It'll also be interesting to see how much schadenfreude there is from the right. Not from you specifically - you've already said you're not rejoicing over it. But I'd be surprised, nay shocked, not to see some rejoicing.

On the other hand, I tend to think you may be right that, at least AT FIRST, as gay marriage becomes available in various places, many gay couples will get married simply because they now can. But remember, gay couples are practically immune to one of the reasons straight couples get married when maybe they shouldn't - because they got pregnant without intending to.

Perhaps gay marriage will eventually approach a similar failure rate to the current 50% or so for straight marriages, but I doubt very much that it will surpass it.

Not sure, Beeeej. I heard a statistic once (need to find it) that the average gay relationship - marriage, S.O. or whatever - lasts 1/3 as long as the average straight one.

I say this as a civil union supporter.

my sister-in-law and her partner got together in Highschool and they are 51 and 53 respectively now.

We're happy for 'em.

My wife and I got together in High School and we're 47 and 46, respectively.
Got a point?

Send my congratulations, Doug, but I was talking about overall trends, not any specific individuals.

Do you argue with the stats that gay relationships tend to be more transient?

I wonder, though, what would/will happen once the external variables are on more even ground. I don't find it all that outlandish a concept that once marriage is an option for gay couples, more of them would seek permanent relationships and/or work harder at those they consider permanent. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the stats are "meaningless" with the inequality of external variables, but I think that inequality certainly makes their usefulness suspect.

I also agree that the plural of anecdote is not data, though I'm certainly pleased for your in-laws, Doug. As one of the Gingriches once said, nothing makes God happier than when two people, any two people, c o m e together in love.

(Your blog's forbidding some pretty bi zarre text strings, Mitch.)

Beeeej,

Re the first point - while I agree that *married* gays will probably fall much closer to societal averages than unmarried ones, there is (according to Camille Paglia among others) a current to gay (especially male gay) life where promiscuity is a key part of the culture, and the notion of extended relationships is anathema. This may be part of "gay counterculture", of course, and could change over time, but Paglia et al were writing about today...

And yes, my spam blocker paints with a hammer. I am hoping to change blog tools this weekend and hopefully be done with it all.

"Got a point?"

Yes Kermit, I do.

Mitch asked,

"I'd be very interested in seeing what the mean duration of gay "marriages" is."

The only way to achieve an average measure is to count, something that may be dificult for you I'm sure but none the less, I offered one example.

"count, something that may be dificult for you "

In return, I will suggest something that seems anatomically improbable as well.

Touche, Monsieur Berg.
Doug, reference Beeeej's point. Comparing Hetro marriage to two gay men in a commited relationship is like comparing apples to mushrooms.
(Sorry, that image was just to strong on a prior thread.)

Dougie-boy's problem isn't necessarily with counting. Only telling the truth. Ain't that right Mister Poll Observer?

So there are two more lonely, disfunctional single women in the world. Hubba Hubba! Guess my trip to the Ukraine is off.

Terry, Dude (?), didn't you catch that they are in a Committed Relationship?

Kermit boasted: "My wife and I got together in High School and we're 47 and 46, respectively."

Yeah, Doug. I attended their reception down at the volunteer firehouse in May. They were both just as proud as they could be of theird new GED certificates. Congrats, newlyweds!

Davey,

We've ben down this road about a dozen times. I never said I was an oficially registered poll observer.

I said I was a volunteer for MoveOn. I inaccurately stated in one post that I was "observing". I was called on it. I clarified what I meant and the rest of the world went on with their lives.

You on the other hand...

Mitch, you said,

"Do you argue with the stats that gay relationships tend to be more transient?"

First of all let me say I know a lot of gay men and women - both single and in committed relationships. What I do know that in relationships where there are children, domestic partner benefits like health insurance and retirement, shared investments like home ownership etc. etc. etc... the things that go beyond just saying "I do", the rate of couples staying together is MUCH higher.

