Gay marriage: pandering to the minority

How many gay adults are there in the UK? Easier question? What percentage of the adult population is gay (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/03/gay-britain-what-do-statistics-say)? 10% you say (Kinsey)? 6% (UK Treasury & Stonewall)? 1.5% (the Office for National Statistics)? Taking the lowest figure that's just over half-a-million gay adults. How many of them got married since so-called "gay marriage" was legalised? 18,000 (http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/where-the-uk-stands-on-gay-rights-10-years-after-civil-partnerships--ZJgnzwFbsl). If the number of gay people is just over half-a-million and only 18,000 of them chose to get married that's an infinitesimally number of people for whom a huge effort in time and money was expended. If you answered 6% or 10% those figures look even more self-indulgent - pandering on a huge scale to the interests of a tiny, tiny, tiny minority who are swimming against the tide of social behaviour: cohabiting couple families grew by 29.7% between 2004 and 2014. This is the fastest growing type of family in the UK according (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2014/families-and-households-in-the-uk--2014.html) (again) to the Office for National Statistics

Shacking up is what everyone does these days. In Australia (aka. Ostraya) (where I am currently holidaying - no cheap refugee sex Brad the Impala will be please to hear (international students and working holidaymakers carry out that role) - but I'll be posting about my adventures once I leave the country) couples who lived together prior to marriage accounted for 79.4% of all marriages registered in 2014, an increase from the 76.6% recorded in 2013 according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3310.0)

[Yraen]

Kommie, with the greatest respect.

I am among those who choose to "live together" and will probably never decide to "get married". Personally, I do not understand what others see as desirable about living within an institution (of marriage) but that should be their choice, whether gay or straight.

Additionally, the law in various (western) countries says, in essence, that there shall be equality under the law for all people. Do you personally deny them their desire to "get married" if they choose?
So, is that microscopic minority of the gay & lesbian minority part of the "all"?

What is there about "all" that you do not understand?

(I doubt that you would apply the same 'yard-stick' to the legislation which, in various countries over the last few decades, determined that being homosexual was both legally and socially acceptable.)

Bah humbug to all and have a happy end-of-year season.

My position is perfectly simple - abolish marriage altogether. At the moment it is seen as the gold-plated relationship - most of my straight friends who are shacked up tell me that the woman's mother (it's usually the woman, but sometimes the man) periodically asks plaintively "Not married yet?" Marriage is thus introducing for gays a new form of social discrimination, and we of all people should be fighting discrimination wherever it occurs

[Yraen]

OK. I can go with along with that ideal, in principle.

Though, being an ideal, hell might freeze over before the ideal is achieved.

Until that time, would you accord those who wish to commit to the marriage institution, the right to do so and to agitate for that right?

[Marsilius]

My partner of 28 years and I are now legally married. Why? It began with an essentially pragmatic move: in 2006 we took advantage of the introduction of Civil Partnerships in the UK in order to guarantee us a legal status equal to that of heterosexual couples. I'm sure that even kommentariat would understand the practical rationale for that decision.

In 2014 we decided to "convert" our Civil Partnership to marriage. Again, the reasons were largely practical: partly because marriage is a simpler concept to convey to other people and also because our friends - mainly heterosexual - had always, in any case, referred to our post-2006 status as a "marriage".

I have no issue with kommentariat's utopian fantasy of all marriage being abolished. But unless/until that happens, I feel that anyone in a long term relationship needs to think carefully about the real practical legal and financial advantages to be gained by signing up to the institution.

[lego]

The more I've thought about kommentariat's point of view regarding marriage since he had first explained it to me, the more I think he's right. The world would be a better place without any kind of marriage, straight or gay or what not. Just like the world would be a better place without religion, basically.

Where is kommentariat, by the way? He hasn't posted recently. Did the Thais arrest him when he was due outbound?

[francois]

lego, where have you been? Surfcrest deleted kommie from the membership roles on this forum.

[lego]

My bad, I must have missed that, I only recall Smurf threatening to delete him, not announcing that he actually did.

Quite saddening, that lack of humor; kommentariat is an acquired taste and I've had my fair share of disagreements with him, but I've always looked forward to his next shenanigans. Well he's a resourceful guy, he will be back if he isn't already.

[Surfcrest]

Quite saddening, that lack of humor; kommentariat is an acquired taste and I've had my fair share of disagreements with him, but I've always looked forward to his next shenanigans. Well he's a resourceful guy, he will be back if he isn't already.
No actually I haven't deleted kommie yet...and in his absence we are not looking for a stand-in.

Surfcrest

[francois]

Oh, so kommie is MIA or under house arrest or in forum limbo or maybe in suspended animation?

[scottish-guy]

Maybe he died on a plane and there's been a worldwide news blackout of the incident

[francois]

Get real Scotty; my most trusted sources have proof that kommie is on board a submarine on its way to Argentina.

[scottish-guy]

I can believe that - the regime there would suit his political views :))

[francois]

Back to the original post of pandering to the minority; let's not forget that marriage for hetero couples provides security for the children which is normally not a concern for gays. If just a question of fuck and forget then marriage may make little sense but a family unit is the basis for most of humanity.

[Yraen]

And, Francois, look at the f***-awful job that humanity is making of that institution.
About 60% of marriages end in divorce or separation, so they become single-parent families.

In a high school class I was aware of recently, 32 out of 40 kids in the class were from single-parent families. They even had their own 'club' running - to qualify you had to have only one parent. :) Bitter and black humour maybe?

The Thai have it right ... engage with a partner and when the relationship "dies a natural" then so does the "marriage". Move on.

"Most of humanity" follows the "family unit" concept because in most countries your superannuation benefit is the kids you make - when you get old and can no longer work then they (are supposed to) look after you. Of course, the pressure applied by the various religious institutions only further embeds the "family is everything" philosophy.

Like Lego, I agree with kommie's approach - dispense with the institution .... but only if there is sufficient community support to ensure the "victims" of break-ups are able to move on.

A previous summary by cottmann ┬╗ 17 Mar 2006, 19:18 just about says it all. See "same sex marriage" in Related Topics below.

[francois]

And, Francois, look at the f***-awful job that humanity is making of that institution.
About 60% of marriages end in divorce or separation, so they become single-parent families.

The Thai have it right ... engage with a partner and when the relationship "dies a natural" then so does the "marriage". Move on.
\.

Yes, there is divorce and separation but at what stage in the marriage? What are the statistics. And just because 60 % of marriages end in divorce that does not mean those marriages involved children. Divorces and separations in later life have little effect on children although in the early years that is not the case. Still protection is provided to the child even after marriage.

As for Thailand, yes the husband/father just moves on and the mother is stuck with the children to raise on her own. Great for Dad but bad for Mama.

[francois]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upsho ... d&bicmst=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1)