[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you're out knocking up multiple women, I'd argue that you are not suited well for marriage and will likely only add to the divorce rate. Seems logical to me that you would likely ditch both of 'em or have one or both of them abort.

So people who have had sex with more than one women should not get married?

I see.

I say if you can maintain your first marriage, you should NOT get re-married because you will likely failed again.

Reason to banned divorce.

Reason to banned those who divorce from getting re-married.

Divorce Statistics, Divorce Rates in US

43% of first marriages end within 15 years.

65% of all second marriages fail.

Prime examples:

Rudolph W. Giuliani wives:

1. Regina Peruggi (m. 1968, div. 1982, ann. 1983)
2. Donna Hanover (m. 1984, div. 2002)
3. Judith Nathan (m. 2003)

Rush limbaugh wives:

1. Roxy Maxine McNeely (1977–1980, div.)
2. Michelle Sixta (1983–1990, div.)
3. Marta Fitzgerald (1994–2004, div.)

Newt Gingrich wives:

1. Jackie Battley (1962-1981)
2. Marianne Ginther (1981-2000)
3. Callista Gingrich (2000-current)

[hyteckit]

Atheist have the lowest divorce rates.

Divorce rates by Religion:

Code:
Religion                           % have been divorced
Jews                                  30%
Born-again Christians        27%
Other Christians	        24%
Atheists, Agnostics	        21%

U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas

[Wiskedjak]

Well, I think it's pretty clear which groups have the least respect for the institution of marriage.

[ironknee]

how did this thread turn gay?

seriously,

1) how many think there ARE gays in our society?

2) do you think theoretically there would be no gay people in our society? ie if all the gay people stop choosing to be gay.

3) how many of you will reply with something like, 'i have nothing against the gays. i have many gay friends (optional). they should have all the rights they want except marriage because...( reason )'

[besson3c]

Great bit on the war here:

Jon Stewart Takes On War Between Obama White House & Fox News (VIDEO)

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Atheist have the lowest divorce rates.

Divorce rates by Religion:

Code:
Religion                           % have been divorced
Jews                                  30%
Born-again Christians        27%
Other Christians	        24%
Atheists, Agnostics	        21%

U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas

That's because they kill them to avoid alimony payments.

[besson3c]

Yeah, all atheists are murderers!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Well, I think it's pretty clear which groups have the least respect for the institution of marriage.

What's next, point out the divorce rate at varying income levels? Race? Egadz, there's no end to ludicrous.

Is it as clear which groups have the least respect for human kind? For diversity?

[ironknee]

human kind IS diverse

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What's next, point out the divorce rate at varying income levels? Race? Egadz, there's no end to ludicrous.

Is it as clear which groups have the least respect for human kind? For diversity?

Perhaps when those opposed to same-sex marriage stop arguing that the gays are trying to destroy family values we'll stop pointing out that the Christians are beating them to the punch.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Perhaps when those opposed to same-sex marriage stop arguing that the gays are trying to destroy family values we'll stop pointing out that the Christians are beating them to the punch.

The same old tired logical fallacy that if you try but fail to live up high standards that you're just as culpable as those who promote low, or no standards.

Heck. There's really no reason for anyone to try to achieve anything good because a lot of people will fail.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Perhaps when those opposed to same-sex marriage stop arguing that the gays are trying to destroy family values we'll stop pointing out that the Christians are beating them to the punch.

I guess I'm saying; "tell that to Obama, who opposes same-sex marriage". Some who oppose gay marriage may have defined their own shoddily, some may not have. If the divorce rate were lower among self-proclaimed "Christians" (the ones that sometimes attend a service on Christmas and Easter), would you claim their opposition more legitimate?

BTW, none of this really has anything to do with Obama's war with Fox News.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

BTW, none of this really has anything to do with Obama's war with Fox News.

You're absolutely right. But, it is an interesting conversation none-the-less.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're absolutely right. But, it is an interesting conversation none-the-less.

In that case, let's take a look at the polling data. As hyteckit's link pointed out, the Non-denominational sect represented the highest divorce rate. "Non-denominational" comes with two asterisks with a definition of what this project considers "Non-denominational".

