Same-sex Marriage.

[_Runtu]

If Schumm's critique of the methodology is correct, I'll gladly repudiate the Hatzenbuehler study. I'll take a look more carefully when I have time.

In the meantime, can we all agree that the Vermont and Sweden studies show that gays are more likely to enter into legal, committed relationships when the opportunity is presented? Further, can we also agree that the Dutch study, which explicitly excluded gay men and women who were in committed relationships is irrelevant to the study of commitment levels among gays and lesbians? And finally, can we also acknowledge that comparing the length of heterosexual marriages to the length of unmarried gay relationships tells us nothing about commitment of gay couples?

If we can agree on all those, which the data clearly support, perhaps it will make sense to dig more deeply into a single study about Oregon communities.

[_wenglund]

I'm always willing to acknowledge when I make mistakes and change my opinions accordingly. For example, I used to believe that, given the opportunity, gay men and women would not be interested in committed, long-term relationships, but the data from Vermont, Sweden, the Netherlands, and elsewhere shows that to be a mistaken belief. Therefore, I no longer believe that gay men and women are less likely to enter into committed relationships (especially when they are recognized by the law) than their heterosexual counterparts; in fact, the data cited by Wade shows the opposite to be true.

I'm glad that Wade gave me the opportunity to look at the real statistics and re-evaluate my earlier, mistaken belief.

I am pleased to have been of service.

For my own part, I never doubted that there were many gay couples who have entered into committed relationships, even where legalized. What I have questioned is whether they were as willing as heterosexuals to enter into legal committed relationships, and whether their legal committed relationships were as long-lasting as heterosexuals.

I look forward to Runtu demonstrating that homosexuals are actually more willing than heterosexuals to enter into legal committed relationships, and that their relationships are longer-lasting than heterosexuals. It should prove informative.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I look forward to Runtu demonstrating that homosexuals are actually more willing than heterosexuals to enter into legal committed relationships

That's already been shown by your own statistics from Vermont and Sweden.

and that their relationships are longer-lasting than heterosexuals. It should prove informative.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not making that claim, Wade. We don't have any real data on that. What I do know is that the data you cited did not demonstrate that gay and lesbian relationships were shorter or less-committed than their heterosexual peers.

[_wenglund]

Neat rhetorical move (thanks again Makelekan). If you think that is what my first post meant, have fun.

However, what I was referring to was your overall mistaken position on the (you allege) deleterious consequences of homosexual people winning more tolerance. Each bit of evidence you bring forward gets knocked down by Runtu, but will you abandon your core position? No way. Given that, your concession that you may have made mistakes about individual bits of evidence doesn't count for a whole lot.

Even though you didn't admit to your mistake, I am glad to see that you have now backed away from your unqualified brick/accusation (i.e. "someone who you can never persuade that they might be mistaken"), and have constructed the new more qualified brick/accusation of "abandon your core position." Ironically, that was a neat rhetorical move. LOL

Since I haven't examined Runtu's claims about the Vermont et. al. statistics, that leaves us with the discussion about the Columbia Study and the Schumm critique of the Columbia study. I am sure Runtu would be pleased that you see him as having knocked down each bit of evidence I have presented, but for his own part, he is still open to considering whether the Schumm critique was correct about its technical concerns with the Columbia study (see his post dated Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:50 am). We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Let me be clear: Schumm's major concern about the Hatzenbuehler study is that the correlation between community support and lower rates of gay suicide is not as significant as the study purports. He's not denying a correlation but arguing over minor distinctions (such as the difference between 25 and 25.47). So, even completely discrediting the Hatzenbuehler study doesn't really affect the broader research. The studies the FRC cited, however, directly contradict their conclusions. That's a big deal.

[_wenglund]

That's already been shown by your own statistics from Vermont and Sweden.

I'm not making that claim, Wade. We don't have any real data on that. What I do know is that the data you cited did not demonstrate that gay and lesbian relationships were shorter or less-committed than their heterosexual peers.

Okay. Thanks, for clarifying.

