chalsall,

See post #1349 for a link to an overview of studies, written by a large number of social scientists.

--------------

xilman,

[QUOTE]Please feel free to clarify further if necessary.[/QUOTE]I think one further categorical clarification needs to be made.

I'm assuming that by the word "should" in your questions, you are asking for my current personal opinion about what I would support in the laws of the land I live in. In particular, I take it that you are [B]not[/B] asking me whether I believe a rational society could choose to act otherwise, but rather which of two options I personally think is better. Is that right?

If so, the answer to your second question is mostly yes, but not universally. Here are a few principles where I would be concerned.

1. Highly inequitable contracts. There are many legally authorized institutions which prey on the weak and vulnerable. If I'm down on my luck, should I have the legal right to sign a contract essentially making myself a slave to the other party? The other party is not coercing me, and it is my life to live--but as a society I don't think that we want to go there.

2. Extreme penalties. Should I be allowed to sign a contract which says that if I fail to meet rent, I can be kicked out the next day and have all my possessions seized? [I've seen something very similar happen to a neighbor, and I don't live in a bad part of town. So this isn't as extreme as it may seem.]

But, in principle, yes, I think any two (or more) consenting, non-coerced adults should be able to [and, as I understand it, they currently can] make reasonable legal agreements related to shared finance, housing, inheritance, etc... One practice I've seen becoming more common here in the States is that people will form businesses, and have the business share their finances, etc...

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;403966]chalsall,

See post #1349 for a link to an overview of studies, written by a large number of social scientists.[/QUOTE]

Please forgive me for this, but you have got to fscking kidding!

To quote you "A big part of the argument of the social scientists is that while there is some preliminary evidence supporting this concern, it is still too early to say definitively. I recommend you read their brief: [url]http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_100_Scholars_of_Marriage.pdf[/url]

chalsall,

I re-read the studies, and I misspoke in my previous post to only human. I was confusing the fact that places where gay marriage had passed were experiencing increasing divorce rates, with divorce rates between groups.

Doing a quick google search I found the following study from 2014. According to [URL="http://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Couple_Longevity_Forthcoming_JMF.pdf"]this study[/URL] by a Standford professor, the rates in the U.S. are statistically indistinguishable. He also found that those "who had a marriage-like commitment had stable unions regardless of government recognition".

Sorry for the confusion. If you read the article, you can see why I was confused though, since many previous studies did show higher rates of separation. (However, I'm still not sure why you thought swearing at me was the proper response.)

------------
[URL="http://familyfacts.org/briefs/6/benefits-of-family-for-children-and-adults"]This link[/URL] cites 10 studies about the benefits of intact families.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;403970]However, I'm still not sure why you thought swearing at me was the proper response.[/QUOTE]

I didn't swear at you. I reconfigured your harddrive.

Sorry if you didn't get the humour....

[URL="http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/68830681"]Rachel Maddow loves ironic twist in Franklin Graham's boycott of gay-friendly bank[/URL]
[QUOTE]"Franklin Graham threw a Facebook hissy fit and moved his accounts because of a commercial that showed two women adopting a deaf little girl," [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMdYhDL73QA"]Maddow told viewers[/URL]. "But it turns out his new bank is so much gayer than his old bank."

"The universe has a way of making these things work out, big guy."

"I love this story so much I want to take it to Franklin Graham's new bank and marry it. If it's a lady," added Maddow, who is openly gay.[/QUOTE]
I like the irony of a reactionary big fish making a show of wielding the power of his purse albeit incompetently because the world simply moved on.
[YOUTUBE]oMdYhDL73QA[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;403966]I think one further categorical clarification needs to be made.

I'm assuming that by the word "should" in your questions, you are asking for my current personal opinion about what I would support in the laws of the land I live in. In particular, I take it that you are [B]not[/B] asking me whether I believe a rational society could choose to act otherwise, but rather which of two options I personally think is better. Is that right?

If so, the answer to your second question is mostly yes, but not universally. Here are a few principles where I would be concerned.

