DIVORCE rate HIGHER for lesbians (homosexual women) than gay (homosexual) men

Bigdog said:
"Divorce rates for lesbians and gays
According to data from the Office for National Statistics, in 2019, 56% of same-sex marriages were between women. However, the divorce rate for lesbians was much higher, with 72% of same-sex divorces in 2019 coming from lesbian couples, about 3 times higher than gay male couples. The lesbian divorce rate was 78% in 2016, 74% in 2017 and 75% in 2018. Interestingly, while same-sex marriages have increased drastically since 2014, when same-sex marriage was allowed in England, Wales and Scotland, the rate of divorce has remained consistent. For most divorces, the reason seems to be “unreasonable behavior,” including adultery.

Divorce factors
Considering that marriages between lesbian and gay couples that end in divorce last for similar amounts of years, 4.1 for women and 4.3 for men, it is important to consider the factors that lead to higher rates in dissolution of marriage for lesbians. According to one family law professional, the factors that lead lesbians to divorce are the very same ones that lead women in heterosexual marriages to petition for divorce at a rate (70%) about twice as high as men. These factors include:

Feeling ignored in a marriage
Unequal relationship with one partner pulling the weight in the marriage
Adultery
Domestic violence"

https://www.friendswoodfamilylaw.com/blog/2021/05/divorce-rate-higher-for-lesbians-than-gay-men/
Click to expand...

Who gives a fuck????????????????
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Divorce is more than just two people deciding to go their separate ways. There's property involved. There can be children involved. Divorce is often complicated and messy. Making it harder to get one would make people more careful about getting into a marriage where they might end up needing one.
Click to expand...

If that's the case then follow your fellow authoritarian's idea; make marriage harder to get into not get out of.

Some religions require engaged couples to go through extensive counseling and education before being allowed to be married in the church. An excellent idea, but one which I wouldn't want any federal or state government to make. They have too much power over individuals as it is.

Between the Authoritarian Right from Trumpers and the Authoritarian Left, most Americans are getting fucked over.

Example: Texas Has the Fewest Personal Freedoms
Texas was found to be the state with the fewest personal freedoms, according to the Cato Institute's new Freedom Index.

The index is a yearly measure of both economic and personal freedoms at the state level. The methodology looks at issues from taxation to debt, as well as eminent domain laws, occupational licensing, drug policy and educational choice.
Click to expand...

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/overall/texas
 
Doc Dutch said:
If that's the case then follow your fellow authoritarian's idea; make marriage harder to get into not get out of.

Some religions require engaged couples to go through extensive counseling and education before being allowed to be married in the church. An excellent idea, but one which I wouldn't want any federal or state government to make. They have too much power over individuals as it is.

Between the Authoritarian Right from Trumpers and the Authoritarian Left, most Americans are getting fucked over.

Example: Texas Has the Fewest Personal Freedoms


https://www.freedominthe50states.org/overall/texas
Click to expand...

That article is hardly a good indicator of freedom. CATO ranks personal freedoms primarily on what vices a state allows. That is CATO's rating is on drug use, gambling, alcohol, and the like. That's hardly a good indicator of personal freedom.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That article is hardly a good indicator of freedom. CATO ranks personal freedoms primarily on what vices a state allows. That is CATO's rating is on drug use, gambling, alcohol, and the like. That's hardly a good indicator of personal freedom.
Click to expand...
You should read that out loud to yourself before posting it, Terry.

You're saying laws banning people from buying liquor or a Lotto ticket are not against personal freedom. LOL

What's also amusing is seeing someone so far right that they believe the CATO Institute are Lefties. :rofl2:
 
Doc Dutch said:
You should read that out loud to yourself before posting it, Terry.

You're saying laws banning people from buying liquor or a Lotto ticket are not against personal freedom. LOL

What's also amusing is seeing someone so far right that they believe the CATO Institute are Lefties. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

Yep. Taken to an extreme, shoplifting or strong arm robbery (aka pickpocketing, purse snatching, or minor assault and robbery) are vices too. Should those freedoms be allowed? Should drug and alcohol abusers be allowed to operate cars, aircraft, or machinery? Where do you draw the line on allowing a vice?

What about sex for money? Is there any public interest in not allowing that versus allowing it?

You see, CATO isn't measuring personal freedom but rather societal tolerance for vice and petty crime. Positive personal freedoms would be things like car ownership versus use of public transit, or home ownership without government imposing a property tax. Or, ability to open and operate a business without massive licensing and other government requirements to give a few examples.

But CATO doesn't measure that. They measure what negatives are allowed in society: Gambling, prostitution, drug and alcohol use, that sort of thing. Their measure says people should be allowed these negatives while saying nothing about positives they should be allowed.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yep. Taken to an extreme, shoplifting or strong arm robbery (aka pickpocketing, purse snatching, or minor assault and robbery) are vices too. Should those freedoms be allowed? Should drug and alcohol abusers be allowed to operate cars, aircraft, or machinery? Where do you draw the line on allowing a vice?

