Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
First off, your inaccurate and manipulated data doesn't disprove the fact that gays are in open relationships at a far higher rate and have far more sexual partners, exposing their dysfunction and deviancy. Also, your study goes by the divorce probability for a marriage, it doesn't delineate by couple. It just calculates the total number of marriages, it doesn't account for the fact that individuals get multiple divorces, and once you get one, you are more likely to divorce again. Far less than 33% of heterosexuals couples divorce. But your data doesn't mention this.Same-sex divorce rate lower than heterosexual couplesDo you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?
In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014
How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic
Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center
Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato InstituteAt the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)
But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.
It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?
If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.
However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.
But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.
I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate
Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.
SINCE May 2008 just nine civil unions pledged between members of the same sex as an alternative to marriage have been terminated in the ACT.
It is a 1.1 per cent failure rate with 799 gay unions performed in the capital during the period.
In the same period there were 8711 marriages and 6965 divorces granted in the ACT.
Adjunct Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Canberra Amanda Gordon said a straight comparison was not possible as the heterosexual divorce rate would include those married prior to 2008.
According to the Bureau of Statistics, the median length of marriage before separation in the ACT was 9.4 years with most couples divorcing almost 13 years after saying ''I do''.
But the probability that a traditional marriage will end in divorce is about 33 per cent.
Dr Gordon said early indications showed that gay couples were staying together longer. She attributed this to the lack of expectation to getting hitched and the conscious decision to do so.
''There are very few [terminations] because people have thought it through very carefully and understand the implications. … they are actually thinking very hard about the significance and importance of making it work.''
She said many people who were married in the traditional way had less commitment to the whole idea of marriage. ''They didn't have to work for it, if you like. If it ends they can do it again.''
As equality occurs, Dr Gordon said the gay marriage and divorce rate could well mirror heterosexual marriage.
''If homosexual couples slip in to marriage the way we do then I think you will find the same level of distress in a relationship as other people … these figures go some way to prove that if you put hard work into a relationship you can make it work, because these relationships have lasted the five-year distance in a way that is different to traditional marriages,'' she said.
''They don't take it for granted.''
also, homosexuals don't enter committed relationships or marriage at nearly the same rates. Even in the Netherlands, where gay marriage has been legal for years, only 20% of gay couples are married are married.
But back to your inaccurate and manipulated data
Same-sex divorce rate not as low as it seemed - The Washington PostThe error is subtle, and I learned of it via an email from a demographer, who wrote:
Looking at the way they did things, it seems to me that they understate divorce rates by roughly a factor of two in their calculation. What they want is an occurence-exposure rate, which is obtained by dividing the number events by the person-years of exposure. They have the events (e.g. 132 divorces in Vermont). They then need to estimate the exposure. They do this by dividing by the total number of marriages (about 3,700 for VT) and dividing again by the years that same-sex marriage has been allowed (about 4.33 VT).
A moment’s reflection (or a bit longer in my case) makes it clear that this overstates the person-years of exposure. Since not all of the couples married 4.33 years ago, they should not all be counted as contributing 4.33 years. The average couple married half way through the interval, and so contributed only about 2 years.
So, this means we should double their “Average annual dissolution rate” to get something that is comparable to the divorce rate they are calculating for the general population.
A factor of 2—that’s a lot! In particular, it completely destroys the finding that same-sex marriage dissolution rates are lower than traditional-marriage divorce rates. Once you correct for that factor of 2, you get a rate of 2% per year, same as for traditional marriages.
If your religion is against selling products to the public.. then don't. The PA laws allow you to sell privately. Duh!It is participating in the ceremony, the cake is an extension of the baker, the product of their labor, same with the florist and their floral arrangement. It is also forced participation when you are forced to use your property, say a private chapel, to host a gay wedding. This violates free association and freedom of religion, the latter being previously guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.Participating in a ceremony that celebrates a sin is a sin. As I said, read 1 Timothy 5:22, don't share in the sins of others.Again, no one is being forced to go against their religion. The Bible doesn't say baking a cake is a sin.They can make their proclamations, and are certainly more powerful than me. They have the guns of the state to back up their views, I don't. But it doesn't change that forcing someone to act against their religious conscience or forcing them to associate with those they don't want to violates freedom of religion and free association.
That's too funny. Who cares what you think of the Supreme Court justices in their black robes? Their opinion matters. Yours? Not so much.
Baking a cake is not a ceremony or participating in a ceremony- but if as a business owner, you have a problem complying with the law because of your religious beliefs, you should either change the law- or get out of business.
Can't refuse to serve Hindu's just because Hindu's live in sin because they worship a false god.
I am aware of what the law is now, the law violates the basic principle freedom of association, a common law principle that has existed for centuries in Anglo-Saxon world.
