Same-sex Marriage.

[cacheman]

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-

Yes, I read that study, which I had thought about referencing here, as the author explained in detail the factors leading to these findings, such as social and legal barriers to commitment. As the data has shown repeatedly, when you give gay couples the option to marry, they are more likely than heterosexuals to marry, meaning again that an intelligent social policy would be to legalize gay marriage and thus increase the likelihood of relationship stability.

The author also indicated that his study necessarily relied on self-reporting/self-selection and had such a small sample size that it was difficult to make any broad conclusions. Furthermore, he noted that studies in Sweden and Norway had yielded rather different results from his, suggesting again that until large enough random samples can be collected, the statistics don't explain much.

[_Runtu]

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

The Vermont Study showed that 21% of gay adults married in the study's time period, while 14% of single heterosexual adults married, meaning that gay couples were half again as likely to marry than their straight counterparts. This data solidly refutes the FRC's conclusions.

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])

Can you tell me what percentage of single adult heterosexuals entered into marriage during that time and how that compares? If Vermont and Sweden are indicative, the rates among gays and heterosexuals are likely to be similar.

And as a regular reader of National Review, I recognize they aren't exactly an unbiased source.

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.

Again, Wade, you are not using comparable statistics. If you're going to do a comparison, you need to find statistics that measure comparable aspects of gay and heterosexual relationships. These don't.

Even if I accept your flawed comparison, a 4% difference is an indicator that gay people don't really want to get married, so they shouldn't be given the opportunity? As I've shown, when given the opportunity, the marriage rate among gay couples is higher than that of heterosexuals. All you've shown here is that, even given the current legal status of same-sex marriage in almost every state, gay couples are still motivated to engage in committed relationships in only slightly lower rates than heterosexuals who have no such legal barriers. Do you really think this shows a marked difference in the desire of gay couples to legalize their relationships? Surely, you can see that your claim isn't holding up well at all.

[_Kyle Reese]

Also, let's clarify - the Williams Institute is making a claim only in regard to the financial well being of SSM couples. They are not implying that these costs would be incurred by the government.

"The first point worth noting is that marriage can make a big difference for same-sex couples’ financial well-being. A few years ago, two New York Times reporters calculated that even ordinary same-sex couples could lose as much as $500,000 over a lifetime because they can’t marry and therefore can’t get employers’ spousal health insurance, among other disadvantages."

So the figures that they are relying upon, from the New York Times, may very well support their argument. But their claims are not the same as your claims.

To further clarify, the figures were trotted out by the NY Times and Williams Institute in support of government sanction of SSM, thus suggesting that the costs are a function of governmental action, thereby making them governmental costs.

However, I see your salient point, and I don't wish to contribute to obfuscation. And, so, I have made the appropriate changes--I have altered the title to the post in question and amended the relevant sentences to say, "...the total burden born by the government and the economy at large..." (see HERE)

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, that doesn't go far enough in my opinion.... more edits are needed to that whole section, that may substantially weaken your arguments.

Want to know more?

[_Darth J]

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-

Wade, I want you to say unequivocally that you read and understood this study, and that you think it supports a claimed "unintended consequence" of same-sex marriage. When I will explain why it is ludicrous for you to believe that this study somehow demonstrates "unintended consequences of same-sex marriage."

Whether you're shamelessly intellectually dishonest or simply have abysmally poor reading skills is a moot point. Either way, I'll just give you a head's up that this study in no way supports what you're attempting to assert. So please say first that you have indeed read it and think you understood it, before I show otherwise. That way, we can avoid further after-the-fact statements by you to the effect that, "I knew that, but you don't understand my point."

[Gadianton]

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.

I am confused. You claim that my conclusion isn't supported by my statistics, which suggests that you know what my conclusion is (how else would you know that it supposedly isn't supported?), but then you go on to ask (as If you don't know what the conclusion is):

what do these statistics tell you?

Truth is, in the post in question, I don't state any conclusions (except indirectly by saying, "Thus, all the hoopla yielded very little, if not disappointing results for those on the Left.") I leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.

However, were I to state my own conclusion, drawn from ALL the statistics I cite (and not just the three I listed in which I cited FRC), it would be that homosexuals are far less inclined than heterosexuals to end up in and stay in a legal committed relationship, including marriage, where permitted.

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.

Were the three statistics the only statistics that I used to draw my unstated conclusion, you may have a point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

Yes, I read that study, which I had thought about referencing here, as the author explained in detail the factors leading to these findings, such as social and legal barriers to commitment.

Were my very brief blog post to have addressed the question of "why" the disparity, rather than "what" is the disparity, you may have a point.

As the data has shown repeatedly, when you give gay couples the option to marry, they are more likely than heterosexuals to marry, meaning again that an intelligent social policy would be to legalize gay marriage and thus increase the likelihood of relationship stability.

We'll see.

The author also indicated that his study necessarily relied on self-reporting/self-selection and had such a small sample size that it was difficult to make any broad conclusions. Furthermore, he noted that studies in Sweden and Norway had yielded rather different results from his, suggesting again that until large enough random samples can be collected, the statistics don't explain much.