Non-denominational: The term generally refers to evangelical Protestant congregations that are not affiliated with a specific Christian denomination. The vast majority are fundamentalist in their theological beliefs. Most "... are loosely Baptist in doctrine" and are often influenced by charismatic, Pentecostal, and Calvinist beliefs and practices. They total about 6 million members in the U.S. Many congregations' senior pastors lack a seminary degree. They have the highest proportion of adults among all Christian groups with what Barna Research calls a "biblical worldview." The term "non-denominational" should not be confused with terms like "inter-faith" or "multi-faith" or "all faiths" or "all faith and ethical traditions" etc. These are terms that indicate acceptance of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and many other belief systems.

2/3rds of African-American marriages end in divorce and they are heavily represented in the Baptist and Pentecostal sects of Christianity. It is relatively easy to conclude that socioeconomics play a more critical role in the success or failure of a marriage.

So... like I said; if religious affiliation is an adequate demographic for "marital integrity" why not income levels or race? A: because this would indicate how truly fallacious the poll is and how patently moronic the conclusions drawn from it are. It illustrates best of all that the intent here is more antagonistic than informative.

[Wiskedjak]

"Non-denominational" is an interesting thing. Many of the people that I attended Baptist church with back when I was a kid are now attending Non-Denominational churches.

In any case, you're absolutely right: drawing opinions on who does and doesn't support "family values" based on religion is moronic. Just as it's moronic to say that Liberals and Gays are trying to destroy marriage based on the *exact same* argument. That's the whole point of the "Christians have a higher divorce rate" argument; to point out the lunacy of the argument that Liberals and Gays are destroying the sanctity of marriage.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The same old tired logical fallacy that if you try but fail to live up high standards that you're just as culpable as those who promote low, or no standards.

No, the same old tired logical fallacy that you need to pull the stick out of your eye socket before you have a go at the splinter you think you see in somebody else's. A group that has managed to thoroughly trash the good name of marriage has no business turning around and going, "Hey, don't let those people in — they'll delegitimize our institution!" They can hardly do worse than you have. They might actually do better.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, the same old tired logical fallacy that you need to pull the stick out of your eye socket before you have a go at the splinter you think you see in somebody else's.

No one's perfect. The logic you are using would preclude anyone with faults from seeking and promoting high standards. That makes little sense. If I have problems with fidelity to my wife, and someone asks me if I and for or against adultery and I say that I'm against it (even though I struggle with the standard myself) - how exactly is that a bad thing?

People should always seek to promote the highest standards in something - even if they can't meet those standards themselves. They just need to understand that promoting those standards doesn't absolve from guilt for not being able to achieve those standards, or make their inability to achieve those goals any less a failure.

A group that has managed to thoroughly trash the good name of marriage has no business turning around and going, "Hey, don't let those people in — they'll delegitimize our institution!" They can hardly do worse than you have. They might actually do better.

Exageration much? As ebuddy so clearly pointed out, the data in question is highly suspect and you are painting everyone in opposition with the broadest of brushes. Not everyone who seeks to implement the high standards in question has trashed "the good name of marriage" and even those who have failed at meeting the standard in question shouldn't be degraded for having those standards if they simply fail.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one's perfect. The logic you are using would preclude anyone with faults from seeking and promoting high standards.

No it wouldn't. But it would preclude people from leading in matters at which they'd demonstrated little aptitude. Also, your objection to traditional Christian values has been noted.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That makes little sense. If I have problems with fidelity to my wife, and someone asks me if I and for or against adultery and I say that I'm against it (even though I struggle with the standard myself) - how exactly is that a bad thing?

How is that a comparable thing? Even if it were, you can be against things you yourself have done, but you have no business harassing other people on the same subject until you get your own house in order.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

People should always seek to promote the highest standards in something - even if they can't meet those standards themselves. They just need to understand that promoting those standards doesn't absolve from guilt for not being able to achieve those standards, or make their inability to achieve those goals any less a failure.

It does show that your methods for achieving the highest standards and perhaps even your understanding of the highest standards are suspect. I would not want my taxes done by somebody currently under investigation by the IRS.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not everyone who seeks to implement the high standards in question has trashed "the good name of marriage" and even those who have failed at meeting the standard in question shouldn't be degraded for having those standards if they simply fail.

