Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 08, 2010, 02:21:44 PM
-
:o
Fed judge: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
By DENISE LAVOIE (AP)
BOSTON A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.
The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
BOSTON (AP) A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right a state to define marriage.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.
The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZVhxGXCMRA-mJB4JYXiICP3a6jQD9GR3OL01
-
Preserving state rights is a good thing.
-
Unless your state is Arizona.
-
:o
Fed judge: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
By DENISE LAVOIE (AP)
BOSTON A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.
The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
BOSTON (AP) A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right a state to define marriage.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.
The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZVhxGXCMRA-mJB4JYXiICP3a6jQD9GR3OL01
I wouldn't worry about this, just yet. DOMA has been upheld in multiple court cases, before now. So, there's plenty of legal precedent. Dollars-to-donuts, this judge gets overturned in appeals court.
-
At least 75% of married people I know are miserable, wouldn't do it again with the same person, would leave if it wouldn't mean losing half their stuff and access to their children. I personally don't want to see marriage redefined but no one has really shown a logical reason or any proof to how it would destroy our society or have people turning into pillars of salt. :)
Considering the divorce rate is over 50%, marriage has already been redefined as a short term commitment. It's doubtful letting homosexuals enjoy divorce will end the world... beyond the inevitable hissy fits drama queens will have. :)
-
It'd probably improve the divorce rate to below 50%. The gay people i know take marriage/commitment more seriously than straight.
-
It'd probably improve the divorce rate to below 50%. The gay people i know take marriage/commitment more seriously than straight.
Wait till gays learn the joys of divorce court.
They will curse the day they pushed for marraige rights.
PPPPPPPPRRRRRRRRREEEEEEE EEEENNNNNNNUUUUUUUUUPPPP PPPPPPPPPP
-
Wait till gays learn the joys of divorce court.
They will curse the day they pushed for marraige rights.
PPPPPPPPRRRRRRRRREEEEEEE EEEENNNNNNNUUUUUUUUUPPPP PPPPPPPPPP
The gays i know are all highly educated and intelligent. They don't usually go for people outside their social circle i.e. uneducated and not successful.
It's just another stupid issue where church is trying to run state. Let the states decide what they want and keep the church and Christianity out of it.
-
It's doubtful letting homosexuals enjoy divorce will end the world...
No, but it would make a ratings smashing success for any network that put together a gay version of Divorce Court to air.
-
ban all marriage
:)
-
At least 75% of married people I know are miserable, wouldn't do it again with the same person, would leave if it wouldn't mean losing half their stuff and access to their children. I personally don't want to see marriage redefined but no one has really shown a logical reason or any proof to how it would destroy our society or have people turning into pillars of salt. :)
Considering the divorce rate is over 50%, marriage has already been redefined as a short term commitment. It's doubtful letting homosexuals enjoy divorce will end the world... beyond the inevitable hissy fits drama queens will have. :)
how many times do I need to correct you on this? THE DIVORCE RATE IS NO WHERE NEAR 50%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
how many times do I need to correct you on this? THE DIVORCE RATE IS NO WHERE NEAR 50%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So the CDC is wrong?!
Marriage rate: 7.1 per 1,000 total population
Divorce rate: 3.5 per 1,000 population (44 reporting States and D.C.)
Source: Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2008, table A
-
So the CDC is wrong?!
Marriage rate: 7.1 per 1,000 total population
Divorce rate: 3.5 per 1,000 population (44 reporting States and D.C.)
Source: Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2008, table A
LMAO yes they are...do you know how they calculate that?
they take the number of marriages that take place in a year and divide it by the number of divorces in the same year...they dont take into account the marriages that go past a year but they do take into account the divorces from more than that year...that seem right to you?
http://www.prepinc.com/main/docs/what_really_div_rate.html
"No serious demographer ever looked at the approx 2.4 mil marriages a year and 1.2 mil divorces a year to arrive at the 50% number. That is a misunderstanding that began early in the debate about what the divorce rate really isa misunderstanding that is, unfortunately, widely perpetuated."
please stop using that ignorant ass number...
-
LMAO yes they are...do you know how they calculate that?
they take the number of marriages that take place in a year and divide it by the number of divorces in the same year...they dont take into account the marriages that go past a year but they do take into account the divorces from more than that year...that seem right to you?
http://www.prepinc.com/main/docs/what_really_div_rate.html
"No serious demographer ever looked at the approx 2.4 mil marriages a year and 1.2 mil divorces a year to arrive at the 50% number. That is a misunderstanding that began early in the debate about what the divorce rate really isa misunderstanding that is, unfortunately, widely perpetuated."
please stop using that ignorant ass number...