However, before addressing your criticism of what was written within the FRC article, let's again be clear that I cited the FRC article in support of three of my individual claims:

1) That about 29% of homosexuals enter into committed relationships lasting more than 7 years.

2) That fewer still legalize their relationships where possible.

3) That 70 percent of heterosexual marriages last longer than 10 years.

If these statistics are incorrect, then I will gladly correct them. If they are correct, then, regardless of what may be misrepresented within the FRC article, the FRC citation is not problematic in terms of how I utilized it. Agreed?

Let's see if they are correct or not. And, once we have made that determination, then we can consider the internals of the FRC article for whatever purpose.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

1) That about 29% of homosexuals enter into committed relationships lasting more than 7 years.

If one doubts the FRC source FRC for this statistic(i.e. The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals), perhaps this finding from a study recently published by the California Center for Population Research, that was funded by such liberal entities as the Institute For Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, will bear some sway: "For example, the probability of a union lasting five years was .88 for marriage [opposite sex], .67 for different-sex cohabitation, and .37 for same-sex cohabitation." (See HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

2) That fewer still legalize their relationships where possible.

Parenthetically, In my article I recently put the rate between 6 and 25 percent depending upon the type of legalized relationship.

If you question the FRC's sources and calculations, then please consider the other sources I cite, including this from the National Review: "Heretofore at least, the answer seems to be “not really.” Since 1997, when Hawaii became the first state in the union to allow reciprocal-beneficiary registration for same-sex couples, 19 states and the District of Columbia have granted some form of legal recognition to the relationships of same-sex couples. These variants include marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and reciprocal-beneficiary relationships; and the most recent U.S. Census data reveal that, in the last 15 years, only 150,000 same-sex couples have elected to take advantage of them — equivalent to around one in five of the self-identified same-sex couples in the United States." (See [urlhttp://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299944/gay-divorcees-charles-c-w-cooke]HERE[/url])

The U.S. Census data mentioned in the NR article is likely the revised 2010 Census released in 2011: "The U.S. Census Bureau released today new statistics on same-sex married couple and unmarried partner households. According to revised estimates from the 2010 Census, there were 131,729 same-sex married couple households and 514,735 same-sex unmarried partner households in the United States." (See HERE)

There are indication within the Census Report that the term "marriage" has reference to same-sex couples who identify themselves as in a marital relationship, which would include all of the legal variants mentioned in the NR article.

However, by my count, the ratio of "married" to "unmarried" same-sex couple is 25% (1 in 4) as opposed to the approximated 1 in 5 mentioned in the NR artcle.

Even still, 25% is less than the 29%, and so my second claim stands.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

3) That 70 percent of heterosexual marriages last longer than 10 years.

If you question this FRC source for this statistic (i.e. 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics), there is this claim by a CNN reporter in 2011: "Three in four couples who married after 1990 celebrated a 10-year anniversary, according to census statistics reported Wednesday. That was a rise of three percentage points compared with couples who married in the early 1980s, when the nation’s divorce rate was at its highest." (See HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

However, before addressing your criticism of what was written within the FRC article, let's again be clear that I cited the FRC article in support of three of my individual claims:

1) That about 29% of homosexuals enter into committed relationships lasting more than 7 years.

As opposed to what percentage of heterosexual couples who don't marry?

2) That fewer still legalize their relationships where possible.

And even fewer still heterosexuals legalize their relationships where possible.

3) That 70 percent of heterosexual marriages last longer than 10 years.

And what percentage of gay marriages last that long? Oh, that's right. We don't have that number and won't for a few more years.

If these statistics are incorrect, then I will gladly correct them. If they are correct, then, regardless of what may be misrepresented within the FRC article, the FRC citation is not problematic in terms of how I utilized it. Agreed?

I don't think you understand, Wade. It's not that the statistics themselves are incorrect, but that they don't support the conclusions the FRC or you are making.

But if I'm wrong, please clarify: what do these statistics tell you?

Again, Wade, I don't think you're very good at statistical analysis. I don't mean to offend, but that's the only explanation I can think of for your continued belief that these three statistical measures support any kind of conclusion about the desire or ability of gay couples to legalize and maintain their relationships.