FRC: Comparing the Lifestyles of sexual Couples to Married Couples

[jack sommerset]

Exactly.

Yup

Because several legal provisions are reserved for married couples.

Like what?

[ChumpDumper]

Yup

Indeed.

Like what?

A quick google gets a partial list:

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison


Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

As I said, some of these can be arranged legally, but what is the argument against giving gay couples those rights automatically if they are married like heterosexuals?

[exstatic]

Why is it that most of their data is about gay men yet they keep using the phrase "gay men and lesbians"? Monogamy and length of relationships are very different in lesbian relationships versus gay men.

A I once knew tried to explain this with a joke.

What do two Lesbians do on the second date?
Shop for furniture.

What do two gay men do on the second date?
What second date?

It's a gross oversimplification, but it shows that generally, Lesbians are monogamous, yet while snc's biased article reference gays and lesbians, it appears to use only gay data, and not the more strawman destructive lesbian data.

[Fabbs]

[SIZE="4"]
· relationship duration

RELATIONSHIP DURATION

Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than sexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male sexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.

These two are going on their 5th year.

[Fabbs]

· monogamy vs. promiscuity
· relationship commitment

Then again, they don't seem to be monogamous.

Could Pop, Finley and Bonner move to Utah and have a polygamous marriage? Would statistics show this polygamous marriage would have a better chance of longer duration?

[exstatic]

These two are going on their 5th year.

WIN

[ploto]

Wouldn't it be 'to whom'?

Indirect object.

[ChumpDumper]

Indirect object.

Yeah, it's not like "I called to you a dumbass" unless of course there was a comma after the a.

[Phenomanul]

Indeed.


A quick google gets a partial list:

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison


Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

As I said, some of these can be arranged legally, but what is the argument against giving gay couples those rights automatically if they are married like heterosexuals?

If available to heterosexual couples in Sweden and the Netherlands, which of these 'en lements' and provisions are denied to sexuals in those two countries...???

[exstatic]

You accused the OP authors of producing a "biased, insincere, etc." study.

That's not calling someone a name, it's critiquing their work.

[exstatic]

If available to heterosexual couples in Sweden and the Netherlands, which of these 'en lements' and provisions are denied to sexuals in those two countries...???

Fail. Reading comprehension fault. Nowhere in that block fo text does it say that those are rights of heterosexual couples. They are rights of married couples.

I'll give you one example of rights on that list that are different for unmarried couples, regardless of orientation, and married couples. If one partner were to go into the hospital, the other partner doesn't have visitation rights. With an unmarried person, their immediate family controls access to the patient, not the partner.

[ploto]

I have resisted for days posting this in this thread, but after not much sleep and feeling sick, my resistance is weak. Here it is:

[Phenomanul]

Fail. Reading comprehension fault. Nowhere in that block fo text does it say that those are rights of heterosexual couples. They are rights of married couples.

I'll give you one example of rights on that list that are different for unmarried couples, regardless of orientation, and married couples. If one partner were to go into the hospital, the other partner doesn't have visitation rights. With an unmarried person, their immediate family controls access to the patient, not the partner.

that is such a red herring... particularly in the context of the question I asked. Does the question bother you so much? I mean, you felt inclined to prematurely throw down the 'fail' card... Dude, I know you rarely agree with me on anything (except maybe our devotion to the Spurs), but that accusation was weak.

I'm asking whether or not there are provisions made available to heterosexual (married ) couples in Sweden... and Holland... that are not extended to the sexual community in those same countries. Constraints that would otherwise keep sexual couples from wanting to enter a marriage agreement in the first place - any factor which would help explain the dismal percentages of sexual marriages, despite the lack of legal hindrance in those nations. The article doesn't expound on that particular facet of the argument. I'm simply trying to show that the data subset from those two countries could be statistically relevant and valid, despite the incessant (and convenient) ploy to toss it all away...

[admiralsnackbar]

I'm coming into this late and have admittedly not read many of the intervening pages between this and the OP (thus potentially reiterating a by-now-tired point) , but even allowing that there is any truth to these statistics... what does it matter? Should demographics with high statistical failure rates in marriage be disallowed from marriage?

