Having legal status makes same-sex relationships last longer

Published on August 27th, 2008

Five years after Vermont allowed civil unions, the first study to examine the experience has found that legalized same-sex couple relationships appear to be longer-lasting than those without a legal status.

“There are many ways that a legal couple status may support a relationship – more family understanding, acceptance by friends and co-workers, greater commitment that results from a public declaration, and enhanced legal protections in the form of healthcare benefits and community property,” said Robert-Jay Green. “The results of this first study on the topic suggest that same-sex partners who legalized their relationships in Vermont may have been more committed to each other or functioning better prior to obtaining a civil union—or that civil union status itself is helping to preserve their relationships . Future research will help clarify whether various legal statuses actually increase the likelihood that lesbian and gay couples stay together. ”

“In contrast to old myths about same-sex couples being deficient or less viable than male-female couples , this research project shows that same-sex partners who seek to legalize their relationships actually may be among the best functioning couples in this society,” said Green.

None of this surprises me. Simple empiricism, just looking around at the same-sex couples I’ve known for decades offers the same conclusion.

Some of this may eventually seep down into the cracks where professional moralists cluster.

66 users responded in " Having legal status makes same-sex relationships last longer "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Sea Lawyer said, on August 27th, 2008 at 8:58 am

I’m not sure what the point is other than saying that married people tend to stay together longer than unmarried people. Isn’t that generally true anyway? Just the fact that being legally tied to somebody creates a situation where it is now more inconvenient to break apart would explain part of this.

# 2 Peter iNova said, on August 27th, 2008 at 9:06 am

What if marriage of any kind were illegal, but cohabitation was not. How would that affect ANY relationship?

Without the possibility of societal or legal confirmation of a person-to-person commitment, it would not be surprising to see a much more casual attitude to pairing off, having kids and staying together.

# 3 Higghawker said, on August 27th, 2008 at 9:09 am

Homosexuals enjoy seeing information that somehow justifies their behavior problem?

# 4 Dave W said, on August 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am

You have to weigh in the fact that many (most?) of the same sex couples that get married when it first becomes legal have been together for many years already. I’d wager that opposite sex couples that have been together for many years and finally marry (often for financial reasons) show similar behavior.

Wait a few years, when quickie marriages and divorces are available in Las Vegas. It will make Brittany Spears look like Ike and Mamie!

# 5 Mister Mustard said, on August 27th, 2008 at 9:25 am

#3 – High Loogie

>>Homosexuals enjoy seeing information that
>>somehow justifies their behavior problem?

Behavior problem? WTF? How is their behavior a “problem”, other than in the minds of the Professional Moralists, whose lives are so barren that they seek gratification in trying to tell other people what to do?

# 6 becagle said, on August 27th, 2008 at 9:43 am

I found the part of the article that talks about the fact that the percentage of same-sex civil unions ending being greater than hetrosexual marrages more interesting even if the study considers the diffrence to be “not statistically significant”.

I would like to see a break-down of those percentages of those same-sex couples by gender, to see if male same-sex relationship lasted longer or ended more often than female same-sex couples.

# 7 QB said, on August 27th, 2008 at 9:46 am

Higghawker, I would agree. Marriage is completely abhorrent behavior.

# 8 Misanthropic Scott said, on August 27th, 2008 at 9:48 am

This makes sense for at least two reasons in addition to that stated in point #1.

1) People have more of an incentive to stay together when it costs money to split and requires lawyers.

2) In order to self-justify that they made the commitment in the first place, they will convince themselves that they made the right choice, which will involve staying together.

As for Higghawker’s comment in post #3, Mister Mustard has it right. Where the hell do you get off deciding what is and what is not a behavior problem? Do you see the way in your blind and unthinking faith in a stupid 2,000 year old book has clouded your vision? Damn!! Times change. Morality has improved a lot since people had to kill each other for wearing a mix of linen and wool or for not accepting Jesus as their king.

Get a freakin’ life!!

If the bible were the one true source of morals, how many of us would have to be publicly stoned to death for the high crime of working on the Sabbath? And, yes, carrying a bag of groceries will probably count.

At least if you need to believe in a load of horseshit try thinking about it enough to come up with a self-consistent version. ‘Do to others as you would have them do to you’ is not consistent with ‘homosexuals should be publicly stoned to death’. When you can think enough to recognize that ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is inconsistent with ‘death by stoning to anyone who breaks any of the commandments’, perhaps you will see the error of your ways. But, I doubt it.

