Why civil unions may intrinsically not be able to deliver all the benefits of marriage.

[shira]

Marital happiness shared, but not cohabiting happiness

If she's happy, then he's happy--and vice versa. Married men and women are significantly more satisfied with their life when their spouse is also satisfied with life, according to new research from Britain's University of Warwick.

But here's the really odd catch: This secret for happiness only works if you're married. The same level of satisfaction was not found in couples who live together without saying "I do."

It's long been widely accepted, but rarely tested, that a married person is naturally happier when his or her spouse is happy. Because of this assumption, it is easier to think of marriage as an exchange in which two parties agree to share, not only the material possessions of life but also the experiences of good and bad times and other nonmaterial things that matter to people's happiness, asserts lead researcher and economist Nick Powdthavee.

The study: To test the theory that there is a positive and significant effect of the spouse's life satisfaction on the individual's own life satisfaction, the Warwick team analyzed life satisfaction data from 9,704 married people and 3,300 unmarried people who were living with their partner. The data were part of the British Household Panel Survey, which was conducted from 1996 to 2000 and in 2002. The participants, who were all 16 to 65 years old, were asked about life satisfaction, education, income, and health.

The results: The effect is very real. In fact it's sizable and statistically significant. Using a complex mathematical formula, Powdthavee showed that when a husband or wife is happy, that happiness extends to the spouse, too. It's so strong that it can even supercede the non-financial cost of unemployment or a two-month hospitalization. An example cited in the news release announcing the findings indicated a 30 percent increase in the spouse's life satisfaction score from the previous year can completely offset the negative impact of unemployment on the respondent's life satisfaction.

The takeaway: Happiness is contagious for married couples.

The interesting gotcha: To reap the same level of happiness, you have to be married. When the test was conducted on those who were living together but not married, it starkly showed there was not the same robust evidence of life satisfaction. The study findings were presented to the Royal Economic Society's Annual Conference.

Would this "happiness-transfer" result carry over to married same-sex couples? I don't see why not. And it's reasonable to assume that if civil unions are viewed (by same-sex couples and/or by society) as something less than the whole "I do" enchilada, they may provide no more happiness-transfer benefit than cohabitation.

 

[Insomniak]

Irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. In this country, we guarantee equal rights to all. Thus, I think homosexual couples should be given access to the same rights as heterosexual couples. Civil Unions do that.

We are not guaranteed equal happiness. That would be ridiculous.

 

[StageLeft]

This is so stupid I want to cut my legs off. Couples who decide to get married are not suddenly going to get knocked down a peg in happiness if "marriage" was no longer recognized, and was instead called a civil union. I wonder if the author has wondered that perhaps couples who are highly compatible and happy with each other decide to get married, whereas those who are not just stay cohabiting. If mrsskoorb and I had to give up our rings we'd not suddenly be less happy with this.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
This is so stupid I want to cut my legs off. Couples who decide to get married are not suddenly going to get knocked down a peg in happiness if "marriage" was no longer recognized, and was instead called a civil union. I wonder if the author has wondered that perhaps couples who are highly compatible and happy with each other decide to get married, whereas those who are not just stay cohabiting. If mrsskoorb and I had to give up our rings we'd not suddenly be less happy with this.

True. The whole gay marriage thing I think is the latest issue which means nothing.

For those opposed: Marriage is just a name for a bond between a couple. The homosexuals already have the bond, so why not give them the name?

For those supporting: The homosexuals already have the bond, and that's what matters right? Then who cares what the hell you call it?


The only valid issue I see here is equal rights under the law, which I favor extending to ALL American citizens, no matter sexual orientation.

 

[Tab]

That's kind of strange article, but whatever... It's pretty obivious that you'll be happy if your partner is happy.

We don't have state-run marriages, we have state run civil unions. A "marraige" requires consent and "love" which our goverment does not recongize or require.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Skoorb
This is so stupid I want to cut my legs off. Couples who decide to get married are not suddenly going to get knocked down a peg in happiness if "marriage" was no longer recognized, and was instead called a civil union. I wonder if the author has wondered that perhaps couples who are highly compatible and happy with each other decide to get married, whereas those who are not just stay cohabiting. If mrsskoorb and I had to give up our rings we'd not suddenly be less happy with this.

True. The whole gay marriage thing I think is the latest issue which means nothing.

For those opposed: Marriage is just a name for a bond between a couple. The homosexual already have the bond, so why not give them the name?

For those supporting: The homosexuals already have the bond, and that's what matters right? Then who cares what the hell you call it?


The only valid issue I see here is equal rights under the law, which I favor extending to ALL American citizens, no matter sexual orientation.

Why not give homosexusaul the same name for the bond?

You marry people because you LOVE them not for reproduction purposes!...

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
This is so stupid I want to cut my legs off. Couples who decide to get married are not suddenly going to get knocked down a peg in happiness if "marriage" was no longer recognized, and was instead called a civil union. I wonder if the author has wondered that perhaps couples who are highly compatible and happy with each other decide to get married, whereas those who are not just stay cohabiting. If mrsskoorb and I had to give up our rings we'd not suddenly be less happy with this.

Yeah I could barely get through the past 2 paragraphs.