While Strom's study doesn't rationally warrant generalized dogmatic assertions, I am not sure that it is entirely useless to public debate. Given that his research "builds on" the "growing availability of data," and his findings on "survival probability for marriage is similar to that reported in Britain using vital records data (Wilson & Smallwood, 2008)," and "the direction and magnitude of the differential [in stability rates for the three types of relationships being studied] were "consistent with previous research (Andersson et al., 2006; Kalmijn et al., 2007), I believe one may reasonably employ certain of his finds in a preliminary sense, if not also, as the author says, a "suggestive" sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

The Vermont Study showed that 21% of gay adults married in the study's time period, while 14% of single heterosexual adults married, meaning that gay couples were half again as likely to marry than their straight counterparts. This data solidly refutes the FRC's conclusions.

Had I quoted the 14% figure in my post, then you may have a point. Whereas, if the Vermont study accurately show that less then 29% of homosexuals enter legalized relationships (as I claimed in my post), then the citation is not problematic for the purpose for which I used it. It is valid support for the specific claim I made.

This is all that I am attempting to demonstrate at this point. Once I have done so, we can look at alleged internal problems with the FRC source.

Can you tell me what percentage of single adult heterosexuals entered into marriage during that time and how that compares? If Vermont and Sweden are indicative, the rates among gays and heterosexuals are likely to be similar.

Were I to have cited the various sources in support of a comparative claim, rather than to substantiate a specific statistical claim about the number of legalized same-sex relationship, then your question may be pertinent at this time.

And as a regular reader of National Review, I recognize they aren't exactly an unbiased source.

If the issue currently under discussion was the lack or existence of bias, rather than the accuracy of my specific claims and the data supporting the claim, then your recognition may be pertinent.

Again, Wade, you are not using comparable statistics.

The issue, at this point, isn't whether the statistics are comparable (that is yet open to future debate), but whether my specific claims, and associated citation, were correct.

If you're going to do a comparison, you need to find statistics that measure comparable aspects of gay and heterosexual relationships. These don't.

We'll see.

Even if I accept your flawed comparison, a 4% difference is an indicator that gay people don't really want to get married, so they shouldn't be given the opportunity?

If my blog argued that same-sex couples shouldn't be given the opportunity to marry, let alone for the reason that gay people may not want to get married, then your question may have relevance.

As I've shown, when given the opportunity, the marriage rate among gay couples is higher than that of heterosexuals. All you've shown here is that, even given the current legal status of same-sex marriage in almost every state, gay couples are still motivated to engage in committed relationships in only slightly lower rates than heterosexuals who have no such legal barriers. Do you really think this shows a marked difference in the desire of gay couples to legalize their relationships? Surely, you can see that your claim isn't holding up well at all.

Once again, at this point in the discussion, what is at issue is whether certain specific claims of mine, and the citations associated therewith, are accurate or not.

When this is confirmed, I will be happy to move forward and examine alleged conclusions and comparisons.

You can save some time by stipulating to the accuracy of my claims and that my sources weren't problematic for the specific purpose for which they were cited.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

No, that doesn't go far enough in my opinion.... more edits are needed to that whole section, that may substantially weaken your arguments.

Want to know more?

Sure. I am open to considering opposing opinion, though I can't guarantee that I will agree with the opinion. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade, I want you to say unequivocally that you read and understood this study, and that you think it supports a claimed "unintended consequence" of same-sex marriage.

If I cited the study for the purpose of supporting a claimed "unintended consequence," rather than in support of a specific claim about the percentage of homosexuals who enter into committed relationships lasting more than 7 years, then your request might have pertinence.

Whether you're shamelessly intellectually dishonest or simply have abysmally poor reading skills is a moot point. Either way, I'll just give you a head's up that this study in no way supports what you're attempting to assert. So please say first that you have indeed read it and think you understood it, before I show otherwise. That way, we can avoid further after-the-fact statements by you to the effect that, "I knew that, but you don't understand my point."

If I thought you correctly grasped what the study was specifically intended to support, then I might be concern about your "heads up."

But, I appreciate the back-handed way you are looking out for me. What a guy!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kyle Reese]

Yet, using the figures reported by gay advocates, where benefits of same-sex marriage to gay couples are said to be as high as $500,000.00 over their lifetime (see HERE and HERE), and assuming optimistically that all 646,000 gay households (see HERE) become legally married, the total burden born by the government and the economy at large would be $323 trillion dollars, or nearly 100 times the 2013 federal budget (see HERE)

First point, why would you compare a 'lifetime' of costs for SSM couples to one year of the federal budget? Apples and oranges...

Second point, earlier I pointed out that the lifetime figure based on your source was closer to $467K instead of $500K...

Third point, I also pointed out that you should reasonably cut that figure down by at least $120K (minimum) or $184K (maximum) based on costs that were obviously out-of-pocket to SSM couples, and not government costs. And if you wanted to use you the conservative estimate from your source, the total lifetime cost to an SSM couple would be $41K.

Fourth point, and this is the most important - your math stinks. $500,000.00 x 646,000 households = $323 billion, not $323 trillion. using adjusted figures, the number would more realistically be $224 billion to $182 billion over a 'lifetime' or $4.48 billion to $3.64 billion per year (based on your sources estimate of 50 year span) (and once again, the conservative figure from your source puts the figures at $26.5 billion (lifetime) and $529 million (one year))