# 9 Life_of_Brian said, on August 27th, 2008 at 10:00 am

Higghawker, how’s the therapy coming along?

# 10 QB said, on August 27th, 2008 at 10:07 am

Misanthropic Scott, I like the part in the bible about selling my daughter into slavery. Especially, after I get her cell phone bill.

# 11 Stinker said, on August 27th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Man, I am just laughing my a$$ off. If this actually makes the relationship stronger then it was pretty shallow to begin with.

There are 3 types of lies. Lies, Damned lies, and statistics.

# 12 Whatever said, on August 27th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

I’m gay and have been in a single relationship for 12 years now. We don’t plan to get “married” because in a way it would cheapen the relationship. Exactly as some have been saying, it would create a financial/legal hurdle to breaking up, meaning you’re more likely to stay together. That’s sick. That means you may be with someone not because you love them and choose to be with them, but just because it’s too difficult and expensive to leave them? Wow. I like the idea that after 12 years, my partner wakes up next to me because he WANTS to, not because he has to or it’s too difficult to chew his foot off and ‘escape’. Now if you have children or legal dependents, then some union makes sense just for legal reasons, but otherwise, marriage is bullshit. If you love someone, stay with them. If you don’t love them, you shouldn’t be tricked/forced into staying with them.

# 13 Misanthropic Scott said, on August 27th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

#10 – QB,

Clearly you must like that great urban legend of a letter alleged to have been sent to Dr. Laura. While the letter is likely just a legend, it does cite chapter and verse of the bible and probably brings up some of the more beautiful points of the total load of crap that is the number one best seller in all of history.

Letter to Dr. Laura

# 14 bobbo said, on August 27th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

I think any two people who have a shared experience, shared values, stay together longer than those who don’t whether they get married or not.

Gay people “in general” have the common experience of putting up with prejudicial fuckwits who judge their life style. If they didn’t show solidarity in various ways, they wouldn’t be hooman.

# 15 Dallas said, on August 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Who cares.

The legal status debate NOR the goal is about making same-sex relationships last longer. That’s just a happy coincidence by product.

Get real. The debate is maintaining and codifying bigotry and religious beliefs in law.

# 16 RBG said, on August 27th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

0 Eideard: “Some of this may eventually seep down into the cracks where professional moralists cluster.”

And maybe even the professional evolutionists too.

RBG

# 17 GregAllen said, on August 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Duh.

# 18 QB said, on August 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Misanthropic Scott. I have never seen that letter but I love it. Honestly I really don’t think much about Dr Laura since life is too short for that. However, she strikes me as a woman who needs an orgasm more than any white woman in history, with the possible exception Ann Coulter.

Maybe those two are made for each other?

# 19 bobbo said, on August 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

#16–RBG==I’ll bite. I can’t think of anything legitimately related to Darwin on this subject, so what have you got?

# 20 JimD said, on August 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Let’s not forget the marriage was INVENTED (cause there is nothing in Nature that requires marriage) as a means of passing property from one generation to another !!! So it’s a legal/religious construct based on PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, and let’s also not forget, that PEOPLE – WOMEN, CHILDREN, SLAVES were considered PROPERTY THAT PASSED FROM ONE GENERATIONAL “OWNER” TO THE NEXT !!! And because Laws were passed that advantage those “Married” against those Not Married, and since most marriages were performed in Churches, until the advent of Civil Marriages, gays were disadvantaged and discriminated against. So Gay Marriage seeks to reverse that, but comes with all the baggage of Marriage Contracts !!!

# 21 QB said, on August 27th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

JimD, there is actually a fair amount of interesting history around marriage. For example, it was not uncommon in the Roman empire for same sex couples to marry. It was made illegal around 340 (I’d have to look it up) by the Christian emporer (or emporers, it was a wacky time).

Also, historically there have been more laws specifying the terms for cohabitation rather than marriage since this was more common until recently (late 1800’s or so). It wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation that marriage laws really started to kick in.

# 22 pedro said, on August 27th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Empirical data for empirical ocservations

# 23 GregAllen said, on August 27th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

>> QB said,
>> For example, it was not uncommon in the Roman empire for same sex couples to marry.

Wait a doggone minute! The cultural conservatives swear that homosexuality has been condemned by all cultures for all time.

THEY WOULD NEVER LIE!

# 24 Paddy-O said, on August 27th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

From a biological standpoint, homosexuality is abnormal. There is no reason to get into morals.

