NationStates Jolt Archive

I guess you would call it - a divorce.
Well, if you can get married, you can get divorced. I guess that now that one couple has decided to split, we can start keeping statistics on it.

Sounds like they have a domestic violence problem, too.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051215/NEWS/512150385/1003

Brattleboro Family Court Judge Karen Carroll granted a relief-from-abuse order against Peterson Wednesday after Conrad filed for an emergency order against her partner on Dec. 7, according to court documents.

Peterson is barred from contacting Conrad and must remain more than 100 feet from her home, workplace and vehicle, according to the order. The court sent a copy of the order to the Vermont State Police on Wednesday and a follow-up hearing is scheduled for Jan. 4, 2006.

Conrad stated that she feared physical harm from Peterson after she allegedly punched a hole in the wall during an argument in late August, and threatened to harm a female friend of Peterson's in early December, according to an affidavit filed at the court.

"At this point, I believe her behavior is escalating and I am fearful for my safety," Conrad wrote in her court statement.

Yes, imagine that.

yes. now what?

Turns out they're normal couples just like straight couples.

Turns out they're normal couples just like straight couples.

Damn, you beat me to it!

Damn, you beat me to it!

I said something like that but then deleted it because i seem to be sounding very sarcastic today and i wasnt.

Turns out they're normal couples just like straight couples.
Interestingly, more and more straight couples are wondering why they should bother getting married at all. Because most people end up breaking up, and most marriages end in divorce.

So why are homosexual couples so anxious to be 'married'. Seems like they might come to the same conclusion that many straight couples have - and not bother getting married.

Interestingly, more and more straight couples are wondering why they should bother getting married at all. Because most people end up breaking up, and most marriages end in divorce.

So why are homosexual couples so anxious to be 'married'. Seems like they might come to the same conclusion that many straight couples have - and not bother getting married.Why? Because they'd like the choice. It's that simple, really. If I and my girlfriend choose not to marry, even though we've been together five years, we could still change our minds and do it tomorrow. Same-sex couples don't have that option.

As it is, my girlfriend and I have both been through divorces in the past and would rather cohabitate than marry, but we still have the option, and I guarantee you that any breakup at this point would be at least as painful as a divorce.

Why? Because they'd like the choice. It's that simple, really. If I and my girlfriend choose not to marry, even though we've been together five years, we could still change our minds and do it tomorrow. Same-sex couples don't have that option.

As it is, my girlfriend and I have both been through divorces in the past and would rather cohabitate than marry, but we still have the option, and I guarantee you that any breakup at this point would be at least as painful as a divorce.
I'm almost to the point now where I believe that there should be no civil unions and no civil marriage - the state should have no interest in either one.

It should be a purely religious matter, and if you want a contract to define property distribution, etc., you can get a formal property contract.

While I can see the state having an interest in what happens to children when people break up, they should have this interest regardless of whether the people are married or not. And as for property division, I fail to see how "married" should really make a difference - after all, you could live with your significant other for 20 years and invest in many things together - and not be married.

No constitutional marriage amendments, no anti-gay laws about marriage, no half-assed civil union crap - just the government OUT of the business of marriage altogether.

Before you abolish marriage - don't believe the 50% of all marriages fail BS. The stats are skewed by the people who get married and get divorced multiple times as all of their marriages and divorces are part of the statistics. The real number is around 30% (if I remember correctly).

Interestingly, more and more straight couples are wondering why they should bother getting married at all. Because most people end up breaking up, and most marriages end in divorce.

So why are homosexual couples so anxious to be 'married'. Seems like they might come to the same conclusion that many straight couples have - and not bother getting married.

I recall reading somewhere that while the divorce rate is at 50%, the rate for first marriage success is around 70% (and if you drop off celeb marriages, I think all the rates jump 10%). So if you only marry once, you are more likly to stay together. Once you've divorced once, you are more likely to do it over and over.

And marriage has many benefits which are really helpful

I'm almost to the point now where I believe that there should be no civil unions and no civil marriage - the state should have no interest in either one.

It should be a purely religious matter, and if you want a contract to define property distribution, etc., you can get a formal property contract.

While I can see the state having an interest in what happens to children when people break up, they should have this interest regardless of whether the people are married or not. And as for property division, I fail to see how "married" should really make a difference - after all, you could live with your significant other for 20 years and invest in many things together - and not be married.

No constitutional marriage amendments, no anti-gay laws about marriage, no half-assed civil union crap - just the government OUT of the business of marriage altogether.
I could go along with that easily.

Simple statistics.

Women are 50% MORE likely than men to initiate a divorce.