1. Highly inequitable contracts. There are many legally authorized institutions which prey on the weak and vulnerable. If I'm down on my luck, should I have the legal right to sign a contract essentially making myself a slave to the other party? The other party is not coercing me, and it is my life to live--but as a society I don't think that we want to go there.

2. Extreme penalties. Should I be allowed to sign a contract which says that if I fail to meet rent, I can be kicked out the next day and have all my possessions seized? [I've seen something very similar happen to a neighbor, and I don't live in a bad part of town. So this isn't as extreme as it may seem.]

But, in principle, yes, I think any two (or more) consenting, non-coerced adults should be able to [and, as I understand it, they currently can] make reasonable legal agreements related to shared finance, housing, inheritance, etc... One practice I've seen becoming more common here in the States is that people will form businesses, and have the business share their finances, etc...[/QUOTE]

Throughout I'm assuming that any arrangements abide by the laws of the local jurisdiction, whether or not they seem to be fair to you or to me. That said, we're in agreement that some situations may be legal but (in our opinion) unjust.

Yes, I am asking for your current personal opinion. I can't hold you personally responsible for the iniquities of the society in which you live!

More questions later. Busy today...


Paul

New Study Shuts Down Common Claim Against Same-Sex Parenting
 

[url]http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/06/17/3670552/same-sex-parenting-consensus-study/[/url]

[QUOTE]A [URL="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uoca-cdr061415.php"]new study[/URL] from the University of Colorado Denver finds that there has already been scientific consensus on same-sex parenting for decades. By assessing a compilation of all of the available studies that have examined same-sex parenting and studying the trends and shifts between them, the researchers were able to determine when the scientific community started to agree that there were no differences in children raised by same-sex couples and different-sex couples. Despite arguments [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/17/3647431/ten-absurd-arguments-against-marriage-equality-scotus-briefs/"]made to the contrary[/URL] just this year in Supreme Court amicus briefs, the consensus is not new.


According to the study, there was already a developing consensus affirming same-sex parenting among social scientists by 1990. By 2000 and henceforth, that consensus has been “overwhelming.” Lead researcher Jimi Adams, associate professor in the Department of Health and Behavioral Studies at CU Denver College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, told ThinkProgress that even though there is still the occasional dissent, “even those dissenters seem to agree that consensus exists. They’re forced instead to claim that they think that the existing consensus is pre-mature.”
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;404317][URL]http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/06/17/3670552/same-sex-parenting-consensus-study/[/URL][/QUOTE]
Yes, it seems that when you get a concerted, long-term politico-religious effort to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and cloud the evidence from the numerous existing studies, then a new study is needed to separate the obfuscation from the genuine science and highlight was has actually been consensus in the social science community for the last 25 years.:bow:

[QUOTE=Brian-E;404329]Yes, it seems that when you get a concerted, long-term politico-religious effort to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and cloud the evidence from the numerous existing studies, then a new study is needed to separate the obfuscation from the genuine science and highlight was has actually been consensus in the social science community for the last 25 years.:bow:[/QUOTE]

And for yet more people who think that their perverted religious beliefs convey the right to discriminate
against others:

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage/[/url]

And a public display of their lunacy:

"A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order,"
reads the pledge. "As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law.
We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line."


I must ask: All other issues aside, Who the fuck do these people think they are to define "higher law"???

And yet more lunacy:

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/16/southern-baptists-supreme-court-is-not-final-authority-on-gay-marriage.html[/url]

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-marriage-and-other-major-rulings-at-the-supreme-court/2015/06/25/ef75a120-1b6d-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html?tid=sm_fb"]SCOTUS[/URL], FTW.

Knocking it out of the park this week, those persons.

[QUOTE=chappy;404824][URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-marriage-and-other-major-rulings-at-the-supreme-court/2015/06/25/ef75a120-1b6d-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html?tid=sm_fb"]SCOTUS[/URL], FTW.

Knocking it out of the park this week, those persons.[/QUOTE]

And the hate groups are coming out of the woodwork........