There also seems to be a problem with the life expectancy of men who are homosexual. This is to be expected as that behavior doesn’t forward species propagation.

It is obviously an evolutionary dead end. But, that happens all the time with evolution.

# 25 bobbo said, on August 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

#24–Paddy==binary thinking is about the simplest, one or two steps above worms.

Trying viewing a few issues using “a continuum” model and you won’t be so judgmental. You’d lose all your current friends, that would be a good thing too would it not?

# 26 GregAllen said, on August 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

>> Paddy-O said,
>> From a biological standpoint, homosexuality is abnormal.

So is monogamy, abstinence and post-menopause. Should we outlaw those, too?

Here’s the bottom line for me:

Gay people are Americans and must have the same rights of all others Americans.

This includes legally marrying their partner, if they want to.

# 27 RBG said, on August 27th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

19 bobbo

You seem surprised as me when I first learned that humans and a few other animals, for some reason, evolved opposite sexes from its beginnings over a billion years ago.

But I guess that little fact shouldn’t be given any sort of special recognition since the idea of “discrimination” was invented a number of decades back.

RBG

# 28 bobbo said, on August 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

#27–RBG==binary thinking is about the simplest, one or two steps above worms.

Trying viewing a few issues using “a continuum” model and you won’t be so judgmental. You’d lose all your current friends, that would be a good thing too would it not?

But to be fair:==just read about “anything” on evolution and homosexuality and your dipodal view of the universe will be totally flushed. Or==continue to post from your sewer.

# 29 Mister Mustard said, on August 27th, 2008 at 5:46 pm

#26 – GregAllen

What you said. Don’t let the homophobes and hatemongers rule the day.

# 30 QB said, on August 27th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Paddy-O said: “From a biological standpoint, homosexuality is abnormal. There is no reason to get into morals.”

Oh give me a break. Have you actually spent any time around animals, especially herd or pack animals? Most bighorn sheep and elk are gayer than a dutch bassoon.

Dogs do it. Cats do it. Even little sheep who go “baaaa” do it.

# 31 bobbo said, on August 27th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Well, at first view, Paddy is correct.

Homosexuality is abnormal. As did Paddy, not talking about “natural” or “morals.”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abnormal

Main Entry:
1. ab·nor·mal
\(ˌ)ab-ˈnȯr-məl, əb-\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
alteration of French anormal, from Medieval Latin anormalis, from Latin a- + Late Latin normalis normal
Date:
circa 1836

: deviating from the normal or average : unusual, exceptional
— ab·nor·mal·ly Listen to the pronunciation of abnormally \-mə-lē\ adverb

Homosexuality naturally arises in hoomans across time and culture from 5-15% depending on how you define it. Only an idiot would claim it was a choice, although in prison that does seem the case.

I think it is fair to view homosexuality as a defect of the normative hetersexual process that constantly recurs without negative impact on the breeding population, but more recent studies suggest an accidental linkage of several genes resulting in homosexuality as also linked to greater overall fertility.

Still, all these issues aside, unless you think homosexuals aren’t human, and as long as their choices aren’t hurting you, whats the deal?

# 32 GregAllen said, on August 27th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

>> Mister Mustard said,
>> What you said. Don’t let the homophobes and hatemongers rule the day.

Thanks for the encouragement.

For me, it’s really that simple: gay people are Americans.

Our views about biology, sociology, religion, politics, etc are irrelevant to their equal rights as citizens.

# 33 RBG said, on August 27th, 2008 at 9:25 pm

30 QB. Interesting. So when a dog humps your leg, your view of cross-species sex is…

RBG

# 34 QB said, on August 27th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

I just drop kick them over the fence. But then I hear some people enjoy that kind of thing. Each to their own.

# 35 MikeN said, on August 28th, 2008 at 3:24 am

So it’s a good thing to strengthen one percent of relationships at the expense of 99%?

# 36 Mr. Fusion said, on August 28th, 2008 at 4:48 am

#18, QB,

However, she strikes me as a woman who needs an orgasm more than any white woman in history, with the possible exception Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter is well taken care of.

# 37 Mr. Fusion said, on August 28th, 2008 at 4:49 am

There is nothing wrong with being gay. Is there Lyin’ Mike?

# 38 Misanthropic Scott said, on August 28th, 2008 at 5:29 am

#36 – Mr. Fusion,

I can’t imagine why my office network blocks access to that link. I can’t wait to read it when I get home. It sounds rather amusing.