It is a shame for those that claim to support the idea "live and let live", that they can't let those who disagree with them alone and use the power of the state to prosecute them. Then again, this aggressive anti-social behavior is not a surprise given who we are dealing with.
Baking a cake is not rape, ya dumb ass.Do you oppose rape?I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.No, not in any sense.I do. Just not in your sense.
If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?
Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.
The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?
omfg... this scum bag is equating sexual rape with civil rights.. as if the right to access the public market is a rape of the public market... yeah no different than beating the shit out of someone and raping them... wow. Liberty is not the liberty to take liberty away from someone. Everyone has a right to buy products from our public markets. If you don't want to sell products to our public markets... don't.Its a reasonable question. Why do you think rape is wrong, philosophically speaking? This ties into the issue of self ownership and consent.why do you oppose rape?I am asking a question. Do you oppose rape? If you do, why do you oppose it?WTF?
Of course. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
I'm not playing your dumbass game.
Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.You realize the philosophical inconsistency of your position. You don't stop owning yourself once you enter your place of business.Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, .Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.
Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.
As an individual you can not associate with anyone- because they are black or Jewish or Mormon or gay.
But- as a business owner- in states with public accommodation laws- you cannot refuse to serve someone because they are black or Jewish or Gay or Mormon.
If following business laws is too much of a burden for you, you may not want to be in business.
The same applies to business owners. No?
Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.
Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.You realize the philosophical inconsistency of your position. You don't stop owning yourself once you enter your place of business.Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, .Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.
Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.
As an individual you can not associate with anyone- because they are black or Jewish or Mormon or gay.
But- as a business owner- in states with public accommodation laws- you cannot refuse to serve someone because they are black or Jewish or Gay or Mormon.
If following business laws is too much of a burden for you, you may not want to be in business.
The same applies to business owners. No?
Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.
Specific and targeted threats aren't speech. Don't play this dishonest game. Whereas association is very clear, forcing people into business relationships violates the principle of free association.You don't have a right of free association if you can be prosecuted under the law for exercising it. That is like saying you have a right to free speech in North Korea, unless you speak out against the government.Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.The same applies to business owners. No?
Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.
The right of free association as well as the consequences if used improperly according to the law.
You have the right to free speech. Call the WH and threaten the pres and see what happens. There are limits.
There is no equivocation between threatening an individual and refusing to associate with an individual.
Someone needs to point out the inconsistencies in your philosophically bankrupt worldview.You may post this as many times as you wish, it's just as wrong now as the first time you posted it.Specific and targeted threats aren't speech. Don't play this dishonest game. Whereas association is very clear, forcing people into business relationships violates the principle of free association.You don't have a right of free association if you can be prosecuted under the law for exercising it. That is like saying you have a right to free speech in North Korea, unless you speak out against the government.Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.
Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.
The right of free association as well as the consequences if used improperly according to the law.
You have the right to free speech. Call the WH and threaten the pres and see what happens. There are limits.
There is no equivocation between threatening an individual and refusing to associate with an individual.
I oppose rape. If you oppose rape, why do you oppose it?why do you oppose rape?I am asking a question. Do you oppose rape? If you do, why do you oppose it?Do you oppose rape?
WTF?
Of course. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
Why do you support rape?
Why can you restrict incestuous or polygamist couples from marrying if marriage is a right?So if marriage is a right- how can you prevent mixed race couples from marrying?
The Supreme Court said marriage is a right- and States cannot prevent mixed race couples from marrying.
If there is a slippery slope- that is the beginning of the 'slippery slope'- and therefore logically- you are against the bans on mixed race marriage being overturned.
Now- if you actually understood why that right can still exclude some persons from marrying- just as States can forbid some people from owning guns- you might understand what happened.
But that is not likely to happen.
You will just continue to stomp your feet.
Good luck with repealing the Public Accommodation laws.
In fact, withdrawing from an association this is the opposite of aggressive. Imposing yourself on someone, on a business, without your consent is aggressive. Specifically targeting business for legal prosecution you know wont serve you to get a pay out is aggressive. Talk about a perversion of words on your part.Then again, this aggressive anti-social behavior is not a surprise given who we are dealing with.Participating in a ceremony that celebrates a sin is a sin. As I said, read 1 Timothy 5:22, don't share in the sins of others.Again, no one is being forced to go against their religion. The Bible doesn't say baking a cake is a sin.They can make their proclamations, and are certainly more powerful than me. They have the guns of the state to back up their views, I don't. But it doesn't change that forcing someone to act against their religious conscience or forcing them to associate with those they don't want to violates freedom of religion and free association.
Baking a cake is not a ceremony or participating in a ceremony- but if as a business owner, you have a problem complying with the law because of your religious beliefs, you should either change the law- or get out of business.
Can't refuse to serve Hindu's just because Hindu's live in sin because they worship a false god.
the 'aggressive anti-social behavior' being of course- the persons who refuse business to customers based upon the customers race, religion or sexual orientation.