I realize some people think marriage is a delicate flower to be protected from the gays but you can only go by the raw numbers. It's also understandable that no one wants to walk down the aisle knowing they have a 50/50 shot of success. That being said, numbers don't lie, people do.
If you really want to split hairs... technically it could be said that the divorce rate is dropping. This is due to fewer people getting married.
Al math aside, only people who can afford divorce actually pull the trigger. One could easily infer that marital dissatisfaction, itself, is much higher than the actual rate of divorce. :)
Either Disraeli or Twain wrote "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics"
-
I realize some people think marriage is a delicate flower to be protected from the gays but you can only go by the raw numbers. It's also understandable that no one wants to walk down the aisle knowing they have a 50/50 shot of success. That being said, numbers don't lie, people do.
If you really want to split hairs... technically it could be said that the divorce rate is dropping. This is due to fewer people getting married.
Al math aside, only people who can afford divorce actually pull the trigger. One could easily infer that marital dissatisfaction, itself, is much higher than the actual rate of divorce. :)
Either Disraeli or Twain wrote "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics"
LMAO ever heard the phrase "figures dont lie, but liars figure"? thats what happend here Im not saying that they meant to do so but the FACT of the matter is the divorce rate is far below 50% bro... ::) so when you walk down the isle know that you have a much greater chance than 50% of staying married ;)
marital disatisfaction isnt divorce and changes over time...
-
I know lots of happily married people and happily married people who have been together for 20, 30, 40+ years.
-
I know lots of happily married people and happily married people who have been together for 20, 30, 40+ years.
the majority of the parents of my friends are happily married and have been so for 20,30, 40+ years...I know more ppl that have stayed together than have divorced...which is an example THAT THE DIVORCE RATE IS FAR BELOW 50% ;)
-
the majority of the parents of my friends are happily married and have been so for 20,30, 40+ years...I know more ppl that have stayed together than have divorced...which is an example THAT THE DIVORCE RATE IS FAR BELOW 50% ;)
I know lots of divorced people too, but I agree with you that the divorce rate is probably less than 50 percent.
-
Many would like to get divorced but cant afford to.
-
60 percent of marriages for couples between the ages of 20 and 25 end in divorce. National Center for Health Statistics
50 percent of all marriages in which the brides are 25 or older result in a failed marriage. National Center for Health Statistics
The problem is simple. Statistics can/will say anything you like if broken down by age, number of years married, state, race, etc....
Marriages/divorces over a calendar year may be more reliable because it catches every permutation.
-
60 percent of marriages for couples between the ages of 20 and 25 end in divorce. — National Center for Health Statistics
50 percent of all marriages in which the brides are 25 or older result in a failed marriage. — National Center for Health Statistics
The problem is simple. Statistics can/will say anything you like if broken down by age, number of years married, state, race, etc....
Marriages/divorces over a calendar year may be more reliable because it catches every permutation.
That's not what Tony is saying. The CDC is not equivocating the two - you are. Their simply saying that x number of people were married this year and x number were divorced and you're attempting to link the two. I'm sure as a chiropractor you've had statistics and can see the fallacy.
If they took a base year, looked at all the marriages and noted how many of those marriages ended in divorce, then you could make the leap you're attempting to make (provided it's representative, random, etc.). You know the drill.
-
That's not what Tony is saying. The CDC is not equivocating the two - you are. Their simply saying that x number of people were married this year and x number were divorced and you're attempting to link the two. I'm sure as a chiropractor you've had statistics and can see the fallacy.
If they took a base year, looked at all the marriages and noted how many of those marriages ended in divorce, then you could make the leap you're attempting to make (provided it's representative, random, etc.). You know the drill.
Geez, LOL!
What's next?! Creating a single statistical group for each couple. :)
Tony and I are saying the same thing. We're just debating which method makes the most sense. Roughly half as many people get divorced per year as get married. Even better, twice as many people get married per year versus the number divorced.
Doing the rate Tony's way may as well include widows/widowers, FFS! :)
The CDC (though very general) still gives the most useful information. In theory, Tony's method could make the divorce rate pretty much zero if people really wanted to get creative.
-
60 percent of marriages for couples between the ages of 20 and 25 end in divorce. National Center for Health Statistics
50 percent of all marriages in which the brides are 25 or older result in a failed marriage. National Center for Health Statistics
The problem is simple. Statistics can/will say anything you like if broken down by age, number of years married, state, race, etc....
Marriages/divorces over a calendar year may be more reliable because it catches every permutation.
