Nearly 40% of [homosexual] civil-union couples include at least one partner who was previously in a heterosexual marriage.

That's the strongest argument I've heard in favor of gay marriage yet. Do we really want spouses, not to mention children, to go through the pain of a divorce? The fact that so many gay people have been married would indicate that some people tried very hard to be heterosexual and just couldn't abide by it.

The high divorce rate would seem to indicate that it's a bad thing to try and encourage people to get into sexual relationships that they don't feel comfortable with just because those relationships are considered 'normal.' Sure, you can have some people who are bisexual and 'go straight' because of conditioning or pressure to do so. But aside from discouraging promiscuity and encouraging responsibility for one's actions, why should we worry about trying to control sexual practices at all? Is subjecting someone's bedroom activities really a good subject for the popular vote?

Undoubtedly they were pushed into marriage, at gunpoint, by a "homophobic" and puritanical society (you know, the sexually repressive culture of the 1970s); a society could not tolerate their singleness and demanded outward signs of comformity.

I'm not gay but I have some friends who are.
One was physically assaulted for his sexuality. Some people jumped out of a car and beat beat him with baseball bats. He wasn't even acquainted with them before the incident. He was hospitalized with a broken skull and out of school for over a month. Another friend in high school pretended to have a girlfriend so he wouldn't get beat up, despite the fact that he was over six feet tall. These are just some of the most graphic examples of pressure exerted on certain people because of the sexual roles which they identify with. Most pressure is a lot more subtle and involves parental expectations and so forth. Do you really think that every family is totally accepting when their children 'come out of the closet?'

Hmm. On second thought, 40% is about average for the US.

A study [Bramlett 2001] based on a 1995 survey, found that 43 percent of first marriages ended in separation or divorce within 15 years, with 1 in 3 ending within 10 years and 1 in 5 ending within 5 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Statistics

Do we really want spouses, not to mention children, to go through the pain of a divorce? The fact that so many gay people have been married would indicate that some people tried very hard to be heterosexual and just couldn't abide by it.

The high divorce rate would seem to indicate that it's a bad thing to try and encourage people to get into sexual relationships that they don't feel comfortable with just because those relationships are considered 'normal.'

Ryan, your argument is both counter-factual and logically flawed.

First, the facts: historically, non-"bisexual" gays represent a tiny minority of the population, much less, the evidence suggests, than 2%. (Kinsey found 1.1%) And even then, only a fraction of those will marry out of social pressure.

So if you're concerned about a high man/woman divorce rate, you cannot possibly significantly improve it by doing something which would, even if your arguments were true, discourage such a tiny percentage of the population from marrying someone they will later divorce. The numbers just aren't there.

Next you forget that you have to consider opposite effects: Even if your argument were true, and legallizing gay "marriage" (not just civil unions) would stop bad man/woman pairings, you would then also have to weight whether it would encourage men who were once attracted to Betty, and had kids with her, to then dump her in favor of Bob.

As far as I can see, the numbers indicate this effect would far outweigh the other.

Finally, it seems to me that your argument argument itself is also flawed: As you say, sometimes homosexuals marry out of pressure to conform. But you forgot to explain how simply passing laws will change the pressure.

If Glenn is raised in an Orthodox Jewish or Catholic family, how is passing a law legitimizing gay marriage going to stop his Dad or Mom from hoping he'll settle down with a nice girl? I certainly think it will give ammo to the man who wants to leave his family later in life, but I don't think it will change these sort of nuclear-family dynamics.

Indeed, you make the argument yourself:

Most pressure is a lot more subtle and involves parental expectations and so forth. Do you really think that every family is totally accepting when their children 'come out of the closet?'

... but apparently cannot see it utterly defeats your main argument here.

Next: I don't for a moment doubt that some homosexuals have been beaten up for their sexuality. (Good heavens: I was beaten up constantly for being thin and smart.) So I'm not questioning whether it occurs.

But there's something strange about this:

Some people jumped out of a car and beat beat him with baseball bats. He wasn't even acquainted with them before the incident.

If they were complete strangers, then how did they know he was gay?

Sure, you can have some people who are bisexual and 'go straight' because of conditioning or pressure to do so.

So is it possible, in your opinion, that it could go the other way as well: that "social conditioning" could make an otherwise heterosexual man or women interested in experimenting with homosexuality? Or are you a believer in the dogma which says it can go one way, but not the other?

But aside from discouraging promiscuity and encouraging responsibility for one's actions, why should we worry about trying to control sexual practices at all? Is subjecting someone's bedroom activities really a good subject for the popular vote?

That's a bit like saying: "Other than saving lives, why should we worry about speed limits, seat belts, and preventing drunk driving?" Um, Ryan, that's the whole reason.

But I find it disturbing that agitating for gay marriage tends to be coupled totalitarian preferences, such as you seemingly express above.

I think marriage laws are a good subject for the popular vote because I think all laws are a good subject for popular vote. I tend to think totalitarian systems -- that is, where a "smarter, wiser, more moral minority" get to run things, instead of those ignorant mobs of "voters" -- tend to work out badly. I say this because the vast weight of history teaches this lesson.

But, ech, if democracy doesn't give us what we personally want, then throw it out, right? After all, it's only good to play by the rules as long as we get to win, right?

That's the of shallow lip-service most "progressives" have been "socially conditioned" to give to the system our founding fathers created. They say they love it, but reflexively, they dislike everything it stands for, and constantly argue against it.

And they're not usually aware it has been done to them, it seems to me.

On second thought, 40% is about average for the US.

If they were complete strangers, then how did they know he was gay?

