PDA

View Full Version : ONS consultation on marriage.


vee-tail-1
11th Dec 2013, 10:55
User requirements for marriage, divorce and civil partnership statistics given the introduction of marriage of same sex couples - ONS (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/get-involved/consultations/consultations/user-requirements-for-marriage--divorce-and-civil-partnership-statistics/index.html)

The ONS is running a consultation on marriage & divorce.
It wants to know if users require data to be differentiated for civil partnerships, same sex marriage, and traditional marriage.

The government want the data to be mixed up so that it will not be possible to make any comparisons between them. Effectively the gov are attempting to bury the effects of their redefinition of marriage.

Responses to ONS required before the 17th Dec.

BillHicksRules
11th Dec 2013, 13:38
And your point is.....?

What are you asking?

Gertrude the Wombat
11th Dec 2013, 14:40
Wasn't asking anything. And if you actually read the consultation document you'll find that he made up his assertions, there is no indication that the government wants what he says.

Krystal n chips
11th Dec 2013, 17:37
" And your point is.....?"

The point the OP was clarifying, yet again, was that he is blissfully unaware we are now living in the 21st century and that, gay and lesbian couples, share the same range of emotions, thoughts and feelings, as, erm, hetero-sexual couples....which, as we are all human beings with our own sexualities, is possibly where the confusion arises on his part.

Along with the fact they can, and should, be able to enjoy same sex marriages.

The OP will possibly be along therefore to explain in turgid detail why he is unable to comprehend this simple fact of life......subject to inspecting the revetments and the troops are suitably alert for the impending invasion which may, even as I write, be imminent it seems !.....then again, it could just be the sound of bell practice at my local church .....you can never tell in these troubled times.

Seldomfitforpurpose
11th Dec 2013, 18:39
Along with the fact they can, and should, be able to enjoy same sex marriages.


Whilst I applaud the decision to legislate in favour of same sex marriage as almost all Churches are excused the requirement to carry them out it's hardly the levelling of the playing field some would have us believe.

Lonewolf_50
11th Dec 2013, 19:42
SFFP, do you not care for a bit of separation between church and state? I am aware that there are varying points of view on that ...

Fox3WheresMyBanana
11th Dec 2013, 19:53
Give VT1 a break - nothing in his OP indicates prejudice.

This wouldn't be the first field where the Government attempts to bury data. It's done just this sort of thing in teacher recruitment/employment for years to try and disguise the woeful lack of qualified science/maths teachers.

If the change to marriages is neutral, why not gather data to see how it's going?

Seldomfitforpurpose
11th Dec 2013, 19:55
SFFP, do you not care for a bit of separation between church and state? I am aware that there are varying points of view on that ...



LW,


The only thing I really really care for, and always have is that there be no compulsion on anyone to be 'part' of a same sex marriage.


For those same sex couples who wish to marry and those institutions that wish to carry out same sex marriages I have nothing to offer other than my sincere best wishes.


However what really really upsets me is, as is clearly proved in the early exchanges in this thread, that anyone who is not 'on message' with regards to same sex relationships is instantly derided and accused of dinosaur character traits.

Gertrude the Wombat
11th Dec 2013, 20:18
If the change to marriages is neutral, why not gather data to see how it's going?
It seems reasonable to me that before a bureaucracy decides to spend more of our money on more bureaucracy, particularly in the current climate, it should first ask:

"If we were to spend more taxpayer's money doing this extra work, would anybody actually use the results?"

TomJoad
11th Dec 2013, 20:22
LW,


The only thing I really really care for, and always have is that there be no compulsion on anyone to be 'part' of a same sex marriage.


For those same sex couples who wish to marry and those institutions that wish to carry out same sex marriages I have nothing to offer other than my sincere best wishes.


However what really really upsets me is, as is clearly proved in the early exchanges in this thread, that anyone who is not 'on message' with regards to same sex relationships is instantly derided and accused of dinosaur character traits.

Spot on. If you are frightened of the light it generally means you are hiding something. I think Krystal is now game keeper turned poacher - he is no longer the antagonist :ugh:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
11th Dec 2013, 20:25
Well, for a start the separated data could be compared to see if any areas appear to be 'restricting' same sex marriages in any way.

Never mind the 'How many immigrants are there in the UK?' question being answered by 'We've no idea'

Former Home Secretary Jack Straw has admitted opening Britain's borders to migrants in 2004 was a 'spectacular mistake'. A mistake they were blissfully unaware of since they were quite deliberately not gathering the data.

