UKC

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ruth-hunt/britain-is-no-longer-cons_b_18321...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/12/british-transgender-woman-giv...

This isn't a good moment for the UK.

We need to challenge any animosity towards trans people where we come across it.

In reply to Timmd:

Sounds like a flight of fantasy being engaged in by some out-of-touch legal people on the other side of the world.

In reply to Andy Morley:

On what basis?

In reply to Andy Morley:

Trans women suffers abuse in UK which affects her mental health which is absent in NZ, which means that it's a fight of fancy to say she's safer in NZ?

It's never nice to hear or read something bad about one's own country, but I'm not sure that I follow your logic.

In reply to Timmd:

Sounds like she had a pretty rough time of it over here, and returning to the UK could destabilise her. Its interesting as many of the Kiwi's I've met are pretty homophobic - I'd be curious to see if there are any comparable stories of Kiwis emigrating to the UK to escape abuse in their own country.

In reply to Timmd:


Claiming transsexual asylum might be a good way to get permanent resident status in NZ, perhaps?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Yes, I think this is a case of a vulnerable person finding somewhere (near her family) she feels safe, and the judge recognising that disrupting her life could be dangerous.
I don't think we should assume New Zealand is more tolerant.

In reply to captain paranoia:

If there was evidence of dishonesty or subterfuge that might be a valid point of view. Some statistics on the experiences of trans people in both countries would be interesting, and any changes in their experiences.

While increasing reporting may account for some of the rise, there's statistically been a rise in hate crime in general in the UK, including homophobic and anti-trans ones too, as well as against others who are 'too different'. Which is something we should be concerned about, rather than brushed off as being down to increased reporting, since it could be difficult to define how much of the increase is down to that.

In reply to Timmd:

I know nothing about the statistics, or her experiences.

I was simply suggesting a possible alternative reason for making such claims in a residency appeal court.

In reply to Timmd:



Or, more accurately - "Trans woman suffers abuse in a particular place and employment in the UK which affects her mental health which is absent in a particular place and employment in NZ ..."

It's obviously not nice to suffer abuse, and the woman has my complete sympathy, but just because one judge decides that, in a particular set of circumstances a person may be better off in NZ rather than UK, it doesn't necessarily mean that abuse of trans people is endemic in the UK.

It's particularly egregious for the Huffpost to claim that "Britain Is No Longer Considered A Safe Part Of The World For Trans People To Live In", considering that this woman hasn't actually lived in the UK since 2009.

In reply to hokkyokusei:


There's an element of wanting to attract attention by writing a certain kind of headline, I would agree. That instances of abuse etc have gone up by 80% in the past four years, might seem to be worth taking seriously, though?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gay-lgbt-hate-crimes-stats-r...

If you're trans, it can seem that you've a 40% chance of being on the receiving end of abuse in the UK, which isn't so cheery.

In reply to Timmd:

Not nice, I'm sure. But what are the corresponding stats for NZ?

What I was trying to say, is that you can't use the experience of a single person, and draw conclusions about an entire country.

In reply to Timmd:

OK if we club up to buy a ticket to NZ are you interested ?

In reply to hokkyokusei:


I agree, but it is embarrassing for someone from the UK to be granted asylum in another country.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


On the basis that I prefer to get my information on this sort of thing from trans people who actually live in the UK rather than from second-hand opinions of people far away who have no direct involvement.

In reply to Timmd:


Perhaps in part that's because some are people are sick of having LGBT stuff rammed down their throats everytime they turn on the TV or radio?
Most people are pretty tolerant and adopt a live and let live attitude and even if they actually think someone is a "weirdo" (as they might see it) they wouldn't generally go about insulting or attacking them. But reporting of "trans" issues, something which actually affects a tiny fraction of 1% of the population seems to have reached a fever pitch and I've certainly come accross a few people saying they are sick to death of hearing about it and being told by the thought police what they must believe.
At the margins, I'm sure this must push some people past the tipping point of just thinking someone is "a bit weird" into telling them that.

In reply to Andy Morley:


The information you have from trans people in the UK gives you better evidence to make a judgement on this case than the evidence available to the court?

It really grates on me when people make a contrary judgement on a case that's been decided in court on the basis of a few lines of journalism, plus their own experience of something they think is similar. It's just annoying.

In reply to pec:


To prove your point, why don't you have a look at a week's schedule of TV and radio and see what proportion of it relates to LGBT issues? Then we'll know if you have a legitimate point, or whether it's just the visibility of LGBT people that is a problem for you.

There is, granted, a lot in the media about transgender people at the moment. This is because it's become a political issue through some weird stuff that's happened in the US and Canada with legislation being passed about toilets and pronouns and stuff which there shouldn't IMO be any government intervention in. This is the nature of the media - there's also a lot about the EU on the telly these days.

I'm not sure who you see as being blameworthy for this awful "ramming down your throat" of LGBT stuff, which sounds really terrible. Is it LGBT people, or the media, or the government's fault do you think?

And as for the "thought police", who are they? Are they the journalists in the HP, Guardian, etc? Do you read them? Or the government? And how do they enforce their hate crime rules?

There is a fairly basic division in opinion about LGBT issues: you either believe that these people deserve equal rights, or you don't. The tide of opinion has turned over the past few decades and while the norm used to be to believe that they didn't deserve equal rights, that's now regarded as bigoted. One way to look at this change in social attitudes is that there is a malevolent force restricting people's freedom of thought and expression. I personally haven't seen any evidence of this, but I would be interested if anyone can produce any. The other way to see it might be simply as a change in social attitudes that has happened as a result of an increasing influence of modern secular values rather than values taught by the church and embedded in tradition. These new values are now enshrined in legislation and promoted widely e.g. by government and public institutions. So anyone who doesn't share the belief that LGBT people deserve equal rights will now feel ostracised from mainstream society. I do feel for them, I know what it's like to feel alienated from the mainstream. But while they have every right to think whatever they like about whomever they like, they do have accept that if their values are out of step with the mainstream, then they will feel alienated. That's life.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Correct

In reply to Andy Morley:

So you know what evidence was available to the court?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Incorrect

In reply to Andy Morley:

So you know that your information is better than the court's, but you don't know what the court's is. Just explain how that works, would you?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I said "Sounds like a flight of fantasy being engaged in by some out-of-touch legal people on the other side of the world."

Inane questions from you are not the way to convince me otherwise. As you're so keen on 'information' and 'evidence' about life in the UK that comes from the other side of the world, try us with some of it.

