Study finds gay unions brief

[Dark Capitalist]

Study finds gay unions brief
By Amy Fagan
Published July 11, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex "marriages."
The study of young Dutch homosexual men by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, published in May in the journal AIDS, mirrors findings of past research.
Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows.
Same-sex "marriage" has gained new attention since a Supreme Court decision last month struck down state laws against homosexual behavior. Conservative activists say they expect the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts to rule this weekend on whether to recognize homosexual "marriages."
The Dutch study — which focused on transmission of HIV — found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.
Earlier studies also indicated that homosexual men are not monogamous, even when they are involved in long-term relationships.

More (http://dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030711-121254-3711r)

[Bianconero]

Where's the point?

[Funky Monk]

I belive that most hetro sexual unions are quite brief now, it is the way of the modern relationship



Marriages are different as they are seen as a more legal bonding whereas i have no idea what the definition of union is. Perhaps only the longer unions would want to get married.

[Loknar]

I do not care if someone is gay or is they want to unionize with someone, however, marriage is for a man and woman.

[Mogwai]

marriage is for whomever wants it, be they hetrosexual or homosexual

[Unrelenting Steve]

marridge is a contract between two people, that also get them into some benifits like reduced inheritence tax and just normal tax (in most countries i think) So have maridge between men and women, and then something else that has exaclty the same benifects for gay people, call it a formal partnership contract insead of a marridge contract. i mean it means nothing to the state if a couple is two men or a hetrosexual paring, its two equal members of sociaty living slightly differnalty because they are "together", and therefore both should be offered the same benifits ect. or thats desrimination.

So basicly in all ways that marridge is relevant to the state, marridge between men and women and "marridge" between gay people is the same, so they should be treated the same, call it something differant if u want, desrimination is descrimination. marridge is "marridge" in the eyes of the state, so let people think its not marridge- or they should scrap marridge all together as it is byest and just call it a Special partnership contract (u think of a better name) and then just let people call it what they like, and disagree when other people call it what they dont think it is, like people do about everything. I mean u think a government seperated from the church would be more analitical in its structure by now.

[Unrelenting Steve]

sorry i should just say, the second part of my second paragraph applies if the law has marridge defined between a man and a women, then "marridge" should be scraped and they should call it something diferant that is more general.

[Hampton]

We can all see how well the male-female marriage rate is going with a 50% divorce rate in America.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 9 2003, 07:17 PM
A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average...
Please define what this study means by "relationships".
Since gay marriage is mainly outlawed, it would be impossible to contrast the length of homosexual and heterosexual marriages in a single society.

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 10:09 PM
We can all see how well the male-female marriage rate is going with a 50% divorce rate in America.
the majority of the 50% divorce rate in the US is marriages where the 2 partners have been married and divorced from other people before. Generally first marriages last whereas multiple marriages generally fail. The 50% divorce rate is playing with statistics because it causes people to assume they have a 50% chance of being divorced.

The length homosexual relationships last compared to marriages is an unfair comparison because marriage gives the sense of a legal bond, and countries where marriage is legal haven't had it long enough to make an adequate comparison. While it is recognised that the mass promiscuity in the homosexual community is 1978 probably spread HIV to prominance, it was really pot luck that it happened in this way with the strain of the virus in the US which infects rectal cells easily as opposed to vaginal cells.

[Loknar]

Steve, marriage is a religious thing for the most part. What you are describing is merely the benefits of getting married. However, marriage is a sacred thing and we are a religious nation compared to most on that issue. I do not mind Gays getting the exact same benefits of a marriage (that includes insurance, life making choices, inheritance ect) however they should never be married in the same sense like a man and a woman are. Let them unionize, I do not care, but never call it a marriage, marriage as prescribed by God in the bible (if you believe that sort of thing) was originally meant between a man and woman.