LOL yes they can pretty much be made to say anything you want...the difference is which one is more representative of the actual statistic you want to achieve...
if you want to believe that the method that gives you these numbers is more accurate than the one I presented fine...but I wouldnt take your advice on much else math related from here on out... ;)
its obvious that the way your stats are made that they are not indicitive of the actual divorce rate...Im not saying the way I presented is perfect but it sure is alot more accurate than the one youre choosing to believe in... ;)
-
LOL yes they can pretty much be made to say anything you want...the difference is which one is more representative of the actual statistic you want to achieve...
if you want to believe that the method that gives you these numbers is more accurate than the one I presented fine...but I wouldnt take your advice on much else math related from here on out... ;)
its obvious that the way your stats are made that they are not indicitive of the actual divorce rate...Im not saying the way I presented is perfect but it sure is alot more accurate than the one youre choosing to believe in... ;)
I can cipher good as anybody, asshat. :P
Besides, I'm arguing the method used to arrive at 50% is more reliable. Yours may be more accurate, but creating too many categories renders the information useless at some point. Should people who divorce multiple times should be weighted more? Heck, maybe we should ignore stats altogether and say someone still married has a divorce rate of 0%.
We will probably never know the actual, raw divorce rate because people play with the numbers too much.
-
I can cipher good as anybody, asshat. :P
Besides, I'm arguing the method used to arrive at 50% is more reliable. Yours may be more accurate, but creating too many categories renders the information useless at some point. Should people who divorce multiple times should be weighted more? Heck, maybe we should ignore stats altogether and say someone still married has a divorce rate of 0%.
We will probably never know the actual, raw divorce rate because people play with the numbers too much.
Reliability simply refers to the number of times it's repeated and you get the same result. Validity is the issue here. If your numbers are invalid, reliability is irrelevant. This isn't upper level statistical multivariate analysis, it's basic.
You're taking the opposite extreme argument to new heights. You don't need numerous variables for comparison, you simply need to evaluate people who got married and what percentage of those same people divorced. Not whether Frank and Josephine married, but Ralph and Sally divorced. It's really very simple.
-
Reliability simply refers to the number of times it's repeated and you get the same result. Validity is the issue here. If you're numbers are invalid, reliability is irrelevant. This isn't upper level statistical multivariate analysis, it's basic.
You're taking the opposite extreme argument to new heights. You don't need numerous variables for comparison, you simply need to evaluate people who got married and what percentage of those same people divorced. Not whether Frank and Josephine married, but Ralph and Sally divorced. It's really very simple.
Agree.
-
Reliability simply refers to the number of times it's repeated and you get the same result. Validity is the issue here. If your numbers are invalid, reliability is irrelevant. This isn't upper level statistical multivariate analysis, it's basic.
You're taking the opposite extreme argument to new heights. You don't need numerous variables for comparison, you simply need to evaluate people who got married and what percentage of those same people divorced. Not whether Frank and Josephine married, but Ralph and Sally divorced. It's really very simple.
Validity isn't the issue and it's not that simple because the next, illogical step in your argument is to basically follow cohorts.
Believe me, I get your point. It's just silly. :)
Following married groups is just silly. For that matter why not follow the legally/illegally separated and create a sorta married class, too?
The simplest, crude method still gives more useful information for what we're discussing. Ignore that I'd actually forgotten what the thread title was while typing this reply, LOL!
I ran out of beer (poor planning) and have to make a trip. TTYL!
-
Validity isn't the issue
If you don't care about accurate statistics, then validity isn't the issue.
-
Validity isn't the issue and it's not that simple because the next, illogical step in your argument is to basically follow cohorts.
Amazing coming from a man of science. Validity is the issue and there is no "next step" regarding "cohorts", whatever that means. Again, this is a basic research design we're talking about, not an advanced study to evaluate every other aspect of a persons life.
Believe me, I get your point. It's just silly. :)
Following married groups is just silly. For that matter why not follow the legally/illegally separated and create a sorta married class, too?
Just another attempt to muddy the waters. Nobody is talking about "sorta married", seperated, kinda leaning towards divorce or whatever. We're talking about married people and whether or not those same people get divorced.
The simplest, crude method still gives more useful information for what we're discussing. Ignore that I'd actually forgotten what the thread title was while typing this reply, LOL!
I ran out of beer (poor planning) and have to make a trip. TTYL!
I hope you're drinking Lager - best shit out there.
-
Reliability simply refers to the number of times it's repeated and you get the same result. Validity is the issue here. If your numbers are invalid, reliability is irrelevant. This isn't upper level statistical multivariate analysis, it's basic.