In reply to hokkyokusei:




^ This

It's a horrible situation for the woman involved, but to claim the entire UK is horrendously bigoted in comparison to the beacon of tolerance that is NZ by extrapolating one case is stretching things a bit.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


There's even division within the LGBT community, with Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists and Trans activists getting into fisticuffs in Hyde Park.

In reply to Ridge:


There are feminists who are lesbian, bisexual, etc, but that does not mean all feminists are so defined.
We have Christians who kill abortionists, but ..

Your point is...?

In reply to Andy Morley:

All I know about the case is that the court granted this person asylum. I can't tell you any more than that. I don't know any trans people, so I can't give you my impression of how much hate crime or discrimination they generally suffer in the UK nor in NZ, but if I did, that would not place me in any better position to claim that the court's decision to grant asylum was wrong.

The point I made was that it irritates me when people who know nothing about the case in question think that they have a superior grasp of the evidence that the court that has deliberated over it. It's annoying because it smacks of arrogance.

I'm sorry that I can't bring any more evidence or information to this strand of the discussion.

In reply to hokkyokusei:


It's not the PuffPost making the claims, it's Ruth Hunt the CEO of Stonewall.

I'd agree that it reads like a leaflet you hand out at Fresher's Week, rather than a serious piece but it does reflect the direction she's taken Stonewall in.

In reply to Ridge:


I don't see the relevance. The context is "the thought police telling you what to think" - so we're talking in very broad terms about attitudes in mainstream society towards people who are LGBT. If you pick a specific issue such as adoption, or reassignment surgery for teenagers then sure there are lots of opinions, but we're talking about the "thought police" determining attitudes simply towards LGBT people, i.e. that acceptance of LGBT people as equal is the social norm and if you don't agree, you feel alienated or that your view is "not allowed".

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Well I can see why people might think that. But let's keep a sense of proportion. It's one judgement, one one case, in one particular set of circumstances.

In reply to pec:


You must have much more interactive media devices than me.


Until they have to hear about people different from them it seems.

In reply to Ridge:



Those Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFS) that you mention- I thought it might be useful to provide a link to some of their logic. UKC transphobes with similar thoughts may find it comforting to have such allies.

http://theterfs.com/tag/terflogic/

In reply to pec:

Why doesn't everybody feel like this, what might the difference be between people who are fed up and those who don't register it as something to find irritating?


Why should anybody ever feel it's justified to tell another human they're weird, give them verbal abuse or assault them?

It seems like you're saying it's kind of understandable, or if not, you're angry for some reason.

In reply to llechwedd:

And in the winner for website that has disappeared furthest up its own arsehole and furthest away from reality goes to...

In reply to hokkyokusei:

I agree, I don't think wider conclusions should be drawn as they are in the article, but that's what journalists do.

In reply to Ridge:

It's possibly more accurate to say there's division among feminists, with those who think they shouldn't be able to enter women's spaces because trans women have lived for a part of their lives benefiting from male privilege, and other feminists/other people who don't think that, people who can see that if anybody might need the support of females, it's people for whom living as a female (as far as how they're treated by society might go, unless they're noticeable as being trans) is a new experience, in terms of learning how to deal with certain kinds of situations in every day life, using deescalation as a way of keeping safe for example.

In reply to dunc56:


I'm afraid you'll have to explain what you mean, why you think I'd like to go.

In reply to neuromancer:


Is it even in English? What are they on about?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


The trans people I know range from homeless nomads to professionals who own their own homes and are in steady relationships and who could be considered pillars of their local community. I don't see any evidence that persection affects any of their lives, though I am aware through them that persecution does exist in this country because some of them are actively involved in combatting it. But if I wanted more information about the levels of persecution in this country, I would go to them and not to New Zealand for my information - that to me is a no-brainer.

A far more obvious explanation for this news story is that New Zealanders have a somewhat inflated opinion of their own country relative to almost everywhere else - more so than most nations. Kiwis I've worked with refer to their native home as "God's Own Country", which has always struck me as puzzling as I've encountered that phrase most from those who work over here, raising the question that if it's so great, why are they over here? But old uni. friends who've ended up living there are much the same and assure me that they are way more multicultural than say Australia and that pretty much, life there is like living on the 'Big Rock Candy Mountain'. All told, that says a lot about New Zealanders, however you interpret it, but nothing about the UK.

In reply to Timmd:


I wonder then why some people seem so desperate to post sub-standard “journalism” that’s slagging off the UK on a pretty regular basis.

Until today I have never even thought of accusing someone of “virtue signalling” but I’m coming close.

In reply to Andy Morley:


I think the most obvious explanation for this story is that in the specific circumstances of this case, the court found that this person met the legal criteria for asylum. But you think it's more likely that the court made the decision "because that's what Kiwi's are like". Christ...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


They appear to have made this decision 'because that's what Brits are like'. Christ indeed.

In reply to Andy Morley:


But you've already said that you don't know what information the court had. So you think "they appear" to have made the decision for that reason, but you don't actually have any idea what the evidence was. So we can agree that you don't know why they made that decision and that you're making it up.

It's fine to make things up and believe them I suppose, but when someone points out that that's what you're doing, it's probably not fair to describe their line of questioning as "inane".

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Dude, this has given you an opportunity to be self-righteous, to posture and now to portray yourself as victimised too. In terms of getting your rocks off, you've clearly achieved a hat-trick!

In reply to Andy Morley:

If you think that's a good response, that's fine too.

In reply to Timmd:


Why shouldn't they? What's wrong with being weird?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Oh the irony. TV on this morning. Not transvestite BBC news c of e discussing if they should sanction gay marriage !!!




It's here. The pressure is there all the time. Echo chamber.

In reply to dunc56:


What proportion that item to rest of news items?i think that original point no?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Good or bad, all of the above tells us about as much about life for trans people in the UK as does a court case in New Zealand

In reply to Jon Stewart:


It's not 'journalists', it's Ruth Hunt CEO of Stonewall, perhaps you meant to say that's what Stonewall do?

In reply to winhill:


Yeah, seems that way in this case at least.

In reply to dunc56:


I don't see the irony. Are the TV schedules taken over by lgbt stuff being rammed down your throat?


You're right that there is pressure to conform to the view that lgbt people should be treated equally. That's the social norm. You're looked down at as a bigot if you don't.

Do you think that this is wrong? Do you think we should be accepting of all opinions, no matter what they are?

Does this thread look like an echo chamber to you? The whole reason that UKC is good for debate is that there are all sorts of opinions on here from lefty activists to hardcore bigots.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The whole reason that UKC is good for debate is that there are all sorts of opinions on here from lefty activists to hardcore bigots.