Empirically speaking, straights have done more to harm marriage than gays have. Why should gays then be "degraded" merely for existing?

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Conservatives should always seek to promote the highest standards in something - even if they can't meet those standards themselves.

Fixed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No it wouldn't. But it would preclude people from leading in matters at which they'd demonstrated little aptitude. Also, your objection to traditional Christian values has been noted.

I actually disagree with this. The same argument was made when I suggested something about us having civil discourse here (and, I'm pretty sure I made the same argument that stupendousman is trying to make against you here relating to my own history and ability to call for civil discourse, which I'm sure at the time he disagreed with me on since it suited).

I would say that it would make it very difficult for that person to lead, but the whole game of putting somebody under the microscope and "vetting" them before we decide whether we want to listen to them is tiresome and old. Listen to what they say. If you disagree with them, you disagree with them. If you know too much about their history prior, I suppose it would be nearly impossible to take them seriously (this is what I meant by saying that it would be "very difficult"), but if you know nothing about them there is no need to put their personal life and history under a microscope prior to deciding whether or not you agree with them.

Empirically speaking, straights have done more to harm marriage than gays have. Why should gays then be "degraded" merely for existing?

This I agree completely with you on. Gays are no threat to hetero marriage, there is simply no way I can wrap my head around this ridiculous argument.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No it wouldn't. But it would preclude people from leading in matters at which they'd demonstrated little aptitude. Also, your objection to traditional Christian values has been noted.

When did I object to traditional Christian values?

How is that a comparable thing? Even if it were, you can be against things you yourself have done, but you have no business harassing other people on the same subject until you get your own house in order.

I would agree that, for example, a drunk wouldn't make a very convincing witness to how to show self control and temperance. That of course doesn't mean that he shouldn't believe that people should adhere to higher standards than he himself has been able to achieve.

When you use the data in question to lump all Christians together as people who hurt marriage and have no business calling for high standards in regards to these unions, it's not an example of suggesting an INDIVIDUAL who doesn't have credibility in a matter should keep his criticism to himself. You are trying to keep dissent from happening via stereotypes and moral equivalencies.

It does show that your methods for achieving the highest standards and perhaps even your understanding of the highest standards are suspect. I would not want my taxes done by somebody currently under investigation by the IRS.

Mr. Geitner appreciates your support!

Empirically speaking, straights have done more to harm marriage than gays have. Why should gays then be "degraded" merely for existing?

A. Gays haven't really had much to do with "marriage" until just recently. They've not really had the same opportunities as straight people.

B. For every straight person who is married 3 times, there are at least 2 who have only been married once. The statistics and "empirical data" isn't all that it's been cracked up to be.

C. No one said that gay people should be "degraded". A gay person should feel no more degraded for not wanting to get married (as it's currently defined) than a one arm man should feel degraded for not being able to win a rowing contest.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

2/3rds of African-American marriages end in divorce and they are heavily represented in the Baptist and Pentecostal sects of Christianity. It is relatively easy to conclude that socioeconomics play a more critical role in the success or failure of a marriage.

So... like I said; if religious affiliation is an adequate demographic for "marital integrity" why not income levels or race? A: because this would indicate how truly fallacious the poll is and how patently moronic the conclusions drawn from it are. It illustrates best of all that the intent here is more antagonistic than informative.

2/3rds of African-American marriages end in divorce? Wow. That's a lie.

I did a study back in college on divorce rates in the US based on religion and race.

Rough estimates.

Black - about 78% Christians
White - about 78% Christians
Hispanic - about 78% Christians
Asians - about 15% Christians

Guess who has the lowest divorce rates in the US? Asians.

Divorce rate among Asians are at least half of those of other races.

Divorce Statistics

Divorce Statistics: Top 4 Race Groups:

Race Groups:
Divorced or had been Divorced:
Whites 27 %
African-Americans 22 %
Hispanics 20 %
Asians 08 %



If you look at China, China's divorce rate is half of the US.

[stupendousman]

All essentially irrelevant to the discussion. Even if you accept the numbers given, the vast majority of those who consider themselves Christians DO NOT get divorced. Even the majority of Jews, who would appear to represent the greatest percentage of divorced people "of faith", have most of their followers NOT divorced.