[Phenomanul]

I'm coming into this late and have admittedly not read many of the intervening pages between this and the OP (thus potentially reiterating a by-now-tired point) , but even allowing that there is any truth to these statistics... what does it matter? Should demographics with high statistical failure rates in marriage be disallowed from marriage?

I can't speak for others... but personally I'm not trying to make the argument that the data shows why we shouldn't let sexuals marry (or be en led to any of the other provisions extended to heterosexual marriages). I'm simply saying that some of the more relevant data doesn't paint a favorable picture for their cause.

Furthermore, I explained (for the umpteenth time) that Christianity doesn't hate sexuals.

Lastly, I defended my right as a citizen to influence the laws of the land with my vote. Everybody's vote counts. Whatever wins out, wins out. Specifically, I pointed to the fact that sexuals are not denied the right to vote - a poignant observation considering most voting is annonymous (i.e. the process doesn't care if someone has come-out-of-the-closet or not...) their vote should represent and reflect who they are...

[admiralsnackbar]

I can't speak for others... but personally I'm not trying to make the argument that the data shows why we shouldn't let sexuals marry (or be en led to any of the other provisions extended to heterosexual marriages). I'm simply saying that some of the more relevant data doesn't paint a favorable picture for their argument.

Furthermore I explained (for the umpteenth time) that Christianity doesn't hate sexuals.

Lastly I defended my right as a citizen to influence the laws of the land with my vote. Everybody's vote counts. Whatever wins out, wins out. Specifically, I pointed to the fact that sexuals are not denied the right to vote - a poignant observation considering most voting is annonymous (i.e. it doesn't care if someone has come out of the closet or not...) their vote should represent what they want.

Coming after your last post, I can understand that you may believe my own last post was a criticism of your own -- just wanted to formally say this is not the case.

All your points are well-taken, I was only expressing a difficulty in seeing 18 year-old heterosexuals choosing to marry having any higher success-rate in the long-term than whatever sample group is being used to stand in for sexual marriages in the OP's study.

If the data were just out there as a factual artifact, I wouldn't care all that much, but given that the clear subtext in light of recent board discussions is to justify excluding sexuals from marriage, I think it's worthwhile to ask why certain demos of the heterosexual population should be above the same criteria, and further, whether the state has the right to decide whether it should grant marriage only to those whose probability for success falls within X thresholds.

[BacktoBasics]

that is such a red herring... particularly in the context of the question I asked. Does the question bother you so much? I mean, you felt inclined to prematurely throw down the 'fail' card... Dude, I know you rarely agree with me on anything (except maybe our devotion to the Spurs), but that accusation was weak.

I'm asking whether or not there are provisions made available to heterosexual (married ) couples in Sweden... and Holland... that are not extended to the sexual community in those same countries. Constraints that would otherwise keep sexual couples from wanting to enter a marriage agreement in the first place - any factor which would help explain the dismal percentages of sexual marriages, despite the lack of legal hindrance in those nations. The article doesn't expound on that particular facet of the argument. I'm simply trying to show that the data subset from those two countries could be statistically relevant and valid, despite the incessant (and convenient) ploy to toss it all away...

I see what you're saying but in a case like Sweden or Holland the battle has changed from wanting equal rights to society accepting them and those equal rights. Its too soon to use statistics from "legal" places for comparison to long standing traditional marriage. Some couples, although legally accepted, still remain in the closet due to existing bigotry. They still fight a massive up hill battle. There's still discrimination. Still fear. Run those some stats 15 years from now. They'll be hugely different. This is specifically why its irrelevant. You can't get an accurate assessment because its way too soon and the discrimination has only begun to subside...if much at all.

I know how you guys hate when I do this but not every black man exercised their full rights when they were granted freedom. It took time for all of society to accept not just them but their rights.

[BacktoBasics]

If the data were just out there as a factual artifact, I wouldn't care all that much, but given that the clear subtext in light of recent board discussions is to justify excluding sexuals from marriage, I think it's worthwhile to ask why certain demos of the heterosexual population should be above the same criteria, and further, whether the state has the right to decide whether it should grant marriage only to those whose probability for success falls within X thresholds.