When you have two women in the SAME union, you have doubled the odds of a divorce in the same period of time as a heterosexual union disolving....If hetero couples are a .5 then all women unions would be a full 1.



With that in mind, you would think that Male&Male unions would last twice as long wouldn't you (like .25), but they don't, they break up only a combined 50% more often than heterosexual couples (so a .75). Perhaps because both of them are acting like women they don't get the male stability thing? :p :D

I'm almost to the point now where I believe that there should be no civil unions and no civil marriage - the state should have no interest in either one.

It should be a purely religious matter, and if you want a contract to define property distribution, etc., you can get a formal property contract.

While I can see the state having an interest in what happens to children when people break up, they should have this interest regardless of whether the people are married or not. And as for property division, I fail to see how "married" should really make a difference - after all, you could live with your significant other for 20 years and invest in many things together - and not be married.

No constitutional marriage amendments, no anti-gay laws about marriage, no half-assed civil union crap - just the government OUT of the business of marriage altogether.

Yep, I would actually be quite happy to agree with you. The fact is, though, the government isn't going to abolish civil marriage between opposite-sex couples. So while they offer that option to heterosexual couples, they must also offer it to homosexual couples. At least, that's the idea I got from the US Constitution.

Ammending that document to preclude same-sex marriage is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]I'm almost to the point now where I believe that there should be no civil unions and no civil marriage - the state should have no interest in either one.

It should be a purely religious matter, and if you want a contract to define property distribution, etc., you can get a formal property contract.

"Honey, will you enter into a legally binding contract definine our property ditribution and distribution of assets?" said Anybodybutbushia

"Why...YES, Yes I will" said Anybodybutcheneya through a stream of tears.

...and they have lived happilly bound by their legal agreement (notarized by an Elvis impersonator) ever since.

This is what gender neutral marriage is all about. It's bloody time us gay people got to defile the sanctity of marriage just like everyone else.

This is what gender neutral marriage is all about. It's bloody time us gay people got to defile the sanctity of marriage just like everyone else.
I'm way ahead of you on defiling and you know it.

Damn, you beat me to it!
Permission to beat you with it?:)

Didn't the US have a civil war splitting up the first union some 150 years ago? Methinks this must be old news.

I'm way ahead of you on defiling and you know it.

As a non-gay person you, as all non-gay persons, don't count. You people never do.

I guess you would call it - a divorce.
Well, if you can get married, you can get divorced. I guess that now that one couple has decided to split, we can start keeping statistics on it.

Sounds like they have a domestic violence problem, too.



If you are going to post stuff like this, at least give your comments. Not all of us like to read minds or guess.

My response is so? I can tell you about a Christian minister that beat his family........

You know, something just occurred to me--if this is the first civil union in the US to split up, then holy shit these people have been making it work, since civil unions were allowed in Vermont in 2000, right? Five years and this is the first case of a split up? Heteros ought to be ashamed. :D

I'm almost to the point now where I believe that there should be no civil unions and no civil marriage - the state should have no interest in either one.

It should be a purely religious matter, and if you want a contract to define property distribution, etc., you can get a formal property contract.


Why? How does Religion make a better marriage?

I know two people that got married by a judge and they are on their 20th year.

I know two good Christians and they lasted 9 months.

Your one example hardly condems the whole concept of gay marriage as some states and countries have allowed it for years.

I bet if they track the numbers, they will be just about the same as the hetros *shock*

Why? What makes Religion make a better marriage?

I know two people that got married by a judge and they are on their 20th year.

I know two good Christians and they lasted 9 months.

Your one example hardly condems the whole.
I'm not saying it's better.

I'm saying it's just not in the interest of the state to decide who can be married and who can't.

I'm not saying it's better.

I'm saying it's just not in the interest of the state to decide who can be married and who can't.

Nice word play.

The state is involved when people start telling other people what they can't do.

Nothing wrong with gay marriage. I would rather have them in the open and coupled up rather then in the closet and dating sisters and daughters.

One elder gay man I know married a woman because he had too(deeply religous family). When it became known of his leanings, it messed her up for a long time......

Nice word play.

The state is involved when people start telling other people what they can't do.

Nothing wrong with gay marriage. I would rather have them in the open and coupled up rather then in the closet and dating sisters and daughters.

One elder gay man I know married a woman because he had too(deeply religous family). When it became known of his leanings, it messed her up for a long time......
What DK is suggesting is that the state ought to remove itself from telling people what they can and can't do as regards marriage, thus negating any of the problems over equal treatment that currently exist.

I'm almost to the point now where I believe that there should be no civil unions and no civil marriage - the state should have no interest in either one.

It should be a purely religious matter, and if you want a contract to define property distribution, etc., you can get a formal property contract.