I would argue lefty activists are as much hard-core bigots as any other political activist.

In reply to Andy Morley:


If you want to know what life is like for trans people in the UK, that would take some sustained effort on the part of the enquirer, and interrogation of variety of sources.
Not all transgender people living in the UK lead lives cutailed by transphobic hate; e.g. the writer, Jan Morris.
A significant number do though. Stonewall sought to address this, see

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/trans-equality

Galop published a 2016 hate crime report which included a section on transphobia

https://www.galop.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/The-Hate-Crime-Report-2...

The Office for National Statistics does not seem to collect data

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformati...

Transgender rights in New Zealand are more rudimentary than in the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_New_Zealand

But of course that does not mean that the experience of transgender people is worse in NZ.

So, there you have it. Some information which could inform the ignorance of some UKC posters.
As Jon Stewart posted upthread "There is a fairly basic division in opinion about LGBT issues: you either believe that these people deserve equal rights, or you don't" . All this information I've provided won't change that.
So it's probably not worth reading, unless you want to place your own existence in context.

I see the comment upthread 'What's wrong with being weird?' got 8 likes.
Putting it in the context of pec's casually poisonous comment about telling a transgender person they're weird: We're not talking about 'Oh, you're so kooky, weird' ( as a backhanded compliment which celebrates their non comformity).
The reality is ' You F*ckin tranny etc etc, have a beating, let's get people to jeer at you/ why don't you kill yourself' kind of weird.

I'll leave that with you.

In reply to Gone for good:

I know what you're saying, and there are a bunch of total f*ckwits on the hard left IMO...but you only find the hardcore bigots at the extremes rather than throughout the political spectrum. You'd be hard pushed to justify calling some sweet Lib Dim C of E old lady campaigning for a councillor who will improve the dogmess situation on the highstreet a "hardcore bigot" no matter how passionate she was about her cause.



*Edit: spot the typo, not pun

In reply to Jon Stewart:
I know of British person campaigning before elections for british socialist party knocked on door to give a leaflet who were told by old grandmother that "this is a Christian country and they should be shot"so think again about innocent looking elders

Who are the bigots on the left?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

No, not really.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Quote original?

In reply to Timmd:

Given she's been living there for 8 years I presume she wants to stay there.
I wonder why she didn't get a resident visa and/or apply for citizenship?

In reply to Tanke:

The obvious example here would be the feminists who don't believe trans women deserve to be treated equally. Another example often given is Antifa - but I don't think I've ever read anything about them that I trust to be balanced so I can't take a view on whether they qualify as "left wing bigots".

In reply to Tanke:


There were other qualifiers in the given example; Lib Dem, for example. Your old lady doesn't sound very LibDem. And, ironically, Christianity is pretty left-leaning in its basic message.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Christianity is pretty left-leaning in its basic message.
>
No it's not. A common misunderstanding.

In reply to Postmanpat:



It's whatever you want it to be. Want to justify social conservatism, a hatred for anyone who doesn't fit in your tribe? Here's the Bible to lend a stamp of moral authority to your disgusting attitudes. Want the whole world to join hands, wear sandals and have a lovely sing-song, forgetting all our differences and living in peace for ever more? Oh look, that's what Jesus said.

The reason the Bible is a best seller is that it has the language of morality but no substance. It's so ambiguous that it's nothing more than device to justify more or less any moral theory, decision or action. As for being left or right wing, it certainly ain't either of those.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It always causes trouble when fiction is mistakenly shelved with the non-fiction.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I'm happier with that observation than with PMP's blank rebuttal.

I'm an atheist (in case you hadn't noticed...). The basic message for me is found in Matthew 22 36:40. "Love thy neighbour as thyself". That might just be me finding the bit that is what I want to find, but it's also identified as the most important temporal commandment to follow.

The trouble is that that passage is only four verses amongst a huge mass of other, contradictory stuff, including the OT. So yes, it can be interpreted to support just about any thing you want. I found myself in Winchester Cathedral last year, at the time of evensong, and decided to stay for the service, because I love choral music. I was horrified by the content of the first lesson, which was about smiting, as it seemed to me to be no different to the argument being used by ISIS to justify their barbaric slaughter. And then doubly horrified that no-one else seemed to be horrified.

In reply to captain paranoia:


I think his post relates to the view that "the left" claim moral superiority, but "the right" don't, so therefore the right are better. It's pretty daft for a massive list of reasons. One that's kind of relevant to this thread is that the right (i.e. the Tories) have had to reform their position on minorities, particularly LGBT people, because they lost the moral argument about equality. So when it comes to this issue, "the left" - or more specifically people who campaigned for LGBT rights such as civil partnerships and the repeal of Section 28, which isn't everyone on the left as this has alienated some traditional Labour voters - can quite justifiably claim to have the "moral high ground" because they shifted the whole social norm to where we are today.

This doesn't mean that every aspect of left-wing politics is morally superior, it means that on this issue, conservatives lost the moral argument. It has nothing to say about economic systems and morality, which I think is a fascinating topic but not one for this thread.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>
It's got very little to do with that at all. Indeed I have never made that claim.

At it's most basic the argument is simply that if Christianity is about caring for others then Conservatives care about others just as much as socialists. They just believe that this should be expressed in practice in a different way, and in particular not necessarily through the mechanism of the State but through encouraging and enabling aspiration.

In reply to wintertree:


Whether you do or not could depend on how much you know about me, the people in my life, and why this might be important to me?

How much I choose to divulge is down to me, and you're free to judge.

Being from a minority myself (arguably more than one), you'll presumably understand if anything which suggests it's harder to be from one in the UK, is something I might identify (with) as being something worth drawing attention to.

For those lucky enough to be in the majority, it's easy enough to think that everything is dandy, that life is the same for everybody else. I have a foot in both camps.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I apologise for misrepresenting your view then, I just feel like you've made that claim at least a hundred times. I'll do my best to not interpret your posts that way, if you do your best not to open yourself to easily to that interpretation.


I certainly think that argument makes sense when it comes to some right-wing economic arguments. I don't think it makes any sense when you look at Tory policy on the ground. It makes absolutely no sense in relation to social conservatism, which is an ideology expressly elevating the needs and rights of one group above other 'out groups'.

In reply to Gone for good:


I'm guessing that you wouldn't argue that everybody having equality in life chances (taking into account their own merits and positive qualities, and this being an ideal which may never be reached), and freedom from being on the end of negative experiences because of who they are (in not being called f*king trans, or queer etc) are things which reasonable right wing people wouldn't agree with?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>
I've have often made the clam that the left wrongly claim that they possess moral superiority . I haven't claimed that therefore the right are morally superior because of this, just that they are less likely to be sanctimonious wankers.