Bringing this up is simply a distraction, in my opinion. A very popular distraction, but a distraction no less. As I said before, people have every right to support high standards even if they end up failing to reach them themselves. People are going to have to try a little harder to find some other reasons why people shouldn't support strict, traditional standards if you are going to change minds.

Given that not all unions are equal in what they provide to society, the current standard provides affirmative action recognition to something that has a great societal interest, and the current standard is a long held - time honored societal tradition (I understand that's not enough alone, but it is part of the reason gay people want them currently), there's more than enough reason to keep things the way they are. Faux accusations of hypocrisy aren't grounds for change, in my opinion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

2/3rds of African-American marriages end in divorce? Wow. That's a lie.
Race Groups:
Divorced or had been Divorced:
Whites 27 %
African-Americans 22 %
Hispanics 20 %
Asians 08 %

A lie? I've got no reason to lie. For one... I personally hate the statistic and the outcomes of divorce. I'm no self-professed expert on divorce rates like you claim, but I'll at least give you an ideal where I got the info.

The researchers found that “70 percent of black women’s first marriages will end in divorce, as will 47 percent of white women’s marriages..." Age, education and income are major factors in the stability of all marriages, regardless of race or ethnicity, but those factors affect African-American couples more than others, according to the two researchers.
divorce 360
demographic-research.org

The structure of the black family has undergone significant change over the past 30 years. [1,3] One dramatic aspect has been a loosening of the marital bonds. The proportion of black couples who have divorced has increased, and the proportion of black couples who have married has declined. [1] Two thirds of all black marriages end in divorce, and 2 of 3 black children will experience the dissolution of their parents' marriage by the time they reach age 16.
Minority Health Today

I did a study back in college on divorce rates in the US based on religion and race.

Well then you should know better than most what constitutes the most effective means of measuring divorce rates. You don't compare divorce rates with marriage rates as say-the Census Bureau does in your link, but you calculate the number of people who actually married and subsequently divorced as those who are most concerned about mitigating the problem do.

If you look at China, China's divorce rate is half of the US.

Brilliant analysis from hyteckit who did a college paper on divorce rates. When shall the US be embracing arranged marriages then? You know, spouses chosen by your family or by Party officials like in China? You know what happens to the divorce rate in China as "free choice" marriages increase? Yeah, you guessed it, the divorce rates increase.

[BadKosh]

I'd like to see the religious divisions further divided into devout, average, and in name only. I'll bet the In-Name-Only groups of all religions show higher numbers.

[stupendousman]

One guy says whites divorce rate is 27%. Another says that white woman's divorce rate is 47%. I don't think they both can be right.

This is why I always blink twice before reading or accepting stats.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A lie? I've got no reason to lie. For one... I personally hate the statistic and the outcomes of divorce. I'm no self-professed expert on divorce rates like you claim, but I'll at least give you an ideal where I got the info.

The researchers found that “70 percent of black women’s first marriages will end in divorce, as will 47 percent of white women’s marriages..." Age, education and income are major factors in the stability of all marriages, regardless of race or ethnicity, but those factors affect African-American couples more than others, according to the two researchers.
divorce 360
demographic-research.org

The structure of the black family has undergone significant change over the past 30 years. [1,3] One dramatic aspect has been a loosening of the marital bonds. The proportion of black couples who have divorced has increased, and the proportion of black couples who have married has declined. [1] Two thirds of all black marriages end in divorce, and 2 of 3 black children will experience the dissolution of their parents' marriage by the time they reach age 16.
Minority Health Today


Well then you should know better than most what constitutes the most effective means of measuring divorce rates. You don't compare divorce rates with marriage rates as say-the Census Bureau does in your link, but you calculate the number of people who actually married and subsequently divorced as those who are most concerned about mitigating the problem do.

Why don't you read the study? First of all it's just estimates and conjecture. Second of all, it doesn't say 70% will get divorce.

You can't read and the website divorce360 cannot read.

Read the damn study.

http://www.demographic-research.org/...vol8/8/8-8.pdf

"On the other hand, duration-specific rates of the late 1980's imply that 70 percent of all marriages to black women end in separation or divorce."

By the way. Damn study doesn't even include Asians.


