Originally Posted by Jack Manfred (Post 481022)

From boing boing in convenient .pdf form.

p.s. check out the name of the .pdf.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 481029)

Which I take to mean you think L and G will start higher than M and F (though you don't expressly say) and then trend lower — but lower than heterosexual marriages, or not? Sidd says "no"; I say "yes" for L and "no" for G, but it's hard to know since you didn't predict figures as requested.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 481006)

This is the question I'm trying to get at and that everybody but you ducked — will L look like F? Will G look like M?

I suspect that the age of first marriage will prove to be positively correlated with the number of men in a two-person commitment, and negatively correlated with the number of women. I'm guessing L may be as much as 2 years lower than F, and G will be as many as 6 years higher than M because there is no fertility clock.

I also wonder if the delta of age between marriage partners will be greater in FF and MM marriages, or smaller. I don't have a prediction on that, but it will be interesting to see whether same-sex marriages prove to be sociologically different from MF marriages.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 480946)

What if the religious right is correct about what this will inevitably lead to? I say the average age will have to drop to the low teens. Dogs and cats will be the next big marriage pool and they only live to 10 or 11 or so. Unless we count pet spouses in dog years?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 481032)

I think L and G will both, in similar percentages, spike above M and F for a few years, then flatten and drift down to parity with M and F (as L and G realize "it's not all it's cracked up to be").

L and G will, in ten years, follow M and F trends away from marriage.

I see this as a victory not so much for those who immediately need to marry, but as a dignity/second class citizens issue. The argument was over whether they should have the right, not a huge pent up demand to exercise it. I imagine a fair number of L and G couples will continue business as usual, and only marry when they get old and start considering things like estate planning, or one becomes ill.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 481033)

Cue Santorum...

I heard some screwball bring up the marrying animals argument yesterday on the radio. The host properly laughed the guy off the call. But it caused me to consider, When idiots like Santorum raise this argument, why don't people respond to them with this quick, obvious logic:

"Marrying animals will never be legal, and can never be analogized to gay marriage, because it can never involve two consenting parties. If there cannot be dual consent, there cannot be a contract. Next question, please."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 481033)

Cue Santorum...

I heard some screwball bring up the marrying animals argument yesterday on the radio. The host properly laughed the guy off the call. But it caused me to consider, When idiots like Santorum raise this argument, why don't people respond to them with this quick, obvious logic:

"Marrying animals will never be legal, and can never be analogized to gay marriage, because it can never involve two consenting parties. If there cannot be dual consent, there cannot be a contract. Next question, please."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 481033)

Cue Santorum...

I heard some screwball bring up the marrying animals argument yesterday on the radio. The host properly laughed the guy off the call. But it caused me to consider, When idiots like Santorum raise this argument, why don't people respond to them with this quick, obvious logic:

"Marrying animals will never be legal, and can never be analogized to gay marriage, because it can never involve two consenting parties. If there cannot be dual consent, there cannot be a contract. Next question, please."

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 481040)

Rand Paul may have been the idiot you heard. Of course, I'm sure it's not just he and Santorum living in the batshit crazy bubble.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 481039)

consent is required? would you deny people in an arranged marriage bennies?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 481041)

If Rand Paul supported DOMA, I'd hope next time his father sees him, the old man slaps the lips off his face. And the toupee off his skull.

No decent person calling himself a Libertarian States-Rightist can credibly argue for a federal prohibition on people marrying whoever, or almost whatever, they like.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 481037)

Alternately, they could point out that the Constitution has never applied to animals. I don't give a shit if some crazy heiress wants to say she married her cat, but when she dies the cat has to pay estate taxes.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 481031)

You should know by this point in your career not to ask compound questions.