>
The Conservative party is not particularly socially conservative. By the way, was it you who has referred to Jonathan Haidt from time to time?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes, I sort of agree. Last time I countered with camerons family values crap, which was incredibly sanctimonious, and wanker ish too. And insincere to boot.


I agree. Since they lost the moral argument.


Yes.

In reply to Timmd:

What are you going on about?

In reply to Gone for good:
I'm asking you a question.

I went and reread it and double checked on seeing your post, as I'm a little tired today, and it makes linguistic sense, if a little clumsily.

I'm trying to get a sense of what you might call a bigoted left wing activist, so I asked you the question as a starting off point.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It was evidence based. I thought you'd like it.......

>
Odd that you nevertheless simplify the arguments so much.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Just for the record, Christianity is around 2000 years old, whereas the terms 'left' and 'right' first arose as political descriptors a little over 200 years ago. You could, with some mental gymnastics, argue the case for left-wing politics being influenced by Christianity, but to portray the cause-and-effect working in the other direction just does not make sense given that left/right ideas and terminology were simply not around in that form when Christianity was being invented.

In reply to Timmd:




What does it matter what or more accurately who I might call a bigoted left wing activist? Are you saying they don't exist because if you aren't then why ask?

My point to Jon Stewart's earlier post was that extreme bigots aren't confined to the the right wing of politics.

In reply to Timmd:


Those Guardian readers are the worst kind of bigots!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/word-bigot-loses-all-meaning-201...

In reply to Andy Morley:

Jesus had a magic fish and bread tree, so clearly left wing.

In reply to Timmd:


Not really, no. Your OP was not - presumably - about you or the people in your life but was some very poor reporting whose extremely invalid point you were parroting in your post.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Good joke.


Specifically?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Nah, you are getting left wing confused with DUP

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>
Not only a good joke but a good point!


"It makes absolutely no sense in relation to social conservatism, which is an ideology expressly elevating the needs and rights of one group above other 'out groups'."

In reply to Gone for good:

I was just wondering who you see as being left wing bigots. It seems fair enough to me to ask if you've posted about them, when everybody else can have their posts questioned on here by folk. People don't always agree on what bigoted is - you get bigots who are sure they're right.


I'd agree with that.

In reply to wintertree:

Hmmn, maybe I happen to know people who are transexual or who have partners who are? It was 'about them' in as much as they're more likely to face abuse than somebody who visibly blends in, so it's an issue relevant to my life in that sense, and something I felt was important to raise as an 'issue' and still do.


Extremely invalid in what way, in the suggestion that NZ is safer for trans people, or that one isn't more likely to face abuse in the street as a trans person in the UK (than some other people)?

''This isn't a good moment for the UK.
We need to challenge any animosity towards trans people where we come across it.''

Remembering that the above in quotes is what I posted, I'm guessing you're not arguing that any animosity towards trans people 'isn't' something we should challenge?

In reply to Andy Morley:


Who said anything about influence either way? Two philosophical systems can evolve independently, and still share common elements of philosophy.

As the theists are often at pains to point out, many of the charities devoted to helping people are religiously based. And their support isn't restricted to the form of PMP's "encouraging and enabling aspiration", but by direct support; providing food, shelter, clothing, medical support, etc. As well as trying to help them become self-sufficient.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Is your point that Christianity and left-wing politics are broadly similar? How then do you explain the Republican Party in the USA, which is much more 'Christian' in the views it supports than the other side, given that the Republicans are what pass for 'right wing' on the US spectrum?

Typically, right-wing dictators favour the established religion of their country, and this applies as much or more in Christian countries as in other religions which often 'the left' is associated more with atheism. And let's not forget that Christians, particularly evangelicals are frequently vocal in their condemnation of homosexuality and probably would be equally or more so of trans people, if such Christians were capable of grasping the difference between the two. Unless I've misunderstood you, your latest 'clarication' of your original statement goes majorly against most of the available evidence.

In reply to captain paranoia:


So why do you think that Christianity is "basically left leaning"?

In reply to Postmanpat:


We must be talking at cross-purposes here. The idea that the motherhood and apple pie spouted by Cameron on this topic was some kind of evidence based policy initiative is preposterous.


I stand by that. I'm sure Jonathan Haidt has a far more detailed and sophisticated view, and a deep understanding of *why* social conservatives think it's fine to deny equal rights to minorities, but the point stands: social conservatism aims to conserve a world before equality.

In reply to Andy Morley:


I don't think they're very Christian, however much they purport to be. I think they have forgotten the core Christian message.

"And, ironically, Christianity is pretty left-leaning in its basic message."

In reply to Postmanpat:

A key message is give away your wealth/belongings/time for the general good. Hence monasteries, tithes, jumbles sales, missionaries etc. Sounds lot like socialism. Of course as Jon says, entirely opposite and contradictory messages are in there, so beat up gays, bomb people, poor people deserve it are all Christian too.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm afraid I really can't be arsed arguing with you.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

So what are you actually referring to?

>
Some social conservatives no doubt. But some liberal lefties support Stalinist authoritarianism.

I think, incidentally, that the social conservatism of parts of the american right barely exists in the UK or certainly to a much smaller degree.

In reply to Timmd:


I am sure you do.


Perhaps it was ‘about them’ in your mind when you wrote it, but there was nothing to put that in the mind of us, the readers. It looked like yet another quick chance to slag off the UK with substandard journalism and a throwaway post. I never said it’s all roses here you will note.


Indeed. The basis of that claim was execrable nonsense as clearly explained up thread. I’d repeat it here but I think you must already be choosing to ignore it.

> or that one isn't more likely to face abuse in the street as a trans person in the UK (than some other people)?

The basis of that claim in the articles is also nonsense as clearly explored up thread.



To many negatives in that statement for me to confidently address it correctly, but I disagree with your quote from your OP. If a trans person steals a car, I’m not going to challenge animosity towards them based on their car stealing. I will challenge animosity towards anyone based on their trans status. Considering these two examples hopefully you can see why I disagree with your quote, although that’s neither here nor there in terms of the view I formed on your OP.

I think britsh lady elder who said "This is Christian country you should be shot",to socialist at her door was thinking kommunist USSR was godless place full of atheist and that is what you want spread here.So socialism/left is seen by Christian as being atheist which is true in some way of Materialism of Karl Marx

In reply to MG:

>
And what's that got to do with being "left" or "right"?