That's like saying that if you want to have sex with one person, you must have sex with everyone, consent be damned!If your religion is against selling products to the public.. then don't. The PA laws allow you to sell privately. Duh!It is participating in the ceremony, the cake is an extension of the baker, the product of their labor, same with the florist and their floral arrangement. It is also forced participation when you are forced to use your property, say a private chapel, to host a gay wedding. This violates free association and freedom of religion, the latter being previously guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.Participating in a ceremony that celebrates a sin is a sin. As I said, read 1 Timothy 5:22, don't share in the sins of others.Again, no one is being forced to go against their religion. The Bible doesn't say baking a cake is a sin.They can make their proclamations, and are certainly more powerful than me. They have the guns of the state to back up their views, I don't. But it doesn't change that forcing someone to act against their religious conscience or forcing them to associate with those they don't want to violates freedom of religion and free association.
Baking a cake is not a ceremony or participating in a ceremony- but if as a business owner, you have a problem complying with the law because of your religious beliefs, you should either change the law- or get out of business.
Can't refuse to serve Hindu's just because Hindu's live in sin because they worship a false god.
I am aware of what the law is now, the law violates the basic principle freedom of association, a common law principle that has existed for centuries in Anglo-Saxon world.
It is a shame for those that claim to support the idea "live and let live", that they can't let those who disagree with them alone and use the power of the state to prosecute them. Then again, this aggressive anti-social behavior is not a surprise given who we are dealing with.
No one said it was. Can you articulate why you oppose rape. Why is it morally wrong? I am trying to get you to realize something here.Baking a cake is not rape, ya dumb ass.Do you oppose rape?I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.No, not in any sense.
If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?
Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.
The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?
The same principle applies. If we accept the premise that an individual owns themselves, than we recognize rape is wrong because it violates the self ownership principle by nullifying the individual's ability to consent to a sexual relationship. "Public accommodation" laws violate the self ownership principle by nullifying the individual's ability to consent to a commercial/business relationship, as the owner's store(his property) is an extension of himself.omfg... this scum bag is equating sexual rape with civil rights.. as if the right to access the public market is a rape of the public market... yeah no different than beating the shit out of someone and raping them... wow. Liberty is not the liberty to take liberty away from someone. Everyone has a right to buy products from our public markets. If you don't want to sell products to our public markets... don't.Its a reasonable question. Why do you think rape is wrong, philosophically speaking? This ties into the issue of self ownership and consent.why do you oppose rape?I am asking a question. Do you oppose rape? If you do, why do you oppose it?
Of course. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
I'm not playing your dumbass game.
The law isn't philosophically consistent, it has the guns of the state however.Specific and targeted threats aren't speech. Don't play this dishonest game. Whereas association is very clear, forcing people into business relationships violates the principle of free association.You don't have a right of free association if you can be prosecuted under the law for exercising it. That is like saying you have a right to free speech in North Korea, unless you speak out against the government.Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.
Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.
The right of free association as well as the consequences if used improperly according to the law.
You have the right to free speech. Call the WH and threaten the pres and see what happens. There are limits.
There is no equivocation between threatening an individual and refusing to associate with an individual.
You're full of shit. The law forbids both.
Wish that was the case but it's not. In accordance with the 1964 Civil Rights law, a person is protected against discrimination in privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. In addition, federal law prohibits discrimination based on a person's disability. As far as federal laws goes, that's it. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. Various municipalities also have discrimination discrimination laws.Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.You realize the philosophical inconsistency of your position. You don't stop owning yourself once you enter your place of business.Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, .
As an individual you can not associate with anyone- because they are black or Jewish or Mormon or gay.
But- as a business owner- in states with public accommodation laws- you cannot refuse to serve someone because they are black or Jewish or Gay or Mormon.
If following business laws is too much of a burden for you, you may not want to be in business.
The same applies to business owners. No?
Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.
Nope, sorry. If you go into business to serve the public, then you serve the public. If you refuse to serve a sector of the public because of your personal views, that is discrimination which is against our laws here in America.
No one said it was. Can you articulate why you oppose rape. Why is it morally wrong? I am trying to get you to realize something here.Baking a cake is not rape, ya dumb ass.Do you oppose rape?I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.
The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?
I oppose rape. If you oppose rape, why do you oppose it?why do you oppose rape?I am asking a question. Do you oppose rape? If you do, why do you oppose it?WTF?
Of course. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
Why do you support rape?
I oppose rape. I am trying to ask you why you oppose rape, philosophically speaking. Why is it wrong?No one said it was. Can you articulate why you oppose rape. Why is it morally wrong? I am trying to get you to realize something here.Baking a cake is not rape, ya dumb ass.Do you oppose rape?I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.
The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?
Can you articulate why you support rape?