#35 – MikeN,

Um … What??!!? Are you really trying to tell me that you know of marriages so weak that they will fall apart because one or the other member sees a gay married couple walking down the street?

If not, just what the fuck are you talking about when you say “at the expense of 99%?”

In what possible way do you see that my 21 year marriage is going to be weakened when gay and lesbian couples are allowed the same rights I have? I’ve heard people say this flippantly before.

Let’s see if you can give a real argument of just how this is going to hurt the other (probably more like) 85-95% of marriages rather than the 99% you cite? Go ahead tell us. Please.

And when you do, why not also consider the possibility of searching Google Scholar for a nice psychological study that might back up the total bullshit you just spouted?

I’ll be back later to see how you do.

# 39 Paddy-O said, on August 28th, 2008 at 5:50 am

#26 “So is monogamy, abstinence and post-menopause. Should we outlaw those, too?”

Obviously, you have no idea what the word “moral”
means. I said, “There is no reason to get into morals.”

Look it up and you’ll answer your question… It appears that you are the one who is hung up on this behavior emotionally, not I.

# 40 MikeN said, on August 28th, 2008 at 5:57 am

Redefining marriage, which is what the push for so-called ‘gay marriage’ does, would change marriages, and is likely to have an effect on marriage as an institution. To say that your marriage or this marriage or that marriage would be effected isn’t the point. Not all marriages are the same, and it is the weakest that would be affected. It is like if you raise the price of chicken soup by 1 cent. Can you tell me you are not going to buy it over one cent? However, the laws of economics tell us that there are people who don’t buy because of that one cent price increase.

# 41 Paddy-O said, on August 28th, 2008 at 6:20 am

#26 “This includes legally marrying their partner, if they want to.”

Exactly, and so should polygamist’s, etc. I haven’t seen one post by you being upset about the
fate of polygamist’s in the U.S. Why? Didn’t you believe in equal rights?

And, I didn’t say anything about gay marriage. Why are you so worked up about my post?

# 42 QB said, on August 28th, 2008 at 6:45 am

I’m always curious how people arrive at the “definition of marriage”. Personally I see it as an historical artifact from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic (JCI) tradition. Sorry, but it really is one religious strain – the fact that they fight so much among themselves only confirms it.

There are differences of thought, but really the foundation of it is that the purpose of sex is procreation. Marriage is an institution designed to support procreation and the raising of children so they can procreate, and so on.

The whole thing hangs together at this point, but what if sex is not just for procreation? For example, if a couple is unable to have children should they have the right to marry? The usual argument is “yes” so they won’t live in a state of sin. It’s a weak justification, but there you go since there is always “hope” that children could miraculously show up – it’s called the Abraham argument.

The big “morality” argument that MikeN and others are poking at but won’t say out loud is that same sex couples have no hope of having children, therefore they shouldn’t marry. That whole argument is straining at that point since I know same sex couples with children. The JCI guys argue that those children aren’t “naturally occurring”, but according to that line of thinking children from outside a sanctioned marriage aren’t either. The whole thing gets pretty flimsy in a hurry.

The problem is that the whole definition strains unless you take a pretty dogmatic, puritanical view of marriage. This means that the church and/or state must tightly control who has sex and for what purposes through marriage. This conflicts pretty quickly with Western sensibilities and laws.

Personally I see this as a question of state and/or church control over sexuality at it’s core. The JCI tradition has focused on imbuing our society with a view that gay and lesbian sex should be illegal (or even better, immoral) and has built it into our thinking for about 1700 years. Other societies think differently (e.g. Greek, pre-Christian Roman, aboriginal societies, Buddhists, etc).

Fascists, communists, and other totalitarian state structures have arisen from the JCI schools of thought and suppress or terrorize gays and lesbians since, at their core, they are challenging state control. This no different than challenging church control – and I don’t care what the altruistic motives are.

Sorry for the long rant. One last thing that I find ironic about all this. This is really about personal rights vs. state control and that is primarily why gay and lesbians want to the right to marry. I get that. However, I’m no expert on this but it seems to me that marriage is kind of contrary to much of gay culture.

# 43 RBG said, on August 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am

42 QB. I think we all need to take a sober cue from #28 bobbo’s anti-binary “continuum” model in order to be less dipodal and seweragy to include marriage between the natural opposite sexes even when producing children is not or can not be the goal.

Or, I’m sorry bobbo, maybe you were extending that flexibility to marrying sheep & monkeys and other such weird arrangements as some cultures are wont to do.