In reply to captain paranoia:


I didn't really we had started an argument.

In reply to Postmanpat:

2010 election campaign (I think!) in which he promised that if you voted for him then old fashioned decency would be restored. When we discussed this there was a link to his speech (I think!). Not sure a want a rerun of the exact same topic (I just tried to find the thread but couldn't).


Whataboutery, not interested.


I agree, they have a real problem with the 'god hates fags' lot that we don't.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>
I was referring to his arguments on the social benefits of encouraging marriage and stable relationships.

>
It was simply making the point that there are extreme fringes on both sides who discredit the rest. Do you disagree?

>
And on abortion and guns and black people etc etc..

In reply to Postmanpat:


It’s a left wing view

In reply to wintertree:

Nope.


It's my impression that it can depend on where the statistics come from (to do with trans people facing abuse), however, if you were to try living as one...applying make up and and clothing to give the appearance of being one, and see how your experience differs to every day life, it would only be anecdotal and not statistically rigorous, but it'd reflect a reality which people who aren't trans never experience or have any reason to think about.


That's so clearly obviously the correct thing to do, I don't know why you've written it to be honest.

In reply to MG:


Complete nonsense and self serving rubbish. The left wing view is that the State should take prime responsibility for doing this. The non-left view is very supportive of charitable giving but less supportive of the idea that the State should enforce it.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Your 'discussion style' seems pretty argumentative, then. I can't be arsed with that.

In reply to Timmd:


Odd then that you don’t either refute it or capitulate that the articles you posted where sensationalist nonsense and not - to paraphrase - “a bad moment for the UK”.


I had hoped that the reason I stated the obvious was clear. You were asking me if I agreed with your statement from your OP. I did not. I explained to you why I did not agree with it. I could have just said “I disagree” but I felt it worth taking the time to bring some clarity to the discussion rather than risk being grossly misinterpreted.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Well, if you consider that being asked why you think what you say is pretty argumentative then I suppose you'd be right. On, on....

In reply to MG:


Historically, much of the 'giving away' like the tithes you mention meant giving it to the Church - likewise, 'Peter's Pence', the sale of 'indulgences', the Sunday collection etc. A lot of that money went to fund things like the building of fantastically opulent Church buildings - the construction of St Peter's in Rome was a major contributory factor to the Reformation due to the huge fund-raising effort. In that sense, it does look a lot like socialism, e.g. Nicolae Ceau?escu and his fabulous palace:
http://www.youramazingplaces.com/palace-of-the-parliament-bucharest/amp/

So yeah, I guess from that perspective, Christianity could be seen as a bit 'left-wing'.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It doesn't serve me at all, it's just a correct observation. Your denial is self-serving (I am Christian, I don't like socialism, therefore, clearly Christianity can't be socialist).

Historically and still in.many cases.the church was the state.

In reply to MG:


It doesn't serve me.

Do you believe that "giving away your wealth" is "left wing"? That is what you implied and it's obviously not. Is Warren Buffet left wing? Bill Gates? All those hedge fund managers setting up charities?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Damn it, I can't resist.

Has some good quality research been done that supports government intervention in encouraging marriage? Firstly, we all know that lots of nice things that we consider to exemplify "the good life" in our society tend to come along together. Good health, financial stability, stable relationships, continuous employment, owning your home, etc, etc. It is very difficult to tease out causality from these associated variables, but the research tools exist. If you have a good understanding of policy then you understand that you then have to work out how, with limited resources, the government can most effectively intervene at an influencable link in the causal chain such that the outcomes at the end of the chain such as health, wellbeing, alleviation of (child) poverty are improved. Good policy gets good bang for buck by getting the causality nailed and intervening with the minimum of 'deadweight' (government effort/spending on things that would have been done anyway).

I would love to see some research that makes a compelling case for government intervention in encouraging marriage as being the best way (or a good way, or even a viable, non-ridiculous way) to use resources to improve outcomes. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?

On the other hand, if you have a good understanding of politics then you understand that to woo voters, particularly less educated voters who might vote Tory, you spout facile crap about family values. Then when you're in government, you have to come up with policies that match - roughly speaking - your rhetorical drivel. And what with the whole modern way of doing things, you're even supposed to commission some research that links said policies with said rhetorical drivel, a depressing exercise in post hoc justification.

You'll like this example. At the time of all the cheesy marriage crap from DC, I worked on apprenticeships policy. The Tory minister (can't remember the guy's name, he's been on telly about twice and he has a weird wonky mouth due to an RTA I think) commissioned some "research" to show that if a young person got an apprenticeship, they'd be more likely to get married. Obviously, after the phone call with his office, we all pissed ourselves laughing. The note he received back may not have met his expectations.


I've agreed already with that point upthread.


Absolutely.

In reply to wintertree:

''We need to challenge any animosity towards trans people where we come across it''

To be honest, it was such a f*cking pedantic way of responding to the sentence quoted above that it beggars belief.

Obviously if a trans person does something bad you'll have animosity towards them, what next, the sky is blue?

Good grief.

Really, you genuinely felt it was required to say you'd have animosity towards a trans person doing something bad? I can't believe that you did.

Really? Either credit people with some intelligence or stop being so pedantic.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


>
There's lots of research to show that children brought up in married or at least stable relationships do better than those who don't. Correlation doesn't equal causation but there is also lots of work to explain the causation. There is also lots of work to show that "nudging" policies can achieve results.

So what you are asking is not really whether specific policies on encouraging marriage can achieve results but whether governments can achieve much of anything at all. As I've agreed many times, one of the problems with democracy (and of course the left wing's faith in the State) is governments are expected to "fix" problems and that therefore promise to do so. Really you are just expounding your cynically nihilistic view of the world but dressing it up as some specific attack on Tory policy.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I accept all of that. I just don't think that it's an appropriate sphere for government intervention, "nudge" or otherwise. What's the old cliche about "the left want the government in the boardroom but not in the bedroom and the right want it the otherway round"? Philosophically it doesn't sit well with me, and practically, I think it's a ludicrous idea that in modern Britain, it's the government that influences the marriage rate.


No, I'm being specific about "government in the bedroom" policy, why we saw it under the Tories, and how it was hopelessly detached from reality.


Nihilistic or realistic? If you base your policies in reality, they have some chance of achieving the desired outcome. If you base them on a well-meaning fairy tale, they will fail. And that's giving the benefit of the doubt to DC that he was sincere, and I don't believe it - I see him as the real cynic.