I rather go with the Census data. At least they include Asians and are based on facts. Not some study on marital dissolution base on guess-timation of what happens in the next 30 years.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Brilliant analysis from hyteckit who did a college paper on divorce rates. When shall the US be embracing arranged marriages then? You know, spouses chosen by your family or by Party officials like in China? You know what happens to the divorce rate in China as "free choice" marriages increase? Yeah, you guessed it, the divorce rates increase.

So traditional marriages should be arrange marriages which results in lower divorce rates.

Seems like ebuddy advocating banning all non-traditional marriages.


By the way, did you missed the whole Asians in the US who don't have arrange marriages?

Asians in the US have a 8% divorce rate.

[hyteckit]

Let's go with ebuddy's provided link on demographics projections on marriage dissolution.

Based on 1987 to 1989 data, it is estimated that in 30 years:

Marriage Dissolution Rate
White - 47%
Blacks - 70%


From census:
Asians - 8%
Atheist - 21%

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Great bit on the war here:

Jon Stewart Takes On War Between Obama White House & Fox News (VIDEO)

It's funny because it's true.

[hyteckit]

arranged marriage == traditional marriage

Yes, arranged marriage do have a lower divorce rate than marriage through courtship.


Arrange Marriage making a come back?

First the marriage, then the courtship | csmonitor.com

[hyteckit]

Speaking of Fox and Arrange Marriage.

Fox coming out with an Arrange Marriage reality show.

Fox developing arranged marriage reality show--The Live Feed | THR

Because "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette" is not "arranged marriage" enough because you get to choose between 20 potential mates get married with.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

One guy says whites divorce rate is 27%. Another says that white woman's divorce rate is 47%. I don't think they both can be right.

One statistic is for white couples, one is for white women. White women sometimes marry non-white men, except in Louisiana where some judges don't allow that.

[The Final Dakar]

So should I be the one to point out that it was teh blacks that voted overwhelming to stop teh gays from marrying in Cali last year? (i.e., the people with the worst divorce rate, apparently)

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So should I be the one to point out that it was teh blacks that voted overwhelming to stop teh gays from marrying in Cali last year? (i.e., the people with the worst divorce rate, apparently)

The Black voters were a largely Protestant Christian group. There was an unusually high black voter turnout during the primaries, so it helped the Conservative Christian bigots swing the ballot in their favor. It also didn't help that several religious organizations directly funded advertising for Yes on 8 even though it was illegal for them to do so.

Yes, it's ironic for Black people to vote against gay marriage. No, they don't see it as the same thing because of their religious indoctrination.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So should I be the one to point out that it was teh blacks that voted overwhelming to stop teh gays from marrying in Cali last year? (i.e., the people with the worst divorce rate, apparently)

That's because over 78% of Blacks are Christians and most of them of deeply religious.

[The Final Dakar]

And what percentage of whites are Christians? I'll take the word 'deeply' with a grain of salt.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

And what percentage of whites are Christians? I'll take the word 'deeply' with a grain of salt.

"Deeply" religiously being attend church at least a every week or every other week.

Among Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, Christians make up around 78% for each race. Asians on the other hand, way below. Although my data is like 10 years old.

Probably less than that now.

[besson3c]

I wonder what percentage of skinny people get divorces? This seems just about as relevant...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

"Deeply" religiously being attend church at least a every week or every other week.

Among Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, Christians make up around 78% for each race. Asians on the other hand, way below. Although my data is like 10 years old.

Probably less than that now.

Yeah, where are you pulling this from?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, where are you pulling this from?

Census data man. Census data.

http://www.census.gov/

2010 will be the census year. Lots more data coming.

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/

[The Final Dakar]

So I'm guessing these people are self-identifying as deeply religious? How are you determining that?

[hyteckit]

Religious Composition of US Population: 2007

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/09s0074.pdf

Protestant - 51.3%
Catholic - 23.9%
Mormon - 1.7%
Jewish - 1.7%

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So I'm guessing these people are self-identifying as deeply religious? How are you determining that?

I think there's a lot of surveys asking how often they attend church or how important is religion.

I believe both the census and gallup asks that question.

One of the most common questions to ask a religious person.

Religion Most Important to Blacks, Women, and Older Americans

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wonder what percentage of skinny people get divorces? This seems just about as relevant...