But which religions would be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies then ? Some religions allow marriages between homosexuals. Some allow polygamy. Some allow you marrying to your sister. Some allow marriages between a 50 year old man and a 4 year old girl. Some allow you to be married to your goat...

Unless you are going to discriminate against religions, I think the Christian concept of "sanctity of marriage" would be hurt much, MUCH more by making it a purely religious affair.

Perhaps because both of them are acting like women they don't get the male stability thing? :p :D
Let me go straight to the source: What's the statistics for divorce among ignorant douchebags???

But which religions would be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies then ? Some religions allow marriages between homosexuals. Some allow polygamy. Some allow you marrying to your sister. Some allow marriages between a 50 year old man and a 4 year old girl. Some allow you to be married to your goat...

Unless you are going to discriminate against religions, I think the Christian concept of "sanctity of marriage" would be hurt much, MUCH more by making it a purely religious affair.

Any religion. If you like, you can even make up your own religion and print your own certificates.

That way, if you want a Catholic marriage, you have to be a man and a woman and convert to Catholicism and get married in a Catholic church, and have your paperwork done by the diocese.

If you want a Unitarian Universalist wedding, it could be any number of adults, and they could have the ceremony in their backyard, and have a big cookout afterwards.

Each religion would have the "sanctity" of their own "marriage". That way, no one would be telling anyone else what to do.

I'm almost to the point now where I believe that there should be no civil unions and no civil marriage - the state should have no interest in either one.

It should be a purely religious matter, and if you want a contract to define property distribution, etc., you can get a formal property contract.

While I can see the state having an interest in what happens to children when people break up, they should have this interest regardless of whether the people are married or not. And as for property division, I fail to see how "married" should really make a difference - after all, you could live with your significant other for 20 years and invest in many things together - and not be married.

No constitutional marriage amendments, no anti-gay laws about marriage, no half-assed civil union crap - just the government OUT of the business of marriage altogether.
100% agreed. You're not alone in believing that, there's plenty of us here who've come to the same conclusion.

But which religions would be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies then ? Some religions allow marriages between homosexuals. Some allow polygamy. Some allow you marrying to your sister. Some allow marriages between a 50 year old man and a 4 year old girl. Some allow you to be married to your goat...

Unless you are going to discriminate against religions, I think the Christian concept of "sanctity of marriage" would be hurt much, MUCH more by making it a purely religious affair.
The first question I would answer by saying "any and all religions." If you want to invent your own religion and use it to marry people, fine, as long as it has to legal standing before the law. And removing state recognition of marriage would do nothing to invalidate age of consent laws or bestiality laws, so I really don't know where you're going with the rest of the comment.

Each religion would have the "sanctity" of their own "marriage". That way, no one would be telling anyone else what to do.

I can live with that. But can the people who were married in a Catholic church, and now see the word marriage is also used to describe the bond between a 60 year old man man and his harem of 7 12 year old girls ?

I can live with that. But can the people who were married in a Catholic church, and now see the word marriage is also used to describe the bond between a 60 year old man man and his harem of 7 12 year old girls ?

There are still going to be age of consent laws, pedophilia laws, and incest laws, which are unrelated to "marriage".

People seem to forget that the whole "til death do us part" thing was started back when people were considered "old" at 30.

The average length of a marriage in America is something like 11 or 12 years, and I'm willing to bet that's not far different from the average live expectancy of a marriage back in "the good old days." One partner (or both) probably died within 11 or 12 years of the wedding.

Personally, I think only a very small minority of human beings will ever be in a situation where they SHOULD spend the rest of their life with one other person. I think individual temperment has a lot to do with it, but practical considerations also play a part, as does the pure luck of running into a person who will be compatible across a wide time frame. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all.

I can live with that. But can the people who were married in a Catholic church, and now see the word marriage is also used to describe the bond between a 60 year old man man and his harem of 7 12 year old girls ?
The concept of "consent" is still in play, my friend. A 60 year old man with a harem of 12 year olds wouldn't be allowed to enjoy his "marriage" because he'd be jailed for the rapist he is.

And removing state recognition of marriage would do nothing to invalidate age of consent laws or bestiality laws, so I really don't know where you're going with the rest of the comment.

The objection most people seem to have against calling the union between two homosexuals "marriage" is that it in some way would reduce the value of "their" heterosexual marriage, or at least the concept of marriage they hold dear.

If you allow every religion to marry people you would get things that go much, much further than just gay marriage. Doesn't matter if the marriage is never consumed - the word "marriage" would get a different meaning. And that seems to upset people.

The concept of "consent" is still in play, my friend. A 60 year old man with a harem of 12 year olds wouldn't be allowed to enjoy his "marriage" because he'd be jailed for the rapist he is.