And not because of my ADD either.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: Skoorb
This is so stupid I want to cut my legs off. Couples who decide to get married are not suddenly going to get knocked down a peg in happiness if "marriage" was no longer recognized, and was instead called a civil union. I wonder if the author has wondered that perhaps couples who are highly compatible and happy with each other decide to get married, whereas those who are not just stay cohabiting. If mrsskoorb and I had to give up our rings we'd not suddenly be less happy with this.

Yeah I could barely get through the past 2 paragraphs.

And not because of my ADD either.

I didn't read past the second paragraph, but I've read enough brutally out of line conclusions by people with no inclination towards how statistics work to know that this article was a waste of a read.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. In this country, we guarantee equal rights to all. Thus, I think homosexual couples should be given access to the same rights as heterosexual couples. Civil Unions do that.

Oxymoron alert!!

We are not guaranteed equal happiness. That would be ridiculous.

Who is saying that?

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: conjur
Who is saying that?

Is not this whole topic concerning a happiness disparity between marriage and civil unions? If not, then I am confused. Please clarify what exactly we are talking about.

Originally posted by: conjur
Oxymoron alert!!

Where is the oxymoron?

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Why not give homosexusaul the same name for the bond?

You marry people because you LOVE them not for reproduction purposes!...

Did you even read my post?

Originally posted by: Insomniak
For those opposed: Marriage is just a name for a bond between a couple. The homosexuals already have the bond, so why not give them the name?

 

[azazyel]

Did they measure the happiness of recently divorced people? I bet it would be HUGE.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: conjur
Who is saying that?

Is not this whole topic concerning a happiness disparity between marriage and civil unions? If not, then I am confused. Please clarify what exactly we are talking about.

Originally posted by: conjur
Oxymoron alert!!

Where is the oxymoron?

Right here:

In this country, we guarantee equal rights to all. Thus, I think homosexual couples should be given access to the same rights as heterosexual couples. Civil Unions do that.

If you truly mean equal rights then why not give them access to everything heterosexuals have available?

That includes the word "marriage"

 

[sandorski]

There's probably a psychological element involved here. I suspect the difference is that the "Married" couples have taken an extra step(legal agreement) in their relationship where Cohabitants have not(generally speaking). I think this gives more Trust in a relationship, because it emphasizes that the partner is really serious(assumed). Where the OP fails is in equating Civil Union with Cohabitation, Civil Union is more like Marriage, if it is a legal entity.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: conjur
right here:
If you truly mean equal rights then why not give them access to everything heterosexuals have available?

That includes the word "marriage"

Because "rights" and "access" are not the same thing, and we don't guarantee everyone equal access to things either. Again, to do so would be foolish.

So, no, there isn't an oxymoron in there I'm afraid.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: conjur
right here:
If you truly mean equal rights then why not give them access to everything heterosexuals have available?

That includes the word "marriage"

Because "rights" and "access" are not the same thing, and we don't guarantee everyone equal access to things either. Again, to do so would be foolish.

So, no, there isn't an oxymoron in there I'm afraid.

14th Amendment

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: conjur
right here:
If you truly mean equal rights then why not give them access to everything heterosexuals have available?

That includes the word "marriage"

Because "rights" and "access" are not the same thing, and we don't guarantee everyone equal access to things either. Again, to do so would be foolish.

So, no, there isn't an oxymoron in there I'm afraid.

14th Amendment

Has absolutely nothing to do with the distinction between rights and other things, as far as I can tell. It simply guarantees equal rights, which as I have said all along I support.

 

[StormRider]

I like referring to my brother as my sister.

Using different names for something doesn't necessarily make it "unequal". I would prefer to reserve the word "marriage" to represent the special relationship only a man and a woman can have. And use some other term to signify the equivalent homosexual relationship.

Only a girl can be my sister. Only a boy can be my brother. But both relationships would be equal in my eyes despite the different names. They are both my siblings.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
This is so stupid I want to cut my legs off. Couples who decide to get married are not suddenly going to get knocked down a peg in happiness if "marriage" was no longer recognized, and was instead called a civil union. I wonder if the author has wondered that perhaps couples who are highly compatible and happy with each other decide to get married, whereas those who are not just stay cohabiting. If mrsskoorb and I had to give up our rings we'd not suddenly be less happy with this.

But then people would refer to your children as the little bastards.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

As far as I know, a couple united via civil ceremony is a married couple. Maybe the article is referring to common law spouses.

 

[Zebo]

It's not my concern if someones "happy" or not (talk about nebulus wide open terms) What does concern me is people are afforded equal protection and equal rights and benefits under the law irregardless of race, color, income, sexuality, religion..

You could tell me homo couples are miserable, still does'nt change the fact consenting adults should have god given right to engage in whatever relationship they wish however miserable it might be.. This includes drug use which we all know is a bad thing.

IMO it's all about freedom to do what you will with your own body not have it regulated, taxed, and conformed to some societial norm of morality.

So ya, I belive they should be able to marry just like straight couples since anything else like civil union is discriminatory.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: conjur
right here:
If you truly mean equal rights then why not give them access to everything heterosexuals have available?

That includes the word "marriage"

Because "rights" and "access" are not the same thing, and we don't guarantee everyone equal access to things either. Again, to do so would be foolish.

So, no, there isn't an oxymoron in there I'm afraid.

14th