In reply to Timmd:

Before I reply to your post, let me note that you did not reply to my suggestion that you explain why you’ve disregarded the well explained posts from others about why the articles you linked are drawing seriously deranged conclusions.



You are being disingenuous. I was clearly not responding to the sentence. I was responding to you repeating it and asking me if I agreed with it...

What was I supposed to do? Lie and say yes? Say no and have you make a judgement on me? Or give the pedantic answer that clearly makes my view known? Remember I only explained with great clarity because you were in effect judging me by asking if I agreed with your poorly worded statement. I was being pedantic because you asked my view and I wanted there to be no misunderstanding when I answered. Until then I’d been happy to take your very badly written statement from the OP to mean what it clearly did.


Yes, first you ask me a question then you throw a wobbly strop when I answer it, all the while ignoring the much more important point that the articles you linked are claptrap.


I can’t make sense of what you have written. As I’ve bloody well explained to you a few times I was being pedantically clear because you asked me if I agreed with a statement that I couldn’t agree with. You quoted the specific statement from your OP.


No. You asked me if I agreed with what you had written, not what I thought you thought you’d written. I am at a loss as to why you’ve gone off the deep end because when I replied to you I clarified things so there could be no misunderstanding.

Here’s a tip - the next time you make an implied slight on someone’s character by asking them if they agree with something you have written, make sure it makes sense and means what you think it does first.

Perhaps then I’ll credit you with some intelligence instead of forming a view that you’re virtue signalling and immediately judging anyone who disagrees with you at all as being against whatever cause-de-jour you’re posting about.

In reply to wintertree:


youtube.com/watch?v=g8huXkSaL7o&

In reply to Timmd:


Where does one start. Perhaps Laurie Penny? From there you can follow the worm-hole as commentators progressively further left then slam her for her whiteness, etc etc.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>
Philisphically, you appear think that it is the State's responsibility to pick up the pieces of failing marriages and parenting. Maybe it would be more effective, alleviate hardship, and less costly to address the causes rather than the symptoms.

>
What is this "government in the bedroom" policy. You mean removing the tax disincentives for marriage? The tax system by default is always involved "in the bedroom".


Why is it a "fairy tale" to eg. make small rational adjustments to the perverse incentives of the tax system and introduce tested and piloted programmes (Lifestart) to improve parenting skills?

In reply to Timmd:


Would you be prepared to tell us which minority ?

In reply to dunc56:

Meanwhile man in glass house caught throwing stones ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-41724540

In reply to Postmanpat:

What an atrocious argument. I've been perfectly clear that I see it as the state's responsibility to work out how, with limited resources, the government can most effectively intervene at an influencable link in the causal chain such that the outcomes at the end of the chain such as health, wellbeing, alleviation of (child) poverty are improved.

It might be that the best the state can do is pick up the pieces. It might be that the key to these social problems lies in reducing inequality by investing heavily in education for those in the poorest areas. It might that the best way is for the government to promote marriage through tax breaks and cheesy speeches, and that'll generate the best outcomes for very little outlay.

You're assuming that the third option works even though it's clearly ludicrous. It's ludicrous because the government simply doesn't have a lever of control over whether people get married (well I suppose it would be easy to stop them!). And if the government could encourage people who otherwise wouldn't get married to do so, then why do we think that these new "government-stimulated" marriages would have the same good outcomes as the marriages that would have happened anyway? The whole idea is ridiculous because we have no reason to think that a) the government can influence the marriage rate (other than by banning people from marriage) and b) that it is marriage, not a million other variables, that is the causal factor in the good outcomes associated with marriage.

Reflecting on my own experience of friends and family with quite conventional, non-chaotic lives: some have got married, and divorced (I'm in my late 30s, I've seem a limited number of marriage break-ups of my generation). Many have got married and had kids and look like they'll be successful in providing a good upbringing so that the kids will do well (e.g. in school and eventually the labour market). Many have also *not* got married, but had kids and look like they'll be successful in providing a good upbringing so that the kids will do well (e.g. in school and eventually the labour market). From this anecdotal experience it deosn't appear to me that it is *marriage* that is the causal factor: it is the character and the lives of the two people who enter the relationship. The ceremony and the John Lewis gift list play very little part in the outcomes for the kids, from what I can see. Which makes perfect intuitive sense: have stable lives, a stable relationship and invest time and love in your kids, and obviously they're likely to do well. Why would it make any difference whether you were married or not?

I asked you if you could show me any research that proved, or suggested that it was possible, for the government to improve social outcomes by attempting to increase the marriage rate. You could not, because there isn't any, because it's not possible. Yet you come back to me with saying that it would be better to intervene at this link in the causal chain (I don't even believe it is a link) than to "pick up the pieces", making these assumptions that are obviously false. I don't find it compelling, sorry, in fact I think it's dreadful nonsense.


The effort to increase the marriage rate is an attempt for the government to involve itself in citizens' personal lives. I don't want the government to tell me what sort of relationship I should have, nor what art I should like, nor what I should spend my leisure time doing. The government's role IMO is to collect taxes and to spend them wisely on services that give us all the best opportunities to live good, healthy lives. It is not the government's role to moralise about our personal relationships - although I welcome any services that help promote better more healthy relationships.

I don't think I can really muster any interest for the detail, but I'm not entirely convinced that the policy was "removing the tax disincentives for marriage". People weren't getting married because they'd have to pay more tax?


The tax break was bollocks, it was a tax cut in the same period disabled people's benefits were being slashed. Simply immoral. The Lifestart programme sounds good in principle (hopefully it was available to non-married parents too?) and I don't know what the outcomes have been from it.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




>
When we got to the stage of "my friends etc etc" you aren't really addressing the argument. Nobody is pretending that all unmarried relationships produce bad outcomes for kids nor that adjusting the incentives for marriage are a cure all. Yours is a series of strawman arguments.
You previously acknowledged that "There's lots of research to show that children brought up in married or at least stable relationships do better than those who don't. Correlation doesn't equal causation but there is also lots of work to explain the causation. " and now seem to be backtracking on the basis of your mates' experience.
Nobody is pretending that a minor tax change is a solution to anything as opposed to a minor nudge. It's another of your strawmen

>
Ironically the usual leftist failure to acknowledge the impact of incentives, deliberate or not, in changing behaviours which blights policy making of the left. It's your usual argument that because nobody has tried something it should be tried.


Governments do that all the time through numerous allowances dependent on the particular status of the recipeints. Don't pretend this is something unique to the Tories. You don't seem to understand the implications of your own philoposphy. If you make the State responsible for massive parts of peoples' lives in terms of welfare, benefits, pensions, health etc etc it will inevitably become involved in trying to influence the behaviors that impact those things.