It's not as if gathering said data would be any kind of major effort.

alisoncc
11th Dec 2013, 20:27
Reckon the legal beagles are going to make fortune out of SSM. Two guys/girls sharing a house. One pops their clogs - car accident or otherwise, and other seeks to claim all goods and chattels on basis of a de-facto relationship. Very hard to disprove I suspect.

defizr
11th Dec 2013, 20:46
A de facto relationship isn't marriage. Marriage requires a legal ceremony.

BillHicksRules
11th Dec 2013, 20:54
However what really really upsets me is, as is clearly proved in the early exchanges in this thread, that anyone who is not 'on message' with regards to same sex relationships is instantly derided and accused of dinosaur character traits.

And this is wrong why?

TomJoad
11th Dec 2013, 21:03
If you have to ask you wouldn't understand:=

Fox3WheresMyBanana
11th Dec 2013, 21:14
And this is wrong why?

because it is never enough for the right-on crowd for something to be legislated for. You have to like it too. Unfortunately for them, they haven't found a way to force you to like everything they do that's still democratic - but they're working on it.

TomJoad
11th Dec 2013, 21:22
Be careful there Fox3 you are showing the traits of an independent mind. You will call down the wrath of the thought police.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
11th Dec 2013, 21:31
Tomjoad - that was with your post count at 666 - spooky or what?!

TomJoad
11th Dec 2013, 22:02
I told you they have their ways:E

funfly
11th Dec 2013, 22:23
Fox3
That was not with his post count 666 but 667 because posts on here do not count so he will be on 667 for ever (or until he posts on any of the other forums)

TomJoad
11th Dec 2013, 22:29
There heeeeeere!

Krystal n chips
12th Dec 2013, 05:14
" Spot on. If you are frightened of the light it generally means you are hiding something. I think Krystal is now game keeper turned poacher - he is no longer the antagonist

Frightened of the light ?......hmmm ?......this would explain why I have gay and lesbian friends then and why, having read and understood ( based on past negative posts and a blanket refusal to even accept that gay and lesbian couples are no different to hetero-sexual couples ) the subliminal message in the OP's original post I felt an alternative and far more pragmatic perspective was warranted.

What does frighten me is the dark.....the dark in the closed and sealed minds of many, not just on here, but in the world in general regarding the bigotry applied to sexuality.

BillHicksRules
12th Dec 2013, 06:58
TJ,

I am guessing that you do not get much sarcasm where you live?:ok:

Fox3,

You are free to think what you like and, for now, say what you like.

That freedom also gives others the right to ridicule you for what you think and say.

You are also free to use logical reasoning to make your case (please refrain from referring to any religious doctrine as they are not defined as logical reasoning).

As with any issue I am open to updating my position if logic dictates and therefore I would love to hear from you.

Mac the Knife
12th Dec 2013, 07:51
’Tis a curious thing - GCHQ, the NSA, Google, Facebook and Microsoft have an infinity of information about you, down to the colour of your knickers.

OTOH, in the name of equality and political correctitude, official Government stats are becoming limited to “souls” only - can’t split it up into men or women (sexist), can’t work by age (ageist), can’t separate races (racist), can't differentiate between gay/straight (homophobic), can’t go by religion (anti-something-ist) - etc., so that released figures for x can be anything they like.

THEY know what is really going on but we (to keep our little hearts pure) can’t be told.

Fascinating!

Mac

[for example, sickle-cell anaemia is virtually confined to blacks but if (to avoid accusations of racism) it can only be quoted for the UK population as a whole, then the apparent incidence falls by a factor of 100)

vee-tail-1
12th Dec 2013, 07:57
BBC News - Australia high court overturns ACT gay marriage law (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25344219)

Seldomfitforpurpose
12th Dec 2013, 09:04
What does frighten me is the dark.....the dark in the closed and sealed minds of many, not just on here, but in the world in general regarding the bigotry applied to sexuality.

But it's perfectly acceptable to delete the word sexuality and insert say politics, or London, or folk in general from the South, or even dare I say it Chris Broad :p

People in glass house, just sayin :ok:

TomJoad
12th Dec 2013, 19:39
" Spot on. If you are frightened of the light it generally means you are hiding something. I think Krystal is now game keeper turned poacher - he is no longer the antagonist

Frightened of the light ?......hmmm ?......this would explain why I have gay and lesbian friends then and why, having read and understood ( based on past negative posts and a blanket refusal to even accept that gay and lesbian couples are no different to hetero-sexual couples ) the subliminal message in the OP's original post I felt an alternative and far more pragmatic perspective was warranted.

What does frighten me is the dark.....the dark in the closed and sealed minds of many, not just on here, but in the world in general regarding the bigotry applied to sexuality.