They're above that criteria for now. Because they're still discriminated against and even where legal there are still life altering ramifications for exercising their newly acquired rights.

Obtaining equal rights is just the first step in acceptance. It doesn't automatically change things over night. Only time can help at that point.

[Phenomanul]

I see what you're saying but in a case like Sweden or Holland the battle has changed from wanting equal rights to society accepting them and those equal rights. Its too soon to use statistics from "legal" places for comparison to long standing traditional marriage. Some couples, although legally accepted, still remain in the closet due to existing bigotry. They still fight a massive up hill battle. There's still discrimination. Still fear. Run those some stats 15 years from now. They'll be hugely different. This is specifically why its irrelevant. You can't get an accurate assessment because its way too soon and the discrimination has only begun to subside...if much at all.

I know how you guys hate when I do this but not every black man exercised their full rights when they were granted freedom. It took time for all of society to accept not just them but their rights.

Now you want to move the 'goal posts' simply because of speculation...?

While what you said may have some merit, that legislation in Sweden was passed over two decades ago..! The sexual community has been granted the same rights... I've yet to read articles that prevalently show that 'straight' people in those countries are abusive of their sexual counterparts... any massive beatdowns? slayings? to substantiate that fear...?

No... this last attempt is just another in a long string of arguments to help justify your cause. As I explained to Duff earlier, it is far more convenient for you to assume that Christians actually hate sexuals because that makes it easier to justify your rejection of our beliefs. But if you must know... the actions of a few zealots don't define our doctrine.

[Blake]

I'm simply saying that some of the more relevant data doesn't paint a favorable picture for their cause.

I have yet to see any relevant data that "doesn't paint a favorable picture for their cause."

If anything, the data from the Netherlands paints a pretty favorable picture for their cause.

[Blake]

: Constraints that would otherwise keep sexual couples from wanting to enter a marriage agreement in the first place - any factor which would help explain the dismal percentages of sexual marriages, despite the lack of legal hindrance in those nations....

what dismal percentages are you referring to?

[BacktoBasics]

Now you want to move the 'goal posts' simply because of speculation...?

While what you said may have some merit, that legislation in Sweden was passed over two decades ago..! The sexual community has been granted the same rights... I've yet to read articles that prevalently show that 'straight' people in those countries are abusive of their sexual counterparts... any massive beatdowns? slayings? to substantiate that fear...?

No... this last attempt is just another in a long string of arguments to help justify your cause. As I explained to Duff earlier, it is far more convenient for you to assume that Christians actually hate sexuals because that makes it easier to justify your rejection of our beliefs. But if you must know... the actions of a few zealots don't define our doctrine.

Hate crimes are still alive and well in areas where gay unions are legal. Its still a large issue.

Do I need to "google" examples of hate crimes and stats in say Sweden to back this up or can we agree that crimes against gays is still prevalent in most if not all areas of the globe.

I'm willing to google hate crimes in Sweden if I need to.

I want to move the goal posts because I don't believe its fair to compare a group of people that represent traditional marriage in a world that has not just granted them free will to do as they please but is also the norm for acceptance. While the other group of people are targets for discrimination and bigotry who haven't fully been granted the same free will.

Legal or not gay unions are still the target of discrimination.

[Phenomanul]

I have yet to see any relevant data that "doesn't paint a favorable picture for their cause."

If anything, the data from the Netherlands paints a pretty favorable picture for their cause.

How so? Dismal percentage of marriages amongst those in the sexual pool? I guess it shows they really wanted to get married... right? I mean they fought really hard to obtain that right, only to ignore it after it was granted? Yeah, favorable argument indeed.

[Phenomanul]

what dismal percentages are you referring to?

Read the article...

[Blake]

If available to heterosexual couples in Sweden and the Netherlands, which of these 'en lements' and provisions are denied to sexuals in those two countries...???

you mean outside of marriage?

sexual couple in the Netherlands now can adopt kids like heterosexual couples.

there's more, but one 'en lement' is enough.