has made...

I dont think it will

 

[jamielindas]

So an LA times poll is saying that the amendment to the CA constitution has 54% support.

 

[Skaloop]

And that is the case a lot of the time and it last 6 weeks/6 months.

Got any support data for that? Because I did a quick search on "divorce rates by religion" that brought up the following:


[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"11% of the adult population is currently divorced.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience."[/FONT]
Divorce rates:
Jews - 30%
Born again Christians - 27%
Other Christians - 24%
Atheist/Agnostic - 21%

"The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people."

"conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all."

These are from four different sources:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
http://philosopherdad.blogspot.com/2007/04/divorce-rates-and-religion.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm
http://religion.propeller.com/story...s-highest-for-christians-lowest-for-atheists/

Those articles are probably based on the same data, but it took me 10 seconds to find them. Can you find any that support your assertion that deity-based marriages are more stable?

*bump*

 

[Trevorocity]

So an LA times poll is saying that the amendment to the CA constitution has 54% support.

With a +/- 3-4% margin of error. About 35% against and the rest too brain damaged to have an opinion apparently. Actually though that is encouraging news for the GLBT community (in California anyway). Remember Conservative Christians are fond of citing the nebulous 'will of the people' who supported the previous law by a 68% margin. Now (after seeing Massachusetts doing just fine for years) the people seem somewhat less enthusiastic to jump on the discrimination bandwagon.

 

[Texas Lynn]

So if gay couples get married between now and november, and in november a ban is amended to the constitution, will those pre-amendment marriages be valid?

At one point in the effort to overturn gay marriage in Massacusetts those married would have stayed married but there'd be no more after a certain date.

Society moves forward... I hope it doesn't fall back after this wonderful step it has made...

I'm halfway optimistic--polls fluctuate on referenda wildly--but, the idea of the majority voting on whether to allow or take away rights of a minority is ludicrous, and possibly unconstitutional.