I can't absolutely confirm that they did know. But my friend, while shy and not flamboyant, was "out of the closet" so to speak. He wrote in the school's literary magazine, sometimes about the politics of identity (he was also bi-racial.) The attackers insisted that the attack was purely random ( possibly because of the punitive threat of hate crimes legislation. ) It's possible, of course, that the attackers really were just a few kids with bats out for random violence. Personally, I doubt it. You don't have to be acquainted with a person to know their sexual preference. If I saw a guy and a girl kissing, I would know they were interested in each other even if I weren't acquainted. The defendants had an incentive to lie about the premeditation involved in, and rational for, the attack. Their claimed motivations would influence the harshnes of their sentence. So I don't believe their claims that my friend was a random target.

So if you're concerned about a high man/woman divorce rate, you cannot possibly significantly improve it by doing something which would, even if your arguments were true, discourage such a tiny percentage of the population from marrying someone they will later divorce. The numbers just aren't there.\

I didn't claim that same sex marriages would reduce the divorce rate for the general population. The question is whether or not they'll reduce the divorce rate for those with homoerotic tendencies.

I'm not claiming that latent homosexuality is the cause of the majority of divorces among the general population.

Next you forget that you have to consider opposite effects: Even if your argument were true, and legallizing gay "marriage" (not just civil unions) would stop bad man/woman pairings, you would then also have to weight whether it would encourage men who were once attracted to Betty, and had kids with her, to then dump her in favor of Bob.

Good point. Do you have any solid evidence that civil unions would increase the divorce rate?
I'd be interested to see this argument.

As far as I can see, the numbers indicate this effect would far outweigh the other.

Which numbers?

Finally, it seems to me that your argument argument itself is also flawed: As you say, sometimes homosexuals marry out of pressure to conform. But you forgot to explain how simply passing laws will change the pressure.

In my view social pressure is more significant than than anything the law promotes. The notion that civil unions would "make people gay" is somthing that opponents usually advocate. If it seems I'm being contradictory on that point, it's because I'm arguing from my opponent's premises rather than my own.

Civil Unions would streamline inheratance laws, privacy issues, help with adoption and help with visitation for medical problems.

They would remove major sources of stress, which I assume have an effect on the stability of relationships.

The assumption that formalizing civil unions will influence sexual orientation seems to be one of the reasons people are opposed to them. Personally, I think that male sexual preference is fairly fixed, (though sometimes bisexual.) (I see Female sexual preference as much more socialized, but I don't consider lesbianism as as much of a social problem as compared to male homosexual promiscuity.)

So is it possible, in your opinion, that it could go the other way as well: that "social conditioning" could make an otherwise heterosexual man or women interested in experimenting with homosexuality? Or are you a believer in the dogma which says it can go one way, but not the other?

I think that men are more likely to have their sexual preferences hard coded early in life. Environment might encourage them to act or not act on their impulses, but I think that actual desires are imprinted fairly early on. When exactly, I don't know. I think that women can be influenced by social pressure (I've known at least one woman who seemed to have been.) I'm not as concerned about lesbianism, however, because lesbian relationships don't tend to be as promiscuous as gay male relationships and thus don't cause substantial disease transmission in the population.

That's a bit like saying: "Other than saving lives, why should we worry about speed limits, seat belts, and preventing drunk driving?" Um, Ryan, that's the whole reason.

The whole reason? Do you think that most people who disagree with civil unions do so solely on utilitarian grounds? I haven't seen that. Your argument, then, is that the only reason for banning civil unions is that they would increase promiscuity or because they encourage people to leave their wives or husbands for same sex relationships. Or am I misreading your argument?

It's an interesting hypothesis, but I haven't seen anything to back it up yet.

I think marriage laws are a good subject for the popular vote because I think all laws are a good subject for popular vote.

Do you think that all behaviors and relationships are a good subject for the popular vote?

You're misreading what I said. I didn't say that an elite cadre of individuals should decide things for everyone. I said that individuals should be allowed to freely associate with one another. There is a difference between a body of people voting on a decision and then enforcing blanket conformity on all people via the police (or some other means) and all people being given individual freedom. The second is not totalitarianism (unless it involves a bunch of Browshirts attacking certain people while the authorities look the other way.)

But, ech, if democracy doesn't give us what we personally want, then throw it out, right? After all, it's only good to play by the rules as long as we get to win, right?

The contrast I'm making is not between democracy and totalitarianism. The contrast is between enforcing popular conformity and allowing people with minority views to act as individuals within certain bounds, regardless of how popular their actions are.

I am not advocating enforcing the majority to conform to a minorty lifestyle (i.e. that all people should be in same sex relationships.) I disagree with anyone who believes this (and I realize that there are a few people who do consider homosexual relationships as superior to hetrosexual relationships.) I'm not arguing for throwing out democracy either. I am suggesting, simply, that there are some things which should be a matter of individual choice rather than popular vote, and that we (as a democracy) should respect this and not try and micromanage people's lives but rather recognize their choices so long as those choices aren't dishonest or harmful.

If you think I'm advocating giving the government more control over people's individual choices then you've misread me.

That survey seems to be at odds with other findings, such as the NHCS. See here or here for example -- the actual divorce rate for a given marriage is closer to 20-25%.

Not sure what you mean to imply here.

I'll take your word for it. I'm no expert on statistics for this topic. The reason that I posted that retraction was that it seemed to me initially, based on the statistics provided, that homoeroticsm was a major cause of divorce in heterosexual marriages when present. Upon reflection I realized that the rate might not be particularly abnormal.