>
So you don't even know what policies you are referring to?


See above. The tax break hasn't worked but that doesn't mean that experimenting with ways of encouraging stable relationships is bad per se.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes as trad Unionists are famously for making sure their,members don't get more money from the owners of production.

You on the druggies Postman?

In reply to Postmanpat:

No it isn't. The point of the anecdotal evidence is to address the question: is it likely that marriage is in important causal link in the chain? If from the anecdotal evidence you can see the correlation without counter examples, you're no further forward. But if your anecdotal experience is full of counter examples (which it genuinely is, I have many friends with kids in stable unmarried relationships) then the causality is less likely to be there. It's a small, skewed sample, so you can't use this evidence to say "x causes y" nor really "x is very strongly correlated with y". But because it's full of counter examples it is reasonable evidence from which to draw the conclusion "it *doesn't* look like x causes y".

I didn't say you say it was a cure all, I am not strawmanning you. You implied strongly that the government promoting marriage was worthwhile in achieving better social outcomes. I'm saying it's worthless drivel.


No I'm not. I accept that children brought up in married or at least stable relationships do better, but I don't believe that the causal factor is marriage. My anecdotal evidence illustrates this:

it is the character and the lives of the two people who enter the relationship. The ceremony and the John Lewis gift list play very little part in the outcomes for the kids, from what I can see. Which makes perfect intuitive sense: have stable lives, a stable relationship and invest time and love in your kids, and obviously they're likely to do well. Why would it make any difference whether you were married or not?


It isn't a nudge, a nudge is by definition not a bribe. And *you're* (meta-)strawmanning me. I said it wouldn't increase the marriage rate, I did not say that you said it was a solution for social problems. I'm implying that it's marketing, and it's deadweight, it's not a worthwhile policy. People who are already married or already would get married will say "jolly good idea, I'll vote for that".


The argument is simple: you don't try things unless you have good reason to believe they will work. I am outlining why it's stupid to believe that the government can increase the marriage rate (e.g. with tax bribes) and by doing so improve social outcomes. I don't demand an RCT, just a good argument that isn't trivial to unravel to suggest it might be worth a bash. I'm not seeing one.


I glossed over something very complex and interesting - what sort of criteria justify government intervention. Great topic, not one I can discuss now!


No, I do not know the details of how the marriage tax break works to argue whether it would best be described as "removing perverse incentives" or "offering a bribe". It doesn't interest me, I'm not going to research it, and it makes no difference to any of the points I have made. I will bow to your superior knowledge of the tax system and its impact on married couples, and you are very welcome to feel smug at my expense.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Marriage is a legal, government administered, institution. We created all the rules. We decide that it means that some assets are shared, who can marry, no taxes on death, etc. Government can't not interfere in that institution (and so our private lives) and there are necessarily incentives and disincentives to marriage vs not getting married if marriage is to have any real terms (ie legal) effect. Arguing against one policy change on the basis that we have no evidence based reason for the existence of marriage doesn't really make sense. Do you think we should get rid of it entirely? Or that we should make no changes?

I'm not sure why you think it obvious that marriage itself won't have an affect on whether people stay together. We've all heard of the perils of divorce, and I think most will take that into account before they get married and so think harder about who they're with. It's still quite a common social norm that you don't ideally have kids without being married, and those two things mean kids with married parents are more likely to have kids that have stable parents. Obvious logic I'd say. Anecdotal evidence isn't good enough when the stats show married parents are more likely to stay together than not (and when my anecdotal evidence counters yours ).

In reply to thomasadixon:

That's not what I'm arguing. The Tories made a big cheesy deal out of promoting marriage because they appeared to believe, like PMP, that the government is able to change the marriage rate and that doing so is an effective way to improve social outcomes. I'm arguing that this specific intervention (that never really was, it was the tax break and some cheesy speeches) was a load of bollocks.


Sort of/not really. If we could have a completely new version of contracts and what have you regarding relationships and bringing up kids, I wouldn't favour anything like what we have now. I think it's anachronistic and silly, but I'm not a very romantic guy, and don't have much sentimental attachment to traditions. That's not what I'm arguing here, though.


Make changes if you have good reason to think that they'll lead to better social outcomes, sure. Cheesy speeches about family values just make me a bit nauseous. And when they have transparent, shallow political motives and aren't actually a genuine attempt to improve social outcomes, that nausea is tinged with contempt.


That's not quite what I said. I said I don't think that marriage has a causal role to play in the outcomes for kids. I don't think that staying together is better if the relationship is rotten, and I don't think marriage does much to ensure that people have kids with the right other person.


I think that applied meaningfully a couple of generations ago, but not now. Of all the people I know who had kids with the wrong person (I know a few), the problem wasn't that they weren't married, some were some weren't. It's that they had kids with the wrong person. And I can't think of any way in which the government promoting marriage could possibly have led them down a different path. There just is no causal chain from government policy to marriage to good outcomes and stable families. It's make-believe.


I didn't try to draw nor refute any statistical conclusions from my anecdotal evidence. I used it to demonstrate that the argument for *causality* between more marriages and better outcomes for kids was weak, by illustrating that it's the quality of the relationship and care giving that determines the outcomes children, not whether the parents are married. And anecdotal evidence is ideal for this illustration because it's not a statistical argument, it's a mechanistic one (what is the mechanism leading to the good outcome?).

In reply to Timmd:

I'm assuming the people involved have never spent any time in NZ, or that this was some ploy to get residency.

When the Aussie male population thinks/knows/has experience of the place, and finds it full of red-neck backward neanderthals, then to claim that the place is somehow "safer" than the UK is hysterically funny.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/cohabiting-parents-differ-from-married-o...

In reply to Big Ger:


Also that the person concerned has a friend/family support network in NZ that they didn’t have in the UK.


Less funny when you consider that NZ has the highest youth suicide rate in the developed world. The contrast between that and the demented conclusions of the OP’s linked articles is astounding.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-asia-40284130

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Brilliant, looks highly relevant, thanks. Will have a proper read.

In reply to wintertree:


This is the point I was trying to make above. The court's decision was based on the individual circumstances of the case, it was not a competition between the UK and NZ in how good their society is at treating trans people nicely. It does seem wrong that anyone from the UK should be granted asylum in another country, and it's a good headline if you want to raise awareness of the abuse trans people in the UK suffer - but circumstances can be peculiar.