Frightened of the light - too subtle for you I guess Krystal. I was referring to the government preventing light to be shown on the stats nothing more nothing less. But hey don't you let your own prejudices get in the way fella: You would have gone down well during McCarthy's reign - you are good at spotting boggy men where there are none and ignoring the truth. ok:

TomJoad
12th Dec 2013, 19:44
TJ,

I am guessing that you do not get much sarcasm where you live?:ok:



Well they do say it is the lowest form of wit (Oscar Wilde ironically) - I guess we are not without wit here:ok But you are doing ok:E

toffeez
12th Dec 2013, 20:04
"In some Western traditions, a marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated."

How do homos consummate a marriage? Don't be shy now.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Dec 2013, 20:31
Toffeez puts it neatly - what is the point of marriage (or civil partnerships)?

These two cases are interesting

heterosexual couple want a civil partnership
BBC News - No civil union for straight pair (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8376937.stm)

Sisters wanting a civil partnership
Sisters, Inheritance and Civil Partnerships | An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy (http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/05/03/sisters-inheritance-and-civil-partnerships/comment-page-1/)

My only beef is the tax situation. I would start by allowing any kind of civil recognition of relationships that anybody wants - marry your cat if you like - but I fail to see why a relationship per se should gain any tax breaks over a single person. A relationship that involves bringing up children is different. Doing it properly guarantees the nation's (community, people's collective, w.h.y.) future (and single people's pensions) and requires sacrifices that a tax break compensates for. I am content for adopting homosexual couples to be treated in the same way as heterosexual couples with children (natural or adopted). I still fail to see why the relationship carries the tax break. It should logically be connected to the child.

Gertrude the Wombat
12th Dec 2013, 22:19
Sisters wanting a civil partnership
At the LibDem party conference in 2000 the debate was about a civil partnership that anyone could enter into, with or without a sexual relationship. It was about such things as inheritance and next of kin rights, so perfectly suited to sisters (or an elderly brother and sister living together, such as the ones round the corner from me) or friends living together.

What actually got implemented by Labour some years later completely missed this point.

defizr
12th Dec 2013, 22:27
"In some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated."

How do homos consummate a marriage? Don't be shy now.

As this isn't true in the UK I don't really see your point (apart from a bit of schoolboy giggling).

SawMan
13th Dec 2013, 01:10
SFFP, do you not care for a bit of separation between church and state? I am aware that there are varying points of view on that ...
I believe in the most distance between Church and State as possible. In other words there should be no recognition of Churches or Religions of any and every sort by the Government: No tax breaks. No variance on zoning rules (including signage). No allowance for persons involved with religion to address or approach anyone in the general populace in any manner which would be contrary to law for any other single citizen. Those in religions should be treated the same as friends who get together to fish, cycle, play chess, or even just to have lunch together; with each one having rights equal to anyone else (and no more) and each one being individually responsible for their own actions. Thus all would be free to believe whatever they want (or not), same as with any other personal belief (Hey, you know Elvis is alive? I saw him in the UFO that landed next to the black helicopter on my lawn last night). I hope you see the intended sarcasm in the last part but it makes a point.

I also believe that all persons not otherwise restricted by legal process (such as convicted felons) should have rights and expectation equal to all others- no more, no less. Nobody better, nobody worse, nobody different in the eyes of the law.

Putting the two together I can only conclude that marriage, civil unions, and the like are in the realm of religion alone, and not in the realm of Government who should not recognize any of them.

This approach would actually benefit all persons. Only those whose beliefs were true and strong would stay with religions and marriages once the tax breaks and social status have gone; thus these would be stronger. The taxpayers gets a break with fewer tax-exempt or reduced entities not paying their fair share. Traffic around churches lessen and with fewer going there's less fuel used, less pollution, and less road wear. You can marry anyone you want to even if you have to start your own Church to do that (no restrictions doing that without legal recognition either). No nasty divorces and the court stagnation and tax costs we're paying for now since that too no longer has legal status. Everything distilled down to the minimal involvement of government in your personal matters. The only ones who could have complaint with this are those who are benefiting from the current discriminatory rules that give them an advantage over others

Simple ain't it?

(added to respond to something posted after I did): No tax breaks for children either- save for those willing to freely share their child-producing partner with those of us helping pay for the kids. I didn't get the pleasure or benefit, so I ain't paying the bill. You did so you and you alone should

Just as simple.