[Unrelenting Steve]

its just a word, yes that word is written in the bible, let people use watever words they want, at the end of the day people will think want they want acording to watever they believe. Ur definition of marridge may not be someone elses, dont force ur definition on someone else, just believe them incorrect- that is how u say....tolerance, the main pillar of the free democratic sociaty.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by Unrelenting [email protected] 10 2003, 09:53 PM
its just a word, yes that word is written in the bible, let people use watever words they want, at the end of the day people will think want they want acording to watever they believe. Ur definition of marridge may not be someone elses, dont force ur definition on someone else, just believe them incorrect- that is how u say....tolerance, the main pillar of the free democratic sociaty.
It is more than a word and it has been a religious bond since the beginning of time.

Anyway, most of America does not support Gay marriage, many polls have shown this. I am all for tolerance, but a marriage is between a man and woman and most of America agrees.

[Unrelenting Steve]

I am all for tolerance but if your concepts or perceptions are not popluar I can force watever the hell I think is right on u.

Obviously marridge in the Christain sense is just between men and women, but what people think should be no concern of urs. And if you think that u can stop other people from getting "marrried" cause its imposible because their not man and women, then just dont believe them married and stop trying to enforce ur opinion on them, or then call urself a facist state and stop with all ur deception.
Marridge to them probably doesnt have very high religoes ramifications, so let them do watever they want, even if u think they dont know what marridge is, what does it matter, at the end of the day u are trying to force them to accept ur truth, which is intolerance, it doesnt matter what the polls say.
And if u truely believe that marridge has such extreme riligoes ramifications- then ur country shouldnt be institutionalizing it!!!!!!~seperation of church and state, either way ur hipocrates.

There is no such other contract that gay people can get bonded thru, so take the marridge contract away all together and have a special partnership contract applying to both sex's, and whoever wants to call it marridge can, and if u say that gay people cant, then ur intolerant. Or the government could keep the marridge title, and whoever thinks and vioces their opinions can, but u cant try to force them on other people, and at the end opf the day nothing is really that diff to the first course of action in this paragraph.


btw, I do not believe in tolerance and I am a Christain, but we r talking about ur system and its flaws. So dont think I am a atheist homo sexual- I belive in acertaining truth thats all.

[elijahcraig]

Marriage is for anyone who wants to get married. You uptight fools should just let your hidden feelings out and lay off the homosexuals.

[apathy maybe]

In a communist society there would be no need for the instiution of marriage.
It is a device for the economic well being of (originally) one of the partners and also of any offspring. Where all offspring would be cared for anyway, there is no need for such an instiution.

[Funky Monk]

I disagree. Marriage means more than an economic measure, at least to some people. It is also a solid commitment to your chosen partner, signifying that you wish to spend your life with them.

[elijahcraig]

No, since religion would not exist under communism, neither would marriage. "Commitments to chosen partner" does not need a marriage. People do not need a church to say "ok, now you're really together", they can decide whether to be together or break up without that illogical waste of time.

[Funky Monk]

Yes but marriage does not need church. Marriage is not a religious instituion anymore.

[elijahcraig]

What is the point of marriage? There is no need for it.

[Funky Monk]

What is the point of anything?

It is an affirmation of vows which some couples may seem as significant and important

[elijahcraig]

Many people also think going to church on sunday and wasting their time is important. It's not. These things are useless actions which can be cut out of life under communism.

[Funky Monk]

Who are you to define useless? To some people church provides solice, an uplifiting experience, the will to progress through life and something to confess their problems to. I think these sorts of things are vital to allow most people to face life. You cannot condemn something you dont understand as useless.

[elijahcraig]

Are you a Marxist? Maybe you should go read something and come back and talk to me. Because all this "solice" nonsense is really non-Marxist in essence.

[Funky Monk]

Sorry, but im not a Marxist. I just belive in a purpose for religion. As Marx once said, Religion is the oppiate of the masses and for that reason i think it should prevail. People dont cope well without something to calm then and therefore i think that religion is essential for the well being of the populace.

[elijahcraig]

Marx used that in the sense that religion would die out when the depressant and pain killer of opium is no longer needed to stop pain. Meaning oppression breeds religion. Under communism, there is no opression. Hence, no religion, no need. He also uses it in the sense that religion depresses the masses, give them "solice", and they do not become militant, they stay in their complacent seats, and stay oppressed. Religion is the enemy.