See above. It is not about the consummation, it is about the name of the union.

The objection most people seem to have against calling the union between two homosexuals "marriage" is that it in some way would reduce the value of "their" heterosexual marriage, or at least the concept of marriage they hold dear.

If you allow every religion to marry people you would get things that go much, much further than just gay marriage. Doesn't matter if the marriage is never consumed - the word "marriage" would get a different meaning. And that seems to upset people.
People get upset about stupid shit every day--there will be no changing that. And marriage has not exactly been a static term throughout history--it's always been flexible and there's no reason to stop that flexibility now just because some people might get twisted about it.

If you allow every religion to marry people you would get things that go much, much further than just gay marriage. Doesn't matter if the marriage is never consumed - the word "marriage" would get a different meaning. And that seems to upset people.


I would imagine that people will adapt, and call it "Catholic marriage" or "Baptist marriage" or "Mormon Polygamous Marriage" or "Unitarian Group Marriage", etc.

People get upset about stupid shit every day--there will be no changing that. And marriage has not exactly been a static term throughout history--it's always been flexible and there's no reason to stop that flexibility now just because some people might get twisted about it.

Oh, *I* agree fully. But I am not one of the people trying to stop homosexuals from marrying under statelaws either.

EDIT: I originally typed heterosexuals here. What would Freud think of that ?

I would imagine that people will adapt, and call it "Catholic marriage" or "Baptist marriage" or "Mormon Polygamous Marriage" or "Unitarian Group Marriage", etc.

If they actually would be willing to take that tiny step gay marriage would have been legal in the states ages ago.

See above. It is not about the consummation, it is about the name of the union.
Sure, he could call it a "marriage" if he wanted. Couldn't hurt the reputation of that term any. "Marriage" refers to an institution that was originally founded as a property exchange in which female human beings were passed from the ownership of one male to the ownership of another...if "marriage" can still be meaningful and positive despite being founded on the premise of slavery, what damage could be done by adding in a little child sexual abuse? Female children have been sold into marriage for centuries.

People need to get a clue. If "marriage" is a positive institution now, after all the horrible injustices that have been a part of it, then I think it's durable to endure gay people getting married. Personally, I think "marriage" is pretty disgusting, and I would ideally prefer not to dirty my relationship with it, but if other people want to do so then they are welcome to it.

Sure, he could call it a "marriage" if he wanted. Couldn't hurt the reputation of that term any. "Marriage" refers to an institution that was originally founded as a property exchange in which female human beings were passed from the ownership of one male to the ownership of another...if "marriage" can still be meaningful and positive despite being founded on the premise of slavery, what damage could be done by adding in a little child sexual abuse?

People need to get a clue. If "marriage" is a positive institution now, after all the horrible injustices that have been a part of it, then I think it's durable to endure gay people getting married. Personally, I think "marriage" is pretty disgusting, and I would ideally prefer not to dirty my relationship with it, but if other people want to do so then they are welcome to it.

Could you please get on a national platform and address the homophobes ?

Could you please get on a national platform and address the homophobes ?
Lol, somehow I don't think they'll listen to an educated, independent bisexual who ignores notions of male supremacy and "traditional morality." I'm just another wicked, godless harlot to those wankers.

Simple statistics.

Women are 50% MORE likely than men to initiate a divorce.

When you have two women in the SAME union, you have doubled the odds of a divorce in the same period of time as a heterosexual union disolving....If hetero couples are a .5 then all women unions would be a full 1.



With that in mind, you would think that Male&Male unions would last twice as long wouldn't you (like .25), but they don't, they break up only a combined 50% more often than heterosexual couples (so a .75). Perhaps because both of them are acting like women they don't get the male stability thing? :p :D

There's so much wrong with these statements that I can't even begin to point it out.

Perhaps because both of them are acting like women they don't get the male stability thing? :p :D
Let me go straight to the source: What's the statistics for divorce among ignorant douchebags???

LMAO... :D

I don't know, how many times have you been divorced, we'll add some up.

There's so much wrong with these statements that I can't even begin to point it out.

Really? Go look up divorce statistics in places that have all three types, like Sweden, then we'll see who's right.

I'm almost to the point now where I believe that there should be no civil unions and no civil marriage - the state should have no interest in either one.

And DK slowly begins turning into a Classic Liberal/Libertarian...

With that in mind, you would think that Male&Male unions would last twice as long wouldn't you (like .25), but they don't, they break up only a combined 50% more often than heterosexual couples (so a .75). Perhaps because both of them are acting like women they don't get the male stability thing? :p :D
Well, that wasn't disgustingly stereotypical.