Krystal n chips
13th Dec 2013, 05:12
" Frightened of the light - too subtle for you I guess Krystal. I was referring to the government preventing light to be shown on the stats nothing more nothing less. But hey don't you let your own prejudices get in the way fella: You would have gone down well during McCarthy's reign - you are good at spotting boggy men where there are none and ignoring the truth

If you would care to delete subtle and insert inane, then your post would make more sense.

I am though, bemused as to the allegation of prejudice on my part and the analogy with NcCarthy.....you may want to revise this by reading past posts from the OP, mine and other peoples responses, and then the O.E.D for clarification of the word, prejudice.

SFFP.....alas, you seem unable to distinguish between a generalist opinion with the subjects you mention, and the far more serious issues affecting millions regarding basic human rights.

maxmartin96
13th Dec 2013, 07:25
As far as the link to same-sex marriage in Australia goes, it is not the end. That was just one state. There are already a plethora of other states that will introduce more same-sex marriage laws that will stand up to any high court challenge that this Liberal party will throw at it. Like it or not, Australia will have same sex marriage laws soon and my partner of 30 years and myself will rejoice when that occurs.

Why is it anyone else's business if I want to wed my partner? How will it affect your marriage? Is it really that shaky and under threat from Gay people? If you are for marriage only between a man and woman then by logic, you are against divorce as that is a major threat to marriage. You cannot have it both ways.

It is inevitable. Like it or not, it's here to stay.

I don't know why the OP has even bothered to bring this up yet again. Nothing has changed since the last post about this. It's just another venting on Gay people.:ugh:

maxmartin96
13th Dec 2013, 07:33
These threads about Gay people and marriage is always started by just two people in particular. Why is that? I find it amusing that they want to dictate to me the sort of relationship I can have with my partner. Very strange indeed. I'm not interested in yours, why are you in mine?

cattletruck
13th Dec 2013, 07:42
I get these e-mails from Colin Hart, Campaign Director of c4m.org. Thought I'd share.

Government fast-tracks
same-sex marriage

The Government has fast-tracked arrangements allowing same-sex marriages to take place in England and Wales at the end of March, instead of in the summer. The decision – made despite various legal loose ends – appears to be one that aims to get the issue out of the way as early as possible before the General Election. Maria Miller described the move as “just another step in the evolution of marriage”. Supporters of traditional marriage wonder what the next step will be in Miller’s so-called “evolution” of marriage.
Downing Street’s first gay wedding

The Prime Minister’s broadcasting adviser Michael Salter – who also advised David Cameron on the redefinition of marriage – will have a same-sex wedding ceremony with Rob Church, the former deputy director for civil service reform. It is not yet known if Cameron will attend the wedding.
Croatia backs traditional marriage

Croatians have voted by a large majority to back traditional marriage in a referendum. Two-thirds of those who voted supported changing the country’s constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Over 700,000 people signed a petition backed by the Roman Catholic Church asking for a referendum on the issue.
ONS writing off marriage?

The Government’s official statistics provider, ONS, is consulting on a plan to merge the figures for traditional and same-sex marriage, potentially blocking the use of official figures to show the benefits of traditional marriage for adults and children. The Office for National Statistics’ consultation ends on 17 December so you still have time to respond.
How to respond



Read our Guide to responding (http://c4m.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=09b50bf032ab47d3992863a44&id=3afe84c158&e=e2197c5ed4)
Visit the ONS website (http://c4m.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=09b50bf032ab47d3992863a44&id=5ec14580d8&e=e2197c5ed4)
Download the 'Consultation Document'
Send to the email address provided

The political fall out of the same-sex marriage debate still continues. Governments that introduce a controversial policy always bear the blame even though opposition parties may agree with it. Fearing a voter backlash at the General Election, David Cameron has sped up the launch of same-sex marriage. Some prominent members of the Labour Party are now seeking to show support for marriage and to beat the Conservatives’ plans for the married couple’s allowance.


Now Krystal n chips, please get off your soapbox. Where is the light when you have been unexpectedly punched in the back of your head in a most cowardly and opportunistic way by a homosexual? Where is the light when a homosexual executive makes up lies about you to get you sacked and damage your career. I used to think live and let live but lately the gays have become rather abusive in playing the victim.

maxmartin96
13th Dec 2013, 08:11
cattletruck said

"the gays have become rather abusive in playing the victim".....

....and your perpetuating that myth. Why are you entitled to have a say on who I marry, where I marry and for what reason I marry? I'm not prying into your marriage but for some reason it perfectly fine and just for you to do it with mine. Why is that?

It will not impact on your life or marriage.