(At this point I added a pile of funny examples of the latter but the DU filter insists upon filtering me out. So I bisected the post and now trying to disguise and add that list separately.)

Anyway: With enough support anybody can “marry” anything.

RBG

# 44 RBG said, on August 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am

Man mar-ries dog
1atinyurl.com/6kfx6vflipper
Selvakumar, a 33-year-old farm labourer from the southern state of Tamil Nadu, married the four-year-old stray bitch…

Man mar-ries goat
1anews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stmflipper
The goat died.

Man mar-ries horse
1atinyurl.com/575uwvflipper
Well, Jerry Springer…

Historical king mar-ries horse
1atinyurl.com/6de5rdflipper
“Sacred kings,” had to wed the local goddess of the land.

Girl mar-ries dog
1atinyurl.com/esj9flipper
“Members of the village jury asked us to get her married to a dog or to face the bad omen”

Woman mar-ries dolphin
1atinyurl.com/dwv9eflipper
“It’s not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He’s the love of my life,”

Woman mar-ries Eiffel Tower
1atinyurl.com/6cqns5flipper
A woman who has a bizarre fetish for inanimate objects…

Ellen mar-ries Portia
1atinyurl.com/6r78zcflipper

With enough support anybody can “mar-ry” anything.

RBG

Note: replace “1a” with “http://” in front of the link; remove the “flipper” at the end of the link and forgive the “mar-ries” as my attempt to circumvent the DU spam filter which would not let me post this.

# 45 Paddy-O said, on August 28th, 2008 at 10:40 am

#44 “forgive the “mar-ries” as my attempt to circumvent the DU spam filter which would not let me post this.”

DU won’t let you post the word marries ?

# 46 QB said, on August 28th, 2008 at 10:53 am

RGB said: “QB. I think we all need to take a sober cue from #28 bobbo’s anti-binary “continuum” model”

bobbo’s far more interesting when he’s not sober.

# 47 RBG said, on August 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am

45 Paddy-O. I bet they do allow “marry”. But at one point I was simultaneously trying multiple things (thinking “man marries dog” spam-like)in hopes of hitting the offending item. My guess is that you can’t have too many http:// in one post.

RBG

# 48 Misanthropic Scott said, on August 28th, 2008 at 11:45 am

#40 – MikeN,

OK, Mikey, let’s try this again.

How is even the weakest marriage of all or the institution of marriage affected, even in the slightest possible way by allowing gays to have their rights?

I claim there is no answer to this. It does not even have the effect of raising the cost of a case of soup by one cent, let alone raising the per can price by that much. The effect is quite simply non-existent. Go ahead explain what you believe the effect will actually be? Will a straight couple not marry? Will a bad marriage of a straight couple break up? What do you think the effect will be?

I claim there is no effect and you’re just blowing it out your ass.

# 49 Paddy-O said, on August 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am

So, to all those who support gay marriage (I could care less one way or another) do you support polygamy and “other” forms of marriage currently not allowed?

# 50 Misanthropic Scott said, on August 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am

#42 – QB,

I’ve had a vasectomy and have no children. What does this do to my 21 year and counting marriage? Would you outlaw it?

As for marriage coming from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology, bullshit in the extreme. People have been about as close as we are today to monogamy, i.e. pursuing a mixed reproductive strategy, for as long as humans have existed. Tribal peoples encountering technological civilizations only recently had all the pomp and circumstance around marriage that JCI society does, including marriages between tribes to avoid inbreeding. There is nothing unique about JCI marriages. Hindus, Buddhists, and many others have had marriages for many centuries as well. Nor does there need to be any involvement from any mythology for people to agree to spend their lives together.

Sorry. I think you have come to some highly western biased opinions.

# 51 Misanthropic Scott said, on August 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am

#49 – Paddy-O,

As long as it’s truly polygamy not solely polygyny or polyandry. As long as it’s not discriminatory, in other words. Yes.

Marriage is for Lovers, as I have said for a long time.

# 52 QB said, on August 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am

Actually, I support people marrying in any manner they choose rather than the state or a church telling me that. Although I’m not church going kind of person (no really) I think they should not be “forced” to perform any marriages they don’t want to.

From a practical point of view, I struggle with the age of consent which I see as a far bigger issue than gay or polygamous marriage. 16 seems fine to me, but this is also arbitrary and I don’t have good, solid reasoning for changing it, raising it, lowering it, or whatever.

