On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:53:09 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)"
wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:24:44 GMT, David Johnston
>puked:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:46:58 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)"
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>and the
>>>>>answer is straight people. You changed my question.
>>>>
>>>>No, I said it's unimportant. Meaningless. Trivial. Not worth
>>>>discussing.
>>>
>>>It spawned from a discussion of who gets more divorces,
>>
>>Which is also only meaningful when discussed proportionately. Absolute
>>numbers don't matter. Percentages do. Although at the moment any
>>homo.ual who gets married would have to have a lot more commitment
>>than a hetero.ual, so statistics might be misleading.
>
>You have no way of collecting statistics since most ... marriages
>aren't recorded in any way, they are just held.
This is true. You'd need an actual scientific study and I'm not aware
of any.
And I would suggest
>that a lot of ...s getting married now are doing it for activist
>reasons, hardly the basis of a lasting relationship...
You could suggest it, but I see no reason to accept it. After the
first few ... marriages, there's no longer any activist reason to do
it because you aren't breaking any boundaries. |
