Clegg & Marriage

[Senor Chevalier]

Yep - I was just nitpicking your very last post as I find the numerical arguments and cause/correlation issue actually more interesting than the topic at hand it being rather obvious (but oddly does not go without saying on here) that marriage does not a stable partnership make.

[binary_star]

???? it wasn't me that made the distinction between CP and marriage, MM actually said he thought marriage was a "better form of stable relationship". But then his idea that marriage was the most stable was based on some stats that said maried people were less likely to split up, so I provided some other stats that said people in CPs are quite unlikely to split up as well.

It's all a bit irrelevant as has been stated above more than once, getting married does not result in (i.e. CAUSE) stability. Anyone can see the argument MM is making is a logical fallacy.

[Otta]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm just in favour of stable relationships

> and believe marriage to be a better form of stable relationship.

Why?

[Pugwash]

A couple who have a good relationship with each other which rebounds on their children is a stable relationship regardless whether married or not.

My daughter has been with her partner for 20 years and have 2 children who are polite, well adjusted and happy. In asking why she does not want to get married - daughter feels that as she does not have 'legal security' it makes them work harder at their relationship. Is afraid that the security blanket of marriage may make them less inclined to committ to each other.

My father and stepmother - after 50 years together which included 35 years of marriage are now seperated as have come to 'hate' each other. Statistics are now showing more people 60 plus are divorcing.

In my line of work I have seen more distressed/damaged children who are the products of a marriage - where each partner resents the other and only stay together 'for the children's sake' One cannot legislate on happiness, committment, good parenting,stability - it is up to individuals to work out what is best for themselves.

[Huguenot]

Everything was better when everyone knew their place

http://www.loschermo.it/imagecache/articoli/foto1/697908ee_pleasantville_helping_800_800.jpg

[david_carnell]

MM - I'll add patronising to the list.

However, giving people in that situation and their offspring encouragement to aspire to a more stable way of life as epitomised by the majority of marriages is surely a good thing.

No it's not. First of all, I cannot for the life of me see why a small tax break would encourage people to marry who weren't going to anyway. The cost of the wedding alone would eat up any financial gain for years to come. So you're merely doing to make a political point, not an economic one.

Second, even if it did mean more people married, they are doing it for the wrong reasons. Not because they want to but because there will be a financial gain for them to do so. If that's the case it doesn't take a genius to work out that those are the very couples most likely to divorce anyway making the whole think both expensive and pointless.

Third, you are discriminating in both a social and economic way against all those who choose of their own free will not to embrace your view of what a family should look like. They impinge on you in no way whatsoever. And yet you think it is the job of government to interfere with that free will and tax all those who disagree with your views on marriage.

Lastly, and on wider point, I'd like Britain to be viewed as a progressive nation that embraces all forms of relationship, between all sexes, and doesn't discriminate against those who lead a life that doesn't match outdated 1950s social cliches. Instead, you're advocating a position supported by those in the USA who can only be described as "fringe".

Perhaps a return of clause 28 next? After all, it's not normal is it. And you know how promiscuous those gays are....couldn't possibly have a stable relationship and raise a family.

Utterly bonkers.

[Marmora Man]

D-C, you appear to be so concerned to be non judgemental that you are unable to see a wide picture.

You are also attributing views to me that I have never expressed.

I won't bother to fisk you post above - but it's mostly rubbish.

It is clearly impossible to have a rational discussion on this subject on this forum.

I am withdrawing - bloodied but unbowed and with my views unchanged.

[Huguenot]

This isn't about being 'non-judgmental' or 'right-on'.

It's quite simply that this policy is wrong: constructed upon poor analysis and outdated perceptions of society and lifestyles, it is a red herring that stops us adddressing real social problems, won't deliver on objectives, and foolishly aims to turn back the social clock to a nostalgic era that never existed.

This is a policy aimed at winning votes from the over 50s at a time when the coalition is shaky and the government losing traction.

The irony is that it's also an outdated strategy.