You're taking the opposite extreme argument to new heights. You don't need numerous variables for comparison, you simply need to evaluate people who got married and what percentage of those same people divorced. Not whether Frank and Josephine married, but Ralph and Sally divorced. It's really very simple.
LOL i thought the same thing but figured it was useless to argue ive shown him the flaws in those calculations numerous times and he still cites them...
-
If you don't care about accurate statistics, then validity isn't the issue.
You should get credit for having the balls to use accurate and statistics in the same sentence when discussing a highly politicized topic. :)
The marriage/divorce rate is least susceptible to political manipulation. I never argued it was perfect. The point (which I mistakingly thought painfully simple) is you can't follow 10, 100 or even 1000 marriages X amount of time or come up with a real rate. Also, a ton of variables exist that we cannot technically determine without interviewing and following every married individual. Also, there are still many people separated who are technically married yet not living as man and wife.
We all know those stats can say anything someone doing the math want. Polls are pretty much the same thing. I know a pollster and even he'll admit it comes down to how a question is asked when pushed hard enough.
There are just too many variables to ague Tony's method measures what it's supposed to measure. :)
-
You should get credit for having the balls to use accurate and statistics in the same sentence when discussing a highly politicized topic. :)
The marriage/divorce rate is least susceptible to political manipulation. I never argued it was perfect. The point (which I mistakingly thought painfully simple) is you can't follow 10, 100 or even 1000 marriages X amount of time or come up with a real rate. Also, a ton of variables exist that we cannot technically determine without interviewing and following every married individual. Also, there are still many people separated who are technically married yet not living as man and wife.
We all know those stats can say anything someone doing the math want. Polls are pretty much the same thing. I know a pollster and even he'll admit it comes down to how a question is asked when pushed hard enough.
There are just too many variables to ague Tony's method measures what it's supposed to measure. :)
There are not countless variables which is why you can't name them and you keep referring to shit like "seperated" which is neither here nor there. If you're not divorced, you're not divorced. Period.
Of course you'll never get the "real" rate. But it's more than feasible to take a representative, stratified national sample of say 1000 marriages (assuming we want to be about 95% or so confident), check up on them each year to determine if they are divorced (not seperated, not arguing, not thinking about, not "in the process", but DIVORCED), for a period of say 5 years, and then infer that the 5 year divorce rate = X.
If you were evaluating casuality, then you would have a point about numerous variables. As it stands, we're just talking about divorce.
Now, whether or not anybody has given funding or really even wants to give funding...well, that's another story.
-
There are not countless variables which is why you can't name them and you keep referring to shit like "seperated" which is neither here nor there. If you're not divorced, you're not divorced. Period.
Of course you'll never get the "real" rate. But it's more than feasible to take a representative, stratified national sample of say 1000 marriages (assuming we want to be about 95% or so confident), check up on them each year to determine if they are divorced (not seperated, not arguing, not thinking about, not "in the process", but DIVORCED), for a period of say 5 years, and then infer that the 5 year divorce rate = X.
If you were evaluating casuality, then you would have a point about numerous variables. As it stands, we're just talking about divorce.
Now, whether or not anybody has given funding or really even wants to give funding...well, that's another story.
Causality would muddy things too much, LOL!
I guess we could always go to the divorce rate in children of divorced parents. :)
A five or ten year divorce rate study would definitely be interesting. But as you said, getting funding for something like that would be difficult. I'd be interested in knowing what it would be, especially in comparison to the two methods we've discussed.
Would having a real rate would change anyone's life?
-
Would having a real rate would change anyone's life?
I suppose not, just an academic discussion really. Getting back to the thread though, I'm not sure if gay people want an accurate rate. Might scare them away from wanting to be married!
-
I suppose not, just an academic discussion really. Getting back to the thread though, I'm not sure if gay people want an accurate rate. Might scare them away from wanting to be married!
Even if the true, real rate were 99% people would still stroll down the aisle thinking they'd be in the 1% who stay married forever. :)
-
I suppose not, just an academic discussion really. Getting back to the thread though, I'm not sure if gay people want an accurate rate. Might scare them away from wanting to be married!
shouldnt even be a discussiona in my mind marriage should be made a private institution and everyone should be given public unions under the govt...
you guys would be surpised how much research there is out there on this subject...most colleges have grad students help professors conduct social research I participated in quite a few for extra credit ;D ;D ;D...
-
Maybe people should only be allowed to marry/divorce once. Repeat offenders have an even higher divorce rate.
-
I think people should wait until they are about 30 to get married.