The motivation for the stretching of the n=1 data to the conclusions drawn by Stonewall is to raise awareness of the abuse that trans people suffer. It's not correct to conclude that NZ is a better society for trans people, but it is fair to conclude that there is an issue in the UK (as the court did). It seems to get people angry that the journalism is flawed in this way. It would get me angry too if the motivation was a sinister one, but trying to raise awareness of this issue strikes me as a very useful and well-intentioned thing to do. The trouble with some of the sentiments expressed on this thread is that looks like certain people find the "virtue signalling" and "victim mentality" more offensive than the abuse of trans people, which has even been excused as an understandable reaction to media saturation by one poster. It's a little bit depressing.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Whilst your at it!

https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/Fulll%20Journa...

In reply to Postmanpat:

Great thanks. It is raining here, of course, so I might well have time to read these.

In reply to redbullxtremer:

C'mon, create a separate avatars for trolling on different subjects. Amateur.

In reply to Postmanpat:


180 pages! Are there certain articles that support your view in there, cause I ain't reading the whole lot.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


It's the offwidth approach to evidence. Baffle your interlocutor with the amount it and tell him to find the relevant bits!

I haven't read it all, surprisingly, but the one on "Why Marriage Matters for Child Wellbeing" argues causation rather than correlation. I don't think there is a lot specifically on tax incentives for marriage.

In reply to Postmanpat:



OK thanks.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


With regard to the tax incentive for marriage. I acknowledge that the practical effects will be minimal. The point is was to make a symbolic statement that stable relationships and especially marriage (because married couples are more likely to stay together) are positive for the outcomes for kids. As both I and Thomas have said, almost by default any tax and benefits system has a position on marriage and the perception has been that there were quite a few disincentives to marriage. To make a small statement that the government wants to incentivise rather than disincentivise marriage is a logical decision.

In reply to Postmanpat:


In the context of austerity, it was wrong.

In reply to redbullxtremer:


I thought you were chopping it off!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Marriage was produced initially by an evolutionary process and later came to have an additional symbolic importance, along with other traditional values. Governments like making appeals to tradition and stability, particularly when it comes to keeping the general population committed and engaged in the whole process of earning a living and bringing up children. Promoting, encouraging or incentivising marriage may be 'logical' to the extent that some politicians see it as a vote-winner but beyond that, logic plays precious little part in these appeals to an promotion of traditional values and institutions.

In reply to Andy Morley:

>
You've missed the point. It's not about "traditional values" etc per se although that can act as convenient dog whistle to parts of their base. It's about the connection between marriage, stable relationships and the outcomes for kids. See the links above to explore those links. Or you are suggesting that governments shouldn't be encouraging good outcomes for kids ?

In reply to Postmanpat:


You can't prove causality by statistical surveys - you can only show some kind of relationship. Does marriage lead to stable relationships? Or do people in stable relationships tend to get married more? Either explanation is consistent with a finding that marriage is associated with stability. Now THAT is logic

In reply to Andy Morley:

Which will be why I acknowledged that " correlation doesn't equal causation" in discussion with Jon from the off , constently refered to both stable relationships and marriage and then ref'ed you to 180 pages of literature on the topic which, amongst other things, addresses the subject of causation.....

That will be called, reading the f*cking thread....

In reply to Postmanpat:

The Why Marriage Matters article was quite interesting, but didn't address any of the points about causality that I made.

1. The section on the rational choice model was a waste of effort. If there's one area where a rational choice model isn't going to provide any illumination it's in bringing up kids. The fact that if you acted as a rational agent then you'd never have kids in the first place tells you that this isn't the right tool for this job - I'm a bit surprised that there isn't a behavioural economic model presented to try to justify the conclusions.

2. I may have missed it, but I didn't see any distinction made between coresident parents and married parents. The key point about causality and marriage is that unmarried couples in very marriage-like relationships, i.e. committed to bringing up children together, just without the mumbling and fruitcake, are now commonplace. These couples want to live "married life" and bring up their kids together, they can just do without the cost, the showiness and the sentimentality of a wedding. They're committed to each other, but not to conforming to the social norm of marriage - it's simply not their bag. An argument saying that staying together brings about better outcomes is all well and good, but it isn't an argument that marriage is the cause. 'Ah, but married couples are more likely to stay together'. Yes, but if the coresident couples who split up had been encouraged by some external persuasion to get married, would they then have stayed together? Does anyone know? And in the rotten marriages where two people can't stand the sight of each other but slog on and on and on, "for the sake of the kids"/to avoid divorce, do the kids in from *these* marriages still do better than those whose parents split up? The paper mentions the conflict level in the household buy doesn't analyse the harm done by staying together in conflict rather than splitting up and reducing conflict.

There is no evidence presented that marriage holds together relationships that would otherwise have ended, and that these marriages achieve the same good results as the "happy marriages" and stable non-married coresident relationships. Without this evidence, the causality argument is absolutely not compelling, as it is presented as an argument for marriage when really it's an argument for coresident parenting, which I'm not disputing.

I was interested in any research that made a compelling case for government intervention to increase the marriage rate in order to improve social outcomes. This demands two things: that the government *can* increase the marriage rate (upwards, affordably: nothing to suggest this is the case); and that marriage is causally linked to good outcomes. That paper is relevant to the causality part but actually just makes arguments for coresident parenting and calls this "marriage" (I might have missed something but that appears rather sneaky to me!). We're a long way from backing up the claim that DC's marriage drive was "evidence based". It wasn't, it was the usual vacuous political fluff (and nauseatingly sanctimonious with it); this was all he was capable of.

On the other hand, the other much shorter and more down to earth paper makes a very straightforward case that there are differences between coresident couples and married ones, and these difference are not caused by the marriage. The conclusions one might draw from this are that the government should:

1. Promote effective family planning (including the psychological element of deciding to when to have kids)

2. Improve educational outcomes

3. Improve economic opportunity

These are 3 real areas where the government has a firm grip on the levers of control. If you do all these as best as possible and then you make some cheesy speeches about marriage and family values, spending next to nothing on some crappy bits of marketing that you pretend are policy, then the superfluous crap won't do any harm (except alienating people who don't want to get married, but that's hardly a huge social issue). But let's not pretend it's worthwhile, when it's obviously bollocks.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/cohabiting-parents-differ-from-married-o...

In reply to Postmanpat:


Which then brings me back to the point that marriage is primarily a symbolic act. Just taking a common-sense perspective, as well a the stats not demonstrating causality between marriage and relationships that last, it's pretty obvious that some relationships are not going to survive regardless as to whether they get a marriage stamp!