Repercussions of Same-Sex Marriages
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:12 Post subject: Repercussions of Same-Sex Marriages
let's continue this here then.
would insurance costs go up? would employers really lose a lot of money? is HIV and Aids still a "gay" disease?
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:16 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: |
..made it back from Google.
The Sexual Lifestyles of Gay and Bisexual Men in England and Wales, HMSO, 1992, page 11
States that "the average length of a closed homosexual relationship was 21 months. “Closed” meant that monogamy had been maintained in the past month."
And there's probably more when dug into. Of course, "hard data" isn't going to be available, so studies/samples are going to be the only source of statistics.
Anyway, my point being if the average out there lies somewhere around 21-months, that's an employer headache to be changing HR records every other year for the 'average' gay employee. |
What is the average duration of a heterosexual relationship? My point is, by no means do all or even close to the majority of heterosexual relationships result in marriage, so why would the same be true for homosexual relationships if it were legal for them to do so?
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:19 Post subject:
does the commitment that comes with the ability to marry result in longer relationships for hetero couples? does the inability to marry result in shorter relationships for same-sex couples?
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:24 Post subject: Re: Repercussions of Same-Sex Marriages
| keltic63 wrote: | let's continue this here then.
would insurance costs go up? would employers really lose a lot of money? is HIV and Aids still a "gay" disease? |
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm
I believe that these are the most recent statistics. HIV and Aids stopped being a "gay" disease a long time ago. I am very happy to say that my employer is working at providing insurance to same sex couples and that my last employer did. There were no additional costs other than the obvious of adding more people to your coverage plan.
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:25 Post subject:
| keltic63 wrote: | | does the commitment that comes with the ability to marry result in longer relationships for hetero couples? does the inability to marry result in shorter relationships for same-sex couples? |
Isn't the statistics for married hetero couples that 1/2 will end up in divorce??
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:30 Post subject:
...back from Google again.
http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html
Right now, the divorce rate of all marriages in the US at an eventual total of 50%. What's interesting is the per-annum percents are around .4% which doubling for two people being 'divorced' and even if we round up and say 1% of America gets divorced each year.
Tweaking the variable further, we could really get into quite the statistics lesson.
But keeing it basic though, rough 'averages' would tell me that if I were an employer, 1% of my straight employees would be getting divorced each year and if I go with something like 21-months for a gay relationship (give me some latitude since I've got nothing else to go on at this point), 50% of my gay employees would be getting divorced, it's easy to see the 'costs'.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:32 Post subject:
| phillycat wrote: | | Isn't the statistics for married hetero couples that 1/2 will end up in divorce?? |
Not every year. That's the statistic from start to finish. What that also tells me is half of hetro marriages go 'until death'.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:32 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | ...back from Google again.
http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html
Right now, the divorce rate of all marriages in the US at an eventual total of 50%. What's interesting is the per-annum percents are around .4% which doubling for two people being 'divorced' and even if we round up and say 1% of America gets divorced each year.
Tweaking the variable further, we could really get into quite the statistics lesson.
But keeing it basic though, rough 'averages' would tell me that if I were an employer, 1% of my straight employees would be getting divorced each year and if I go with something like 21-months for a gay relationship (give me some latitude since I've got nothing else to go on at this point), 50% of my gay employees would be getting divorced, it's easy to see the 'costs'. |
Again, that is assuming that the gay employees are A) with partners and B) willing to marry these people. I've had several boyfriends since I've had this job and I haven't married any of them. I think assuming that every homosexual relationship would result in marriage is reaching, just like every heterosexual relationship does not end in marriage. I don't know many people who haven't dated anyone other than their spouse, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:34 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | ...back from Google again.
http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html
Right now, the divorce rate of all marriages in the US at an eventual total of 50%. What's interesting is the per-annum percents are around .4% which doubling for two people being 'divorced' and even if we round up and say 1% of America gets divorced each year.
Tweaking the variable further, we could really get into quite the statistics lesson.