I have to leave for work but will continue later...

"I know a lot of gay men and women - both single and in committed relationships...in relationships where there are children, domestic partner benefits like health insurance and retirement...the rate of couples staying together is MUCH higher."

Which both dodges the question *and* agrees with me.

Angryclown babbled: "Yeah, Doug. I attended their reception down at the volunteer firehouse in May. They were both just as proud as they could be of theird new GED certificates."

Actually it was the VFW Post in Hamel, MN. a few years after we both graduated from Wayzate High School. Next time you watch the Cowboys play check out Marion Barry III. He's a Wayzata alum too. So is our future US Senator Amy Klobutcher (sic) and the children of former US Senator Rudy Boschwitz.

I don't think that the duration of a marriage is relevant. The key question is: Should it be the government's job to endorse personal relationships of one kind over another?

I'm a small-government person that finds the entire concept repugnant.

Michael, ask that question in twenty years when Eurostan adopts Shari'a law.
Population is critical.

Mitch asked: "Do you argue with the stats that gay relationships tend to be more transient?"

Stats? Sweet baby Jesus, tell me you're not making with the spreadsheets again!

Though I'm sure everyone will be interested in your findings that 96.7 percent of gay guys prefer men to women.

"The key question is: Should it be the government's job to endorse personal relationships of one kind over another?"

Let's say "no". I, who adhere to the same definition of "marriage" that that overwhelming majority of people on earth (to say nothing of the US) do, do not want that definition changed by government fiat.

Let people form any contractual relationship they want. For that matter, let them find a church that can theologically justify gay "marriage", if you assume "marriage" is a primarily religious construct, and call it square.

In fact, pass any laws you want regarding domestic partner benefits - and be ready for the unintended consequences (the devaluation in the market of those benefits as they become accessible by a wider variety of situations).

Limiting government cuts both ways on this issue.

"The key question is: Should it be the government's job to endorse personal relationships of one kind over another?"

Sorry, Mitch. The answer is Absolutely. Just look at the devastation in American black communities being wrought by the lack of two-parent homes and teenage motherhood.

Kermit-
Agreed. if the state is to have any interest in the future of the US as a nation -- if it is to not be a mere referee in contract disputes between individuals as the libertarians want it to be -- then it will have an interest in the institution of marriage. And a lot of other things, besides.

"Which both dodges the question *and* agrees with me."

It's not dodging the question. The point was that when, er, I mean, IF gay couples are given the same incentives, benefits, perks, and reasons for staying together, in all likelihood, would see a dramatic increase in the longevity of the relationship - more on par with that of straight relationships.

Would it ever match that of straight marriage?

Maybe not but it's certainly not because gays are inherently incapable of committed relationships.

I doubt that you believe this Mitch but you can't deny that there is a wide societal perception that gay men are incapable of monogamy.

To your question, "Do you argue with the stats that gay relationships tend to be more transient?"

Nope. I don't argue with the stats at all but citing statistics without asking the questions why is kinda pointless don't you think?

I'm reminded of the argument that blacks kids are inferior to white kids because they have lower grades in school.

For anyone interested in the flipside to the couple Mitch cites, I would recommend looking at the relationship between Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. They were the first Lesbian couple married in California in 2004 and were together more than 50 years before tying the knot.

Doug said: "They were the first Lesbian couple married in California in 2004 and were together more than 50 years before tying the knot."

So if me and Mrs. Clown were lesbians, I coulda put off the whole wedding thing for *50 years*?

Another example of the special privileges the gays get from the librals in Congress!

AC, you need to be more sensitive to the plight of lesbians especially now when Israel is bombing them back to the stone age.

mature sex video clips mature sluts wife

masturbation tips stockings masturbation

masturbation tips stockings masturbation

lindsey lohan upskirt pics skirt up and panties down for spanking

lindsey lohan upskirt pics skirt up and panties down for spanking

lpga upskirt caught upskirt

tranny anal anal masturbation