# 53 Paddy-O said, on August 28th, 2008 at 11:58 am

#51 “As long as it’s truly polygamy not solely polygyny or polyandry. As long as it’s not discriminatory, in other words. Yes.”

How about with animals?

# 54 Misanthropic Scott said, on August 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

#53 – Paddy-O,

How about with animals?

Yes. I would even allow an ass like you to marry.*

Are you planning to tell me how your sheep is going to say “I do”?

Please stay on topic here.

* Damn!! I’m once again guilty of insulting perfectly good-natured animals, donkeys in this case, by comparing them to humans.

# 55 Misanthropic Scott said, on August 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

#52 – QB,

Although I’m not church going kind of person (no really) I think they should not be “forced” to perform any marriages they don’t want to.

I didn’t hear anyone suggest that religious institutions be required to perform such marriages. Some religious leaders may choose to do so. Some may not. Some religious institutions also do not allow marriage between people of different faiths, even if they are very similar. This is about laws allowing such marriages. Justices of the peace can perform weddings.

# 56 bobbo said, on August 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Its amazing. Lyin Mike is correct on so many issues here.

Gay marriage is a danger to marriage. Here in California with its recent enforcement by the courts, I had to tell my wifey that our relationship had been torn assunder because of this new law. How can I stay married to her when Frank and George down the block can get married and act just as wifey and I do? Its like, it makes ME gay too. What a terrible assault on my masculinity.

But it does figure that Mikey would get the continuum issue wrong. My other big jag of course is “its defintional.” Marriage is defintional. Once defined, it can be located on several different continuums. “Degree of ease in getting out” of would be one such continuum.

Mikey is so uniformily stupid though, I have to think he is “mostly” putting us on. Can anyone really be so retro and still function in society?

# 57 QB said, on August 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Scott, in Canada we’re a little farther down the road on this issue and when the marriage laws were being appended a few years some actions were in court around this. There are wackos everywhere.

Paddy-O, animals can’t consent, so obviously no. Obviously that brings up another problem. Is meat murder?

# 58 Paddy-O said, on August 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

#54 “Yes. I would even allow an ass like you to marry.*”

LOL

I’ve seen polygamy threads here before. Why haven’t you been all over it complaining about the discrimination?

It’s too easy nailing libs. Like shooting fish in a barrel…

# 59 QB said, on August 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Paddy-O: “Why haven’t you been all over it complaining about the discrimination?

It’s too easy nailing libs.”

So, as a conservative you’re more interested in government control on this issue?

# 60 QB said, on August 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

#56, bobbo. Congratulations, that was breath-takingly silly.

# 61 Paddy-O said, on August 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

#59 “So, as a conservative you’re more interested in government control on this issue?”

Naw, it’s just fun highlighting the hypocrisy of the left.

# 62 Misanthropic Scott said, on August 28th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

#58 – P.O.

I’ve seen polygamy threads here before. Why haven’t you been all over it complaining about the discrimination?

It’s too easy nailing libs. Like shooting fish in a barrel…

Yup you nailed me on that one. I don’t always have time to read every thread. That really makes your case … somehow … unless it doesn’t.

# 63 QB said, on August 28th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Paddy-O, well that’s easy.

# 64 Mr. Fusion said, on August 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

#58, Cow-Paddy,

I’ve seen polygamy threads here before. Why haven’t you been all over it complaining about the discrimination?

Marriage requires an informed consent from all parties. That includes all other wives (husbands). The typical polygamous marriage in the US does not meet those criteria.

Underage, brainwashed, trapped, uneducated, and promised wives are more the norm. All control is held by the sole husband.

When we can get past those hurdles then I will start calling for their equal standing.

# 65 Paddy-O said, on August 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

#64 “The typical polygamous marriage in the US does not meet those criteria.”

Umm, wrong. There are no polygamist marriages as they are illegal… There are people who have violated the law, and are hiding this from the other spouse.

There are those who want this type of marriage but can’t. Nice try though…

# 66 Mr. Fusion said, on August 29th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

#65, Fresh Cow-Paddy,
Geeze, you really are stupid. You ask why we don’t jump on the band wagon and support polygamous marriages. Ask some woman trapped in a polygamous marriage if she is married and she will tell you she is – in the eyes of her god.
There are people who have violated the law, and are hiding this from the other spouse.
That is bigamy. When someone “legally” marries two or more people it is bigamy. When they have two or more spouses it is polygamy. With polygamy the marriages do not have to be registered by the government.

Shit, you are a moran.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!