But keeing it basic though, rough 'averages' would tell me that if I were an employer, 1% of my straight employees would be getting divorced each year and if I go with something like 21-months for a gay relationship (give me some latitude since I've got nothing else to go on at this point), 50% of my gay employees would be getting divorced, it's easy to see the 'costs'. |
Your assumpution regarding gay couples is really weak. That is old information (1998 was it?) that admits that there is no data to back it up. As I am an analyst by trade, I know the importance of assumptions and ones ability to back them up.
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:42 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | ...back from Google again.
http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html
Right now, the divorce rate of all marriages in the US at an eventual total of 50%. What's interesting is the per-annum percents are around .4% which doubling for two people being 'divorced' and even if we round up and say 1% of America gets divorced each year.
Tweaking the variable further, we could really get into quite the statistics lesson.
But keeing it basic though, rough 'averages' would tell me that if I were an employer, 1% of my straight employees would be getting divorced each year and if I go with something like 21-months for a gay relationship (give me some latitude since I've got nothing else to go on at this point), 50% of my gay employees would be getting divorced, it's easy to see the 'costs'. |
seems to me that you are comparing apples to oranges rather than apples to apples...
the 21 month gay relationship statistic is for i'm assuming 'unmarried' couples...
what is the average length of a hetero unmarried (living together) relationship? i'd wager that it's probably not much different...
with a legally binding relationship it just goes to reason that the numbers would be much different...
|
|
|
|
|
kristin31
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 8045
Location: Caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:43 Post subject:
First, I don't think Aids/HIV can be considered a "gay" disease, and never has been strictly a "gay" disease, although at one point during the Reagan era, it was referred to as "Gay-related Immune Deficiency Syndrome" (if memory of reading "And the Band Played On" serves.) That same administration was responsible largely for covering up the severity and frequency of HIV and refering to it as a "gay" disease.
Second, I worked for a large insurance company in Columbus who offered "life-partner" benefits. Economic impact? I don't know how that's even relevant. Children have an economic impact on benefit packages as well. However, no one ever balks at covering an employee's child.
Last edited by kristin31 on 11/17/04 - 12:55; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:52 Post subject:
| cherylpf wrote: | | Again, that is assuming that the gay employees are A) with partners and B) willing to marry these people. I've had several boyfriends since I've had this job and I haven't married any of them. I think assuming that every homosexual relationship would result in marriage is reaching, just like every heterosexual relationship does not end in marriage. I don't know many people who haven't dated anyone other than their spouse, etc. |
You're absolutely right Cheryl. And that's why I asked for some latitude because there just isn't 'hard data' out there.
The surveys and samples that do exist, I'll admit, have been latched on to by the religious right because it doesn't paint a pretty picture of longevity.
I'm just offering up some pieces I've heard and definitely it's apples and oranges, but in such a grey subject, at least it's fruit to fruit, no? It really all does end up being speculation when we talk about "future impacts" anyway, so whatever the 'costs' might be, it's really only one persons two-cents against anothers. 
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:55 Post subject:
| phillycat wrote: | | As I am an analyst by trade, I know the importance of assumptions and ones ability to back them up. |
Understandable, I know I'm reaching. Like I said, there's just not 'hard data'.
I can definitely understand how a person's trade comes in to play on message boards. I'm a CPA and when it comes to taxes, assumptions and ability to back them up gets real muddy real fast on something like an internet message board. So don't take it as a professional slight, I'm just tickling the keyboard here and not building a thesis. 
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 12:59 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: |
You're absolutely right Cheryl. And that's why I asked for some latitude because there just isn't 'hard data' out there.
The surveys and samples that do exist, I'll admit, have been latched on to by the religious right because it doesn't paint a pretty picture of longevity.
I'm just offering up some pieces I've heard and definitely it's apples and oranges, but in such a grey subject, at least it's fruit to fruit, no? It really all does end up being speculation when we talk about "future impacts" anyway, so whatever the 'costs' might be, it's really only one persons two-cents against anothers. |
i don't think you can use statistics and economic impacts as justification for what many see as a basic civil rights issue...
i understand that not everyone sees it as a civil rights issue but for those of us that do these type of arguments ring hollow...
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