[Loknar]

Steve,

perhaps you're right, maybe we should allow gays to marry and maybe I should keep my mouth shut. However one thing I will always believe is that the churches have the right to decide if they want to marry or unionize Gay couple. (on a side note I wish the Gays would stop rubbing their sexuality in my face and keep their own mouths shut. When you watch their parades it’s shocking that grown men dress like ferries and butterflies)

The majority issue. in 1850 a French writer traveled to America and wrote a book on is. Despite our Democracy he wrote that the minority are typically subject to the "tyranny of the majority". Of course this is true anywhere and it is actually natural and expected. So with this in mind I would not hold America to any particular high standard. We simply tolerate each other but we will tall each other how sick we are of them.

elijahcraig

Marriage is a vow you take to spend the rest of your life with the person whom you have fallen in love with. Would you rather be in a Communist society and be assigned a wife by the state? Like it or not any population subjected to Communism has a religious background and typically that will have a large roll in deciding morality. Marriage I suppose is useless for all practical purposes but for emotional purposes people prefer to proclaim that they are married. That is what a marriage ceremony is, a public declaration that they are married and wish to spend the rest of their lives together.

[elijahcraig]

It has nothing to do with "assignment by the state", it is getting society to the level where they can voluntarily choose to stay with a partner forever, leave if they want, etc. without having to be bound by the collective morality of the society. Just like now, some stay together their whole lives. Do they have to get married to do this? No. The only reason people get married is to join in on the collective morality of the religious nonsense of the society. We don't need this in communist societies. Though, it is quite possible that some sort of union could be provided for the idiots. Religion has no place in communist society, destroying it gradually is a goal which should be accomplished.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

I wish the straights would stop rubbing their sexuality in my face and keep their mouths shut.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by Regicidal [email protected] 11 2003, 06:17 AM
I wish the straights would stop rubbing their sexuality in my face and keep their mouths shut.
Uh, we do. Do you see Strait pride T-shirts? Parades?

[elijahcraig]

No, they don't need "Straight people shirts". But they also enjoy the comfortable lifestyle of conformity and acceptance. Gays do not. Seeing a man and a woman hold hands may be disgusting to a gay person...it may not be. The point is, overcoming this nonsense is essential.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

Your entire popular culture revolves around straight sexuality.
Just try switching on the tele, it&#39;s like a 24/7 Straight Pride parade... <_<

[suffianr]

Your entire popular culture revolves around straight sexuality.
Just try switching on the tele, it&#39;s like a 24/7 Straight Pride parade...

Er, that&#39;s because it&#39;s &#39;mainstream&#39;. From a sociological perspective, you can&#39;t really avoid that, because even the most basic units of society still see heterosexuality as the norm. You can preach understanding and tolerance, but don&#39;t expect too much from television...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Loknar+Aug 10 2003, 10:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Loknar @ Aug 10 2003, 10:53 PM)
Unrelenting [email protected] 10 2003, 09:53 PM
its just a word, yes that word is written in the bible, let people use watever words they want, at the end of the day people will think want they want acording to watever they believe. Ur definition of marridge may not be someone elses, dont force ur definition on someone else, just believe them incorrect- that is how u say....tolerance, the main pillar of the free democratic sociaty.
It is more than a word and it has been a religious bond since the beginning of time.

Anyway, most of America does not support Gay marriage, many polls have shown this. I am all for tolerance, but a marriage is between a man and woman and most of America agrees. [/b]
I just wanted to point out to everyone how stupid this post is. I woun&#39;t even make a comment. Judge for yourselves.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF+Aug 11 2003, 09:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (COMRADE RAF @ Aug 11 2003, 09:53 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 10:53 PM

Unrelenting [email protected] 10 2003, 09:53 PM
its just a word, yes that word is written in the bible, let people use watever words they want, at the end of the day people will think want they want acording to watever they believe. Ur definition of marridge may not be someone elses, dont force ur definition on someone else, just believe them incorrect- that is how u say....tolerance, the main pillar of the free democratic sociaty.
It is more than a word and it has been a religious bond since the beginning of time.

