State with lowest divorce rate...legalized gay marriage.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Surprise surprise! (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html?ei=5090&en=4f927c5f27fb9966&ex=1258174800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland%3C/a%3E%3C/p%3E&adxnnlx=1188050531-ncOY1lwz1Y927FKy60o65g)

[innerSpaceman]

Well, in all fairness, the results are skewed by the high divorce rates in Kentucky, Alabama and Mississippi. It's not that the people in those states don't have a healthy respect for marriage. But you can hardly blame them when, after the first or second mongoloid child, they divorce their current spouse and move on the next cousin or sibling.

:p

[alphabassettgrrl]

"The higher the educational level, higher the occupational level, higher the income, the less likely you are to divorce," said William V. D'Antonio, a sociologist at the Catholic University of America, pointing out that Massachusetts has the highest rate of high school and college completion. "Kids who drop out of high school and get married very quickly suffer from the strains of not being emotionally mature and not having the income to help weather the difficulties of marriage."
...
*Ms. Whitehead*
"If your family or religious culture urges you not to have sex before you get married," she said, "then one answer is to get married, and then you're more likely to divorce."


Sounds entirely logical.

[NirvanaMan]

Marriage hasn't really been legal long enough to have a significant impact on the rate quite yet. Not sure we can accredit it to gay marriage...though I would be all for it if we could, I'm just saying...

[Ghoulish Delight]

Marriage hasn't really been legal long enough to have a significant impact on the rate quite yet. Not sure we can accredit it to gay marriage...though I would be all for it if we could, I'm just saying...That wasn't the point of the article at all.

[innerSpaceman]

Heheh, but it was an ironic implication of the thread title. Not that it implied cause and effect, just delicious irony. ;)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Marriage hasn't really been legal long enough to have a significant impact on the rate quite yet. Not sure we can accredit it to gay marriage...though I would be all for it if we could, I'm just saying...

That wasn't the point of the article at all.

Heheh, but it was an ironic implication of the thread title. Not that it implied cause and effect, just delicious irony. ;)Exactly.

Hey NirvanaMan, it would be wonderful if you actually read the article I linked to, instead of debating a thread title. :p

I find the implications of blue states having lower divorce rates to be very, very interesting indeed. I did not expect it at all. I looked up some state divorce rate stats (there are tons of sites with lists) and guess what - Ohio is smack in the middle of the list. Heh.

[NirvanaMan]

Some of us don't have the time (and it wouldn't load on my ancient computer). Maybe try less misleading thread titles next time. :)

[innerSpaceman]

Not exactly misleading. The presence of tons of Catholics in Massachusetts notwithstanding, I think the logical implications that both the article and thread title share are that liberals and the better educated have longer-lasting marriages. Progressive values and intelligence go hand-in-hand with so-called family values. And bible-thumping, hypocritical conservatives can kiss my liberal, well-educated, gay ass!

[NirvanaMan]

It is quite misleading if the title of the thread is apparently off-limits for comment which is what I got scolded on.

BTW, not all conservatives are bible-thumpers. Quite the contrary in some cases.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It is quite misleading if the title of the thread is apparently off-limits for comment which is what I got scolded on.
But your comments had nothing to do with what the title said. The title of the thread says nothing about gay marriage leading to less divorce. It says that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate and legalized gay marriage, which is a fact.

[innerSpaceman]

You shouldn't have been chided. That wasn't the fault of the thread starter, but the chider she married. :p

[Ghoulish Delight]

He most certainly should have been chided because he was responding to an implication that was made neither in the thread title nor the article.

[NirvanaMan]

It says that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate and legalized gay marriage, which is a fact.

And there is no implied correlation in the juxtaposition of the two?

Honestly?

[Ghoulish Delight]

And there is no implied correlation in the juxtaposition of the two?

Honestly?
There is and implication, but no the one you leaped to. The implication I read in the title, and that was expressed in the article, is that it's ridiculous that the loudest voices for "family values" produce the highest divorce rates. It shines a pretty glaring spotlight on the argument against gay marriage being the sanctity of marriage when, at least form a population-statistics perspective, the people who are for gay marriage seem to have a much better handle on the sanctity of marriage than those that are against.

Nowhere do I see an implication that gay marriage itself is the cause of the lower divorce rate.

[Gemini Cricket]

Mmm. Baked potato with sour cream and chides. Mmmm.

[NirvanaMan]

Well, to me it reads like the 5pm news tease: "Something you have in your kitchen may kill you".

Maybe the intent wasn't there to link the two together, but I can't see how you can't see that one who reads "State with lowest divorce rate...legalized gay marriage." followed by a link that says "surprise surprise" could prompt a response to the tease.

[SacTown Chronic]

There is and implication, but no the one you leaped to.
The grammar thread is that way >

[innerSpaceman]

He typos in a Ricky Ricardo accent. :D

[wendybeth]

When I read the thread title and link, my first thought was that there was a tie between liberal viewpoints and reduced divorce rates, and subsequent reading kind of points in that direction. Obviously, most people who support gay marriage tend to be of a more liberal mindset than, say, Pat Robertson supporters. Perhaps the Family Values people need to start valuing the families they currently have, rather than seeking out new ones.

[AllyOops!]

I am a Catholic.

I don't consider myself completely conservative. I don't consider myself liberal, either.

I consider myself logical.

In my mind, I can be a Catholic (which I am) and support my gay friends, too, which I do with all of my heart. Christianity, to me, has always meant tolerance and complete love for others. That is how I was brought up. So, why on earth would I read that to mean "tolerance for only men who love women and the women who love them?" That sounds more like a self-help book, not principles to live by. My mom used to tell me (as well as my favroite priest) never follow blindly. God gave you a brain. A mind.

I believe in God with all of my heart and soul. I believe in him to be benevelont and loving. I think the ability to love is the most amazing thing in the world. Ever since I was a little girl I used to think, "If you are lucky to find another person to love, why does it matter who?" That just made complete sense to me. I'm sure I thought that at a young age because I had a Mom & Dad who spent 24 hours at each other's throat's.

Who you love & what you do in your bedroom is none of my, or anybody else's business. Not Pat Robertson, not Joe Blow the rag picker residing under the freeway. Unless, of course, your'e making love to Joe Blow the rag picker. If that's the case, I want full details. ;)

Now, what I do in the bedroom is everybody's business because I feel the obnoxious need to post about it so much, but that's another Thread.. :p

You can call me simple. You can call me idealistic. Judge not lest ye be judged. It's just as easy as that.