Seldomfitforpurpose
13th Dec 2013, 08:33
[QUOTE=Krystal n chips;8203788
SFFP.....alas, you seem unable to distinguish between a generalist opinion with the subjects you mention, and the far more serious issues affecting millions regarding basic human rights.[/QUOTE]

Nope dear Krystal I understand fully, the fear of the PC backlash often makes even the most acerbic of us quiver in fear :p

In a previous post you rather condescendingly mention you have some Gay and Lesbian friends which draws me to conclude that you may well be of the straight persuasion.

I suspect you will have friends you don't share the same political views with and I would very much doubt you are not prepared to openly discuss your opposite viewpoint with them.

I suspect you will have friends who don't share your views on cricket and I again doubt your preparedness to wax lyrical on the error of their ways.

Being straight quite clearly states you don't share the same taste on sexuality as Gay and Lesbian folk. Like in everything else you understand and accept the how's and whys of it but rather than openly offer your opinion on the matter in fear of the PC Statsi you will keep quiet and simply offer each to their own.

The man that simply states publicly that Gay sex is perfectly natural is a PC Sheeple

The man that states publicly that Gay sex is perfectly natural but for him the notion of him taking part in it is distasteful is open and honest.

Man B is seldom heard because he knows that the second he voices that opinion you and other will be on him like a tramp on a discarded bag of chips :ok:

maxmartin96
13th Dec 2013, 09:04
...and on that note, I'll not post in the thread again. Still flaming people I see as it's your method to twist the knife in. Yes , I to posted on the Gay thread elsewhere. Still the same old tired rhetoric. My man and I have been together for over 30 years now and it's going nicely and thanks for the personnel attack. It is appreciated indeed

:ugh:same old same old as usual.

PTT
13th Dec 2013, 09:20
Being straight quite clearly states you don't share the same views on sexuality as Gay and Lesbian folk.Rubbish. Being straight merely means you don't share the same taste in sexuality as gay and lesbian folk. It has no bearing on the ability to believe that people have the right to have sex with whichever consenting adult they wish to.

Seldomfitforpurpose
13th Dec 2013, 09:26
It has no bearing on the ability to believe that people have the right to have sex with whichever consenting adult they wish to.

Did I suggest otherwise :confused:

PTT
13th Dec 2013, 10:07
You did until you edited your post.

PTT
13th Dec 2013, 10:12
For clarity, the view which I believe to be shared is "you can have sex with whoever you want to (assuming they are a consenting adult) and so can I". It then just comes down to individual definitions of "whoever you want to". I suspect Liz Hurley has a similar distaste of the idea of sex with me as I do of the idea of sex with Shane Warne...

Seldomfitforpurpose
13th Dec 2013, 10:28
I suspect Liz Hurley has a similar distaste of the idea of sex with me as I do of the idea of sex with Shane Warne...

Little bit non PC there PTT, I expect you will have the usual suspects haranguing you for that shortly :ok:

PTT
13th Dec 2013, 10:57
What, for expressing a preference? Thou doth protest too much, methinks...

Seldomfitforpurpose
13th Dec 2013, 11:39
What, for expressing a preference? Thou doth protest too much, methinks...


Absolutely :-) :-) :-)

TomJoad
14th Dec 2013, 00:05
" Frightened of the light - too subtle for you I guess Krystal. I was referring to the government preventing light to be shown on the stats nothing more nothing less. But hey don't you let your own prejudices get in the way fella: You would have gone down well during McCarthy's reign - you are good at spotting boggy men where there are none and ignoring the truth

If you would care to delete subtle and insert inane, then your post would make more sense.

I am though, bemused as to the allegation of prejudice on my part and the analogy with NcCarthy.....you may want to revise this by reading past posts from the OP, mine and other peoples responses, and then the O.E.D for clarification of the word, prejudice.




On consideration, no, I'm entirely happy with both use of subtle and prejudice my friend. You cannot discern subtlety and are clearly prejudiced. :ok: We shall simply disagree with each other.:{

TomJoad
14th Dec 2013, 10:51
User requirements for marriage, divorce and civil partnership statistics given the introduction of marriage of same sex couples - ONS (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/get-involved/consultations/consultations/user-requirements-for-marriage--divorce-and-civil-partnership-statistics/index.html)

The ONS is running a consultation on marriage & divorce.
It wants to know if users require data to be differentiated for civil partnerships, same sex marriage, and traditional marriage.

The government want the data to be mixed up so that it will not be possible to make any comparisons between them. Effectively the gov are attempting to bury the effects of their redefinition of marriage.