Anyway, most of America does not support Gay marriage, many polls have shown this. I am all for tolerance, but a marriage is between a man and woman and most of America agrees.
I just wanted to point out to everyone how stupid this post is. I woun&#39;t even make a comment. Judge for yourselves. [/b]
Is it because I said “since the beginning of time? I just realized my error there. Is that what you are referring to?

[Unrelenting Steve]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 03:15 AM
Steve,

perhaps you&#39;re right, maybe we should allow gays to marry and maybe I should keep my mouth shut. However one thing I will always believe is that the churches have the right to decide if they want to marry or unionize Gay couple. (on a side note I wish the Gays would stop rubbing their sexuality in my face and keep their own mouths shut. When you watch their parades it’s shocking that grown men dress like ferries and butterflies)

The majority issue. in 1850 a French writer traveled to America and wrote a book on is. Despite our Democracy he wrote that the minority are typically subject to the "tyranny of the majority". Of course this is true anywhere and it is actually natural and expected. So with this in mind I would not hold America to any particular high standard. We simply tolerate each other but we will tall each other how sick we are of them.

elijahcraig

Marriage is a vow you take to spend the rest of your life with the person whom you have fallen in love with. Would you rather be in a Communist society and be assigned a wife by the state? Like it or not any population subjected to Communism has a religious background and typically that will have a large roll in deciding morality. Marriage I suppose is useless for all practical purposes but for emotional purposes people prefer to proclaim that they are married. That is what a marriage ceremony is, a public declaration that they are married and wish to spend the rest of their lives together.
Tyranize them as much as you want, just like they will tyranize you in their openly chosen state. But making law to hinder what they would like to do that should not concern you -as that action is not physicaly opressing you in any way- is intolerance. But I agree with that french guys assessment, I have always said that in democracy the only certainty is that only the majority will never be opressed, even when your constitution says differnant. And obviously churches have the right to marry whoever they want, just like I should be able to hire whoever I want.

[Unrelenting Steve]

I am taking tyranize in the non facist meaning as in the same meaning it was presented by Loknar.

[Moskitto]

why not seperate the religious ceremony of marriage from the legal union of marriage. It disgusts me that in my country Christians may have 1 marriage ceremony in a church whereas Muslims need registry office ceremony as well as a muslim marriage ceremony in a mosque.

Of course those who marry in church will grumble about having to marry in a registry office as well, but so what? I&#39;d consider the church part the seperate bit, this way couples who want to get married can have whatever ceremony they want, be it a christian ceremony or bungee jumping followed by 15 pints down the pub. Or even better, someone from the registry office can attend the ceremony they have, no matter where it be.

This also gives homosexuals the right to marry, since church groups can&#39;t object on the basis of "vows under a god who hates homosexuality" all couples have to do is declare their commitment to one annother, and it&#39;s a marriage, vows under god can also be used if the couples want, and certainly I don&#39;t expect churches to accept being forced to allow homosexual marriages, then again I don&#39;t imagine couples wanting get married in a ceremony in a church which doesn&#39;t accept their lifestyle.

[ONE]

I agree with Funky Monk, marriage does not need a church or a religious institution nowadays.

elijahcraig, So in a communist state, people can just live with each other, have kids and then move on whenever they want and impromptu? You are linking marriage to church too much. This is no longer the case. People can just go to court and get married.

In terms of Gay marriages, maybe they can use some other term since "marriage" is taken. :P I don&#39;t like the idea much, just because I think it&#39;s stupid, but if they want to be married then oh well... In marriage, there is constant referral to the terms husband and wife; who will be who in a gay marriage? Are they going to adjust all documents to take out any references to husband and wife? What terms will they use instead? will these terms be used to a heterosexual marriage? If so, then they should make their own documents since heterosexuals might want to keep the traditional terms.... and if they will do that, they might as well call it something else...


Rocco: Hi, this is my husband Guido. I&#39;m his husband too&#33; :blink:

see what I mean? Stupid&#33; :P :D

But seriously though, I&#39;m not against granting them full rights. I would just rather see them use some other term.