It kept the Tories out for over a decade, and it'll do the same again.

[Otta]

It is clearly impossible to have a rational discussion on this subject on this forum.

That is unfair. I'd like you to explain exactly why you believe marriage to be a better form of stable relationship.

[david_carnell]

There is only one person here talking rubbish, MM, and it's not me.

I don't think I have ever seen the Drawing Room so united on one topic before. A coalition from across our spectrum.

That alone should tell you something. This isn't me and some loony "trots" having a pop at you. This is a list of the most rational, intelligent and often conservative members of the room all lining up to tell you that you are wrong.

I'd reconsider your position if I were you.

[DaveR]

I usually find common ground with MM, but not on this one. Tax breaks for married couples is a stupid idea; even if there may be a tenuous case for it, it inevitably comes across as nanny stateish and moralistic. I'm also dubious about the power of tax incentives outside a purely commercial environment. Raising the income tax threshold would be a better idea all round.

[binary_star]

MM it's not impossible, but it would be helpful if you were to clarify your position, at the moment it doesn't seem to be based on any discernible fact.

It's not my intention to turn this into a sexual orientation issue, but in the UK CP is not legally possible for heterosexuals and marriage is not legally possible for homosexuals, and as I'm aware there is no formal dissolution process for long term cohabitants, so as it stands we have marriage ending in divorce vs CP ending in dissolution. Ignoring the gay/straight distinction and focusing on one formalised "stable" relationship vs another:

"Tables 3 and 4 show that marriages are more likely to end in divorce than civil partnerships are to end in dissolution and that this trend increases as the number of years since marriage or civil partnership formation increases to four years. However it is too early to say whether this trend will continue beyond the fourth anniversary."

From the pdf available here

What does this prove? Absolutely nothing. Should we be suggesting that straight couples be allowed to have civil partnerships as they obviously last longer than marriages? It's nonsense!!

I can't quite believe I've allowed myself to be drawn into this debate as far as I have, and I'm pretty shocked that the debate is even happening but there you go.

[Huguenot]

It's quite interesting that 'marriage' in the 'state' legal sense to which the current government is referring didn't actually exist until 1753. Before that, the act of living together would be considered to be 'married' if both partners referred to themslves as so.

Since marriage didn't carry any legal associations, the term was used quite regularly to define a variety of levels from just dating right the way through to contracted 'forced' marriages largely used to exact reproductive rights over women.

Up until the nineteenth century marrriages often produced large numbers of kids who died (or the parents died) - so the idea of it creating a stable home for development didn't really make sense: it was just a production line with a high failure rate.

Better medicine in the nineteenth century resulted in smaller families and higher levels of investment in kids - but not with the 'loving home' context that MM refers to. The male line were considered assets/employees owned by the male family lead. Women and girls didn't count - they got 'sold' socially or otherwise. Just read Jane Austen.

I guess the way that many Americans still refer to their father as 'sir' means that some modern societies haven't moved from there.

Even in the UK the caring/sharing nuclear family looking for stability and mutual benefit was largely a 1960s creation.

Hence the whole 'stable family' idea that MM is imagining, is actually less than 50 years old, and in the mobile/information age is already outdated.

There is the unpleasant probability (for MM at any rate) that the high modern divorce rate is driven by marriages created by 'love' rather than 'duty', and love is clearly less exact a science.

Perhaps then, a 'stable loving home' never actually existed at all - it was a romantic mental construct that didn't stay the distance.

So the real question is what the conservative government is likely to do to deal with the changing needs of society, and not what it can do to preserve something that never really existed.

It's worth bearing in mind that in many collectivist societies the 'family' is a very large unit indeed - encompassing entire neighborhoods. So a stable 'family' has a different connotation and doesn't require 20 quid to make it happen!!

I'd prefer to see the billion quid that this would cost invested in social facilities that create a social solution like youth clubs that works and has longevity rather than a misguided cash chuck at financially equipped married people.