Responses to ONS required before the 17th Dec.


maxmartin et al


Please see above. This thread is about our government's propensity to manipulate official data statistics nothing more. If we are never again be subjected to the manipulation of information that led to the likes of the "dodgy dossier" followed by a war then it is only right and proper that we care. If you and others care to see anything else in the OP then that points to your own fragilities and prejudices does it not.

vee-tail-1
14th Dec 2013, 11:12
Thanks TomJoad

It is indeed my concern that the effects of the redefinition of marriage may become more difficult to assess.

Since children are involved it is important that any negative effects on their physical and mental wellbeing are picked up ASAP.

Mr Chips
14th Dec 2013, 11:21
Tomjoad,wise words, but i fear that at least one person still wishes to discuss the "effects on children"....never knowingly misses the chance for narrow minded outrage....

perthsaint
14th Dec 2013, 11:22
Is it important that positive effects are picked up too?

BillHicksRules
14th Dec 2013, 14:51
VT,

What impacts are you envisioning from the legal change?

TomJoad
14th Dec 2013, 15:19
What is marriage all about...? What does it really mean?

Is it a tax efficiency? A licence to have sex (some Catholics seem to think like that) or a licence to have children? A 'spiritual' union between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman.

Caco

Really, or another prejudice informing that view. Catholicism is not the only faith tradition to advocate no sex before marriage. Ironic really that in the Catholic tradition, the sacrament of marriage brings with it a responsibility to raise children. Do your homework please.:ugh:

Krystal n chips
14th Dec 2013, 17:25
" This thread is about our government's propensity to manipulate official data statistics nothing more. If we are never again be subjected to the manipulation of information that led to the likes of the "dodgy dossier" followed by a war then it is only right and proper that we care. If you and others care to see anything else in the OP then that points to your own fragilities and prejudices does it not


Ah, right, so on the basis of your proposition above we should challenge every ONS statistic then ?.......you have a point in that statistics are easily manipulated and in that case, you might as well start adding every corporation, airline, business and indeed any organisation that uses and presents statistics to the public to your list.

This could be a career option for you therefore.

Unfortunately, by offering the OP your misguided support, you have fallen into a neat little trap......and hence I have outlined the reason why above for you. To save you thinking too much, it's not those of us who support same sex marriages whom the underlined applies to.

vee-tail-1
14th Dec 2013, 17:40
What impacts are you envisioning from the legal change?

Same sex marriage is a new experiment for humanity …

No one can predict the positive or negative impacts on young children, who can now be legally adopted by gay couples.

It seems prudent to ensure that data on such relationships be made available by ONS so that any future problems can be addressed.

defizr
14th Dec 2013, 17:56
Single gays, lesbians and same sex couples of either sex have been legally able to adopt children in the UK since the passing of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 which came into force in 2005.

TomJoad
14th Dec 2013, 18:24
" This thread is about our government's propensity to manipulate official data statistics nothing more. If we are never again be subjected to the manipulation of information that led to the likes of the "dodgy dossier" followed by a war then it is only right and proper that we care. If you and others care to see anything else in the OP then that points to your own fragilities and prejudices does it not


Ah, right, so on the basis of your proposition above we should challenge every ONS statistic then ?.......you have a point in that statistics are easily manipulated and in that case, you might as well start adding every corporation, airline, business and indeed any organisation that uses and presents statistics to the public to your list.

This could be a career option for you therefore.

Unfortunately, by offering the OP your misguided support, you have fallen into a neat little trap......and hence I have outlined the reason why above for you. To save you thinking too much, it's not those of us who support same sex marriages whom the underlined applies to.

Unless you know how the data was gathered, what it included, what it excluded, then its meaning is not fully known to you and hence its worth is questionable at best. It is a well known principle in science known as uncertainty:

"The more you understand what is wrong with a figure, the more valuable that figure becomes." Lord Kelvin

Well done you got there in the end Krystal:D:D:D


Nothing to do with supporting or not supporting same sex marriage; but rather everything to do with government repeating the mistakes of the past presenting one thing as another. You really need to try harder to remove your prejudicial influences from your analysis. You would do well reflecting on Lord Kelvin's advice Krystal, I commend it to you.:ok:

Mac the Knife
14th Dec 2013, 18:26
"The government want the data to be mixed up so that it will not be possible to make any comparisons between them."

As I tried to point out previously, this is the problem (rather than gay marriage).

In the mass, we know quite a lot about heterosexual marriage because it has been relatively well documented for many years.

So far we don't know much about the dynamics/success/failure/parenting abilities of the newer marriage models - Male/Trans, Female/Trans, Male/Male, Trans/Trans (yes, it happens) and Female/Female.