What about sex for money? Is there any public interest in not allowing that versus allowing it?

You see, CATO isn't measuring personal freedom but rather societal tolerance for vice and petty crime. Positive personal freedoms would be things like car ownership versus use of public transit, or home ownership without government imposing a property tax. Or, ability to open and operate a business without massive licensing and other government requirements to give a few examples.

But CATO doesn't measure that. They measure what negatives are allowed in society: Gambling, prostitution, drug and alcohol use, that sort of thing. Their measure says people should be allowed these negatives while saying nothing about positives they should be allowed.
Click to expand...
1. Goes to extremes like the Lefties he hates.
R.852dc454dc7b0d6bc8af280b30666f66

2. Pushes an authoritarian agenda like the Lefties he hates.
R.852dc454dc7b0d6bc8af280b30666f66

3. Seeks to limit individual freedoms like the Lefties he hates.
R.852dc454dc7b0d6bc8af280b30666f66


Sad, Terry, to see you go so far to the authoritarian Right. Like the CATO Institute and the Libertarian Party, I support defending individual rights, not stripping them away with extreme examples. The fact you can't tell the difference between personal freedom and stripping people of their rights, be it a common thief, a murderer or a Trumper, is why I know you are not as supportive of the Constitution as you like others to believe.

https://www.lp.org/platform/
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
 
Blazed Pascal said:
asshole.
Click to expand...

it's typical of betas and simps when they KNOW how weak they are, that all they can do is shame, insult, guilt, and express that intense need to win............they know that they are, at best, 5s in the sexual marketplace..........and probably lower, but they've got a woman who will let them simp for them.................
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That article is hardly a good indicator of freedom. CATO ranks personal freedoms primarily on what vices a state allows. That is CATO's rating is on drug use, gambling, alcohol, and the like. That's hardly a good indicator of personal freedom.
Click to expand...

what the hell could be a better indicator of personal freedom than to do what one wants with their own shit???????
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yep. Taken to an extreme, shoplifting or strong arm robbery (aka pickpocketing, purse snatching, or minor assault and robbery) are vices too.
Click to expand...
absolute bullshit. any reasonable person knows that individual freedom is that which does not infringe on the individual freedom of others. stop resorting to hyperbole. It makes you sound like jarod

T. A. Gardner said:
What about sex for money? Is there any public interest in not allowing that versus allowing it?
Click to expand...
if there's a 14 year old that needs a kidney and mines a match, should I be allowed to sell it?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
absolute bullshit. any reasonable person knows that individual freedom is that which does not infringe on the individual freedom of others. stop resorting to hyperbole. It makes you sound like jarod


if there's a 14 year old that needs a kidney and mines a match, should I be allowed to sell it?
Click to expand...
Too late. Terry has already outed himself as a RW authoritarian. Sad.

Yes, although cloning tech may soon make that unnecessary.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what the hell could be a better indicator of personal freedom than to do what one wants with their own shit???????
Click to expand...

Vices are not "their own shit" per se. Vices have long had a negative influence on society. Are you good with children being able to buy pornography? How about drugs that are dangerous or could cause death or injury to you or those around you?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
absolute bullshit. any reasonable person knows that individual freedom is that which does not infringe on the individual freedom of others. stop resorting to hyperbole. It makes you sound like jarod


if there's a 14 year old that needs a kidney and mines a match, should I be allowed to sell it?
Click to expand...

Sure, that's a personal choice. Individual freedoms can often infringe on other's individual freedoms. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you can shout down someone else because you don't like their speech, nor does it mean you can use it to incite violence, or cause others to act such that they endanger themselves because of your speech. That's true just as it is true that if your religion demands human sacrifices, that doesn't give you the right to commit murder to appease your god.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Vices are not "their own shit" per se. Vices have long had a negative influence on society. Are you good with children being able to buy pornography? How about drugs that are dangerous or could cause death or injury to you or those around you?
Click to expand...

again, more hyperbole. do children have the same rights as adults? think.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Sure, that's a personal choice. Individual freedoms can often infringe on other's individual freedoms. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you can shout down someone else because you don't like their speech, nor does it mean you can use it to incite violence, or cause others to act such that they endanger themselves because of your speech. That's true just as it is true that if your religion demands human sacrifices, that doesn't give you the right to commit murder to appease your god.
Click to expand...

don't look now, but you just made the argument that leftists have been making regarding all rights to be regulated, i.e. no shouting fire in a theater. congrats.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
don't look now, but you just made the argument that leftists have been making regarding all rights to be regulated, i.e. no shouting fire in a theater. congrats.
Click to expand...

Leftists take things far further than common sense would. They would ban speech they don't agree with or like. Wait...! They already do that whenever they can...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top