...and left handed people. Surely more of those people get divorced, and probably support bans on "gay marriage" too!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why don't you read the study? First of all it's just estimates and conjecture. Second of all, it doesn't say 70% will get divorce.

You can't read and the website divorce360 cannot read.

Read the damn study.

http://www.demographic-research.org/...vol8/8/8-8.pdf

"On the other hand, duration-specific rates of the late 1980's imply that 70 percent of all marriages to black women end in separation or divorce."

By the way. Damn study doesn't even include Asians.

Watch your mouth son. Multiple studies find a more profound correlation between financial status/education and divorce rates. Because you focus on the religious component, you're trying to suggest that it is causal of a higher divorce rate. This is asinine logic. I cited multiple references for my figures.

I rather go with the Census data. At least they include Asians and are based on facts. Not some study on marital dissolution base on guess-timation of what happens in the next 30 years.

They are compiled as a percentage rate between all people who married and all people who divorced. A closer look at the people who get married and the stability of their specific relationships is much more indicative of the trends that cause the problem. If this is a concern to you, citing religious affiliation indicates nothing more than a correlative factor to help you make some antagonistic statement against those of faith while doing absolutely nothing for mitigating the problem.

Because Obama is also opposed to gay marriage, none of this has anything to do with Obama's war against Fox News.

So traditional marriages should be arrange marriages which results in lower divorce rates.

Using your logic yes.

Seems like ebuddy advocating banning all non-traditional marriages.

Yup. That's what I'm doing.

By the way, did you missed the whole Asians in the US who don't have arrange marriages?

Asians in the US have a 8% divorce rate.

Could you cite for me their average incomes and level of education please? Thanks.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Watch your mouth son. Multiple studies find a more profound correlation between financial status/education and divorce rates. Because you focus on the religious component, you're trying to suggest that it is causal of a higher divorce rate. This is asinine logic. I cited multiple references for my figures.



They are compiled as a percentage rate between all people who married and all people who divorced. A closer look at the people who get married and the stability of their specific relationships is much more indicative of the trends that cause the problem. If this is a concern to you, citing religious affiliation indicates nothing more than a correlative factor to help you make some antagonistic statement against those of faith while doing absolutely nothing for mitigating the problem.

Because Obama is also opposed to gay marriage, none of this has anything to do with Obama's war against Fox News.


Using your logic yes.


Yup. That's what I'm doing.

ebuddy is:

Advocating for modern marriages where 2 loving consenting adults should be able to choose to marry who they love.

rather than:

Traditional marriages such as arranged marriages which has been shown to have a lower divorce rates over marriage through courtship.


Choice over sanctity of marriage.


Damn, that's a change.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Could you cite for me their average incomes and level of education please? Thanks.

You mean that Asians who don't value religion as much as other races, tend to have above average level of education, higher average income levels, and lower divorce rates.

While Blacks who value religion over other races, tend have below average level of education, lower average income levels, and higher divorce rates.


Totally explains why college students and university professors tend to be more liberal and don't feel there is much value in religion.

[hyteckit]

ebuddy's pal quits.

AP: La. justice quits after interracial wed flap - Yahoo! News

La. justice quits after interracial wed flap.

Because interracial couples often end up in divorce and cause harm to the couples' children according to Keith Bardwell, the LA justice.

Maybe he refuses to perform the marriage ceremony for Black folks as well since according to ebuddy, 70% of Blacks end up with the marriage dissolved in 30 years.

[olePigeon]

Gays ruin black marriages.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

ebuddy is:

Advocating for modern marriages where 2 loving consenting adults should be able to choose to marry who they love.

rather than:

Traditional marriages such as arranged marriages which has been shown to have a lower divorce rates over marriage through courtship.


Choice over sanctity of marriage.


Damn, that's a change.




You mean that Asians who don't value religion as much as other races, tend to have above average level of education, higher average income levels, and lower divorce rates.

While Blacks who value religion over other races, tend have below average level of education, lower average income levels, and higher divorce rates.


Totally explains why college students and university professors tend to be more liberal and don't feel there is much value in religion.

pbbbbllllllttttttttt

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

ebuddy's pal quits...

Wouldn't it be easier to just draft emails to yourself instead?