It is likely that some of these patterns may do better than conventional Straight marriages and that some of them will do significantly worse. In the ordinary way we would, in good time, find out and make the appropriate conclusions.

But the Government does not want us to do that - "They" have decided (for ideological reasons) that the outcome of all these permutations shall be no better or worse than Straight marriage. There are therefore putting into place systems which will ensure (by mixing everything up) that we shall never know.

Furthermore, by introducing "mystery" data into the Straight marriage data they will distort the figures, make them even less clear and thereby allow them even greater freedom to manipulate the data for political ends.

It may be that gay marriages are happier and more stable than straight marriages (or the reverse) but we're never going to find out because the Government feels that this (like so many other things these days) is something that we don't need to know.

Although South Africa was one of the first countries to allow gay marriage (in 2006) the takeup has been surprisingly low. Admittedly conventional marriage is declining (as it is in many countries) but I would have expected rather more gay marriages.

Mac

I was chatting with one of our porters the other day, Paul (who is as camp as a row of tents), and asked him how it felt to have gone, in a very short time, from being a prosecuted minority to today's accepting situation.

"It's nice but a bit dull", he ventured, "In the old days if you were a raving moffie it was quite exciting, but now nobody seems to care"

:{

BillHicksRules
14th Dec 2013, 18:33
VT,

"Experiment" really? If things do not go well "for the kids" are we going to repeal it?

I think you will find despite the negative impacts on kids of mixed-sex marriages no one is considering it "an experiment".

What about single parent families? How is that "experiment" going?

Is your concern for all children or solely those with single sex parents?

What about single-sex marriages that do not produce offspring, can they be left out of the "experiment"?

What about single-sex couples that do not marry but procreate? Are they to be studied or not?

What about mixed-sex couplings that choose not to reproduce?

I would suggest that your OP is correct in that we do need all the data but you seem to be spotlighting only one very small section of society. Any reason why?

PTT
14th Dec 2013, 18:59
No one can predict the positive or negative impacts on young children, who can now be legally adopted by gay couples.

It seems prudent to ensure that data on such relationships be made available by ONS so that any future problems can be addressed.What measures will be used? What is "better" parenting and how do you negate the myriad confounds in the data? What disparity of correlation between this measure of "better" parenting and the very low granularity categories of "parent type" would be considered sufficiently different to be able to say that one "type" of parenting is "better" than another.
Having data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is something entirely different.
I think you will find despite the negative impacts on kids of mixed-sex marriages no one is considering it "an experiment".Well said. Some single parent families are doing a great job. Many are not. All that is a subjective measure, though, based solely on the individual observer's definition of a "great job". Given the subjectivity, and given the very wide variance in results (such as they are) for all sorts of families, from single parent to traditional mixed-sex parents, to gay parents and even to surrogate parents, to claim that single parent families are in some way unacceptable seems rather... judgemental and blinkered.

TomJoad
14th Dec 2013, 19:45
to claim that single parent families are in some way unacceptable seems rather... judgemental and blinkered.

To infer that this is what has been suggested seems rather..........judgemental and blinkered! Government analysis has not in the past ventured into the subjective analysis you suggest - why are you suggesting that it would in the future. Surely any analysis would be simple, more along the line of how many marriages in each category take place and how many divorces/separations. Do you have any information that points to the ONS proposing to carry out your "subjective good parent bad parent" analysis? I would be shocked if they were - exactly what metric would they use?

Gertrude the Wombat
14th Dec 2013, 20:33
As I tried to point out previously, this is the problem (rather than gay marriage).
But it isn't. That is a straightforward lie. Anyone who actually bothers to read the constultation document can see that for themselves.

PTT
14th Dec 2013, 21:13
To infer that this is what has been suggested seems rather..........judgemental and blinkered!Good thing I didn't do that, then.
Government analysis has not in the past ventured into the subjective analysis you suggest - why are you suggesting that it would in the future.For analysis to be of use it must be objective, or at least metrics which are acceptable must be defined. Otherwise it's nothing more than spitballing opinion using cherrypicked numbers to back it up. Surely any analysis would be simple, more along the line of how many marriages in each category take place and how many divorces/separations.Analysis is far from simple. Even your own metric as defined there is so fraught with compounds (financial situation, individual sexuality, trust, outside influences) as to be effectively useless, which is the point I was making. Do you have any information that points to the ONS proposing to carry out your "subjective good parent bad parent" analysis? I would be shocked if they were - exactly what metric would they use?No, and that lack of metric is exactly what I was talking about. Perhaps you need to reread what I wrote?

