What is so "sacred" about a 50% divorce rate among those married?

I had a heated discussion about the subject of gay marriage with a freeper relative of mine last night. Very disturbing. The relative is my uncle, died-in-the-wool Rwinger, and he basically spewed the standard anti-gay marriage rhetoric you hear from every other freeper: That gay marriage would destroy the sanctity of marriage. I asked him how some gay people across town whom you will NEVER see affect his own marriage with my aunt if they were to marry...whether it will effect the love he apparently has with my aunt. The question kinda caught him off guard, but he came back with "Well it would destroy the traditional concept of marriage."

So I mentioned the divorce rate in the US. You know. The 50% divorce rate among married couples. I asked him if he thought that divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage...according to the bible, of course. He began to hesitate longer in his responses and it was then I begin to see that glazed over look appear in his face. He was shutting down his brain and turning it on autopilot. He began to ramble about what did a liberal like me know about what the bible says and Jesus never said divorce was a sin. I agreed. But then I caught him finally with the remarriage thing! You see, my uncle has been married FOUR times!!! So I grabbed the family bible and had him read Luke 16:18 "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." I even mentioned that, according to biblical law, what my Uncle did by remarrying four times is equal to what Clinton did!

Oh that set him off! Again the lights went out in his eyes and you could see him switch into robot mode! He began blaming Clinton for EVERYTHING..spewing the standard Hannity/Limbaugh talking points and really had no individual input on the matter. But rather than waste any more of my time time arguing with this thing that used to be my Uncle Terry, I went outside and played with my little cousins...

Wondering what life is gonna be like for them in a house with the blinders on....

http://toughenough.org/2004/10/massachusetts-liberal-pride.html
For all the Bible Belt talk about family values, it is the people from Kerry's home state, along with their neighbors in the Northeast corridor, who live these values. Indeed, it is the "blue" states, led led by Massachusetts and Connecticut, that have been willing to invest more money over time to foster the reality of what it means to leave no children behind. And they have been among the nation's leaders in promoting a living wage as their goal in public employment. The money they have invested in their future is known more popularly as taxes; these so-called liberal people see that money is their investment to help insure a compassionate, humane society.

The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1.
http://toughenough.org/2004/10/massachusetts-liberal-pride.html

Oh, and gay marriages and civil unions in the US have a divorce rate of 0.6%

That's right, Zero Point Six Percent of gay marriages (or civil unions) in America end in divorce.

In fact, *both* gay divorces in the US made headlines for their NOVELTY.

Gay marriages in Denmark:
"The divorce rate among Danish homosexuals is only 17 percent, compared to 46 percent for heterosexuals."
http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/relationships/920

And 100% of gay marriages have lasted longer than Britney Spears' first marriage.

The real correlation is not so much state by state as it is age of marriage. The younger the couple is when they get married, the more likely the marriage is to end in divorce. Those statistics stay the same across the nation.

So, what you're seeing there is the fact that Massechusetts has the highest average age for marriages, while Texas (and most of the south) has a far younger average age.

I can provide the studies if needed, but can't recall the links off hand, and don't feel like searching at the moment...

Drew Garrett

Do you know the annulment rate in MA? It's probably higher than in most states (given the concentration of Catholics especially). I'm not suggesting that it is significant, but I'd be interested.

A civil annulment (like when the couple got married while falling-down-drunk, just after they met) is not the same thing as an annulment granted by Roman Catholicism or some other denominations (which is a judgement, more often than not, that the couple was psychologically incapable of making the marriage work, no matter how hard they tried). To file for such an annulment, which is granted by a church tribunal, you have to first have a civil divorce decree. So, any Roman Catholic (or other church) annulments would already count in the divorce rate.

What I'm more curious about (even though it may deflate some of the "blue states have less divorces" claim) is how they handle the (extremely frequent, I'd guess) cases where the marriage took place in one state and the divorce in another. For example, my ex and I lived in five different states during our marriage. We were married in Maryland and divorced in Washington. Which state does this fall under for statistical purposes? If you grow up and get married in Mississippi, then move to Massachusetts and wind up getting a divorce within a year after moving there, does that count as a "blue state" failed marriage or a "red state" failed marriage? The mind boggles...

Let 'em outlaw THAT!

..facts and logic tend to steam up some of the BushCo faithful.

"He began to ramble about what did a liberal like me know about what the bible says."

That shows how powerful the radical right's propoganda is.

like spousal abuse and child abuse. Marriages are a mess.

That you even went into a discussion with him.

My experience with them is nothing I can say will make them think. And it's also that they really *are* crazy, sometimes they get violently so. Why argue with a loon?

The mere mention of that name sends them off into paroxysms of dittoing out of context, and you've lost the opportunity to make them think about something, however brief it may be.

Honestly, when they start dittoing about Clinton they sound just like elderly relatives of mine who used to say Hail Marys when they'd have to walk past a bar, adult cinema, or dirty magazine store. It's their main defense against thinking.

When it comes to religion they don't ever think.

You made it personal to HIM so that he can relate to the discussion. It's understandable that he defended his postions and actions.

The kick is, you gave him personal information for him to chew on. You did the right thing by letting it drop. Seriously, you can NOT expect him to admit he is wrong. Trying to argue a "win"... Nope, the ego is at stake.

If it comes up again, just do the same thing and basicly don't argue. Just point out facts in connection with him self or someone you guys know and leave it at that. No need to aruge it till it's dead. That just pisses them off.

True change takes time. The worse it is, the longer it takes. Maybe never. At he has to have time to chew on the informaiton to the point that he forgets YOU pointed it out to him.

The issue itself is steeped in religious superstition, coupled with homophobia.

Homophobia is born from America's obsession with macho. My guess is homophobia also plays big in Spanish speaking cultures.

It's an issue because the right wing strategists are using these emotions (1) to energize the zealous and (2) in a new effort to wedge blacks away from the Democrats because of their similar homophobia.

This is a serious threat to us, obviously.

The only rational response on our part is to lose gay marriage, but fight for civil unions. That way we can shift the argument from the preposterous vision of a gay male in a wedding gown to the American principle of equal rights.

We must lose gay marriage because this country is not ready for it yet. If we don't lose gay marriage, we will surely continue to lose elections. This issue could become as potent against us as abortion has been for the past 30 years.

"Poltics is the art of the possible," said JFK. We mist fight for what is possible and reject what is not. If we do not, we lose everything.

you gotta know it

These are the weddings where thousands of Moonies are forced to marry strangers. Bush is a big supporter of Reverend Moon. He apparently thinks these cult weddings are somehow more sacred than a marriage between two devoted partners who happen to be the same gender.

Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate and was one of the first states to approve (at least temporarily) gay marriages. So, if you believe in correlations, gay rights actually strenghthen marriage!