TomJoad
14th Dec 2013, 21:39
Good thing I didn't do that, then. But you did fella. Perhaps you need to go back and reread what you wrote.:=

For analysis to be of use it must be objective, or at least metrics which are acceptable must be defined. Otherwise it's nothing more than spitballing opinion using cherrypicked numbers to back it up. Which is exactly the root of the OPs complaint - the Government are intent on cherry- picking. Perhaps you need to go back and reread.:=

Analysis is far from simple. But the government will try to convince us otherwise when they present their analysis of their subjective figures. Perhaps you need to go back and reread the OP.:=

Even your own metric as defined there is so fraught with compounds (financial situation, individual sexuality, trust, outside influences) as to be effectively useless, which is the point I was making. No, and that lack of metric is exactly what I was talking about. Perhaps you need to reread what I wrote?
I did not define any metric. Perhaps you need to.....:ugh::ugh::ugh:


Go on PTT give it a go, try reading with impartiality.

PTT
14th Dec 2013, 21:54
But you did fella.Where, exactly?
Which is exactly the root of the OPs complaint - the Government are intent on cherry- picking. Perhaps you need to go back and reread.Where, exactly, have I disagreed with the OP?
But the government will try to convince us otherwise when they present their analysis of their subjective figures. Perhaps you need to go back and reread the OP.Again, where have I disagreed with the OP?
I did not define any metric. Perhaps you need to.....On the contrary, I don't. I'm not the one claiming that any particular measure is of any use.

Seems to me that you are violently agreeing with me while making it look like you are disagreeing. Perhaps you're a tad confused?

PTT
14th Dec 2013, 21:56
To infer that this is what has been suggested seems rather..........judgemental and blinkered!Just to go back to this, you can infer from what I am saying, but if I am leaving something unsaid then it may be implied. I have inferred nothing, nor have I implied.

TomJoad
14th Dec 2013, 22:14
Just to go back to this, you can infer from what I am saying, but if I am leaving something unsaid then it may be implied. I have inferred nothing, nor have I implied.

Good for you well done fella::ok:

PTT
14th Dec 2013, 22:27
As I thought.

The more ways we can differentiate between elements of a population the easier it is to identify confounds and correlations, and therefore the more useful any analysis will be. Having access to individual data points such as those the ONS provide is an objectively useful thing.
The problem comes with sociology, where metrics of what is "good" and "bad" need to be decided beforehand, and those metrics are invariably coloured by the individual making any stats-based claims, and usually presented in an extremely simplistic (and likely misleading) manner. Whether it be the government through attempting to clump all marriages together, or people with other agendas (e.g. the media) who try to show differences between, say, gay marriages and straight marriages, while ignoring the rest of the data (lies, damned lies, and misuse of statistics...), misuse of statistics will always be an issue for those who don't actually have a sound grasp of it (which is the vast majority of people). While the latter can be shown to be balls by having sufficient granularity of data (and both access to it and the knowledge to work with it), the former is insidious in that it not only presents data in a certain way, but that it only allows the data to be presented in that way.

So, yeah, we should absolutely have full disclosure. Just don't expect to be able to use it in any simplistic way to "prove" that gay marriage is "good" or "bad" (for kids, for individuals, for society, whatever).

TomJoad
14th Dec 2013, 22:51
So, yeah, we should absolutely have full disclosure.


Eventually, again well said, well done.:D:D

Seldomfitforpurpose
15th Dec 2013, 00:23
Eventually, again well said, well done.:D:D

Outstanding :ok:

Mac the Knife
15th Dec 2013, 19:51
"So, yeah, we should absolutely have full disclosure. Just don't expect to be able to use it in any simplistic way to "prove" that gay marriage is "good" or "bad" (for kids, for individuals, for society, whatever)."

Dead right - (agreeing with PTT, must go and lie down for a bit)

Mac

:D

Spartacan
9th Feb 2014, 13:39
>>Statement on ONS marriage and divorce statistics consultation<<
Statement on ONS marriage and divorce statistics consultation - ONS (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/media-centre/statements/statement-on-ons-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-consultation/index.html)

>>ONS would like to thank all users who have contributed so far to the consultation 'User requirements for marriage, divorce and civil partnership statistics given the introduction of marriage of same sex couples'. ONS would like to clarify that it is not proposing to produce only total figures for marriages where the distinction between same sex and opposite sex couples is not available. ONS do intend to publish marriage and divorce statistics in the future where figures for opposite sex and same sex couples are shown separately. ONS are consulting on the characteristics of these marriages/divorces which are of particular interest so that published statistics meet user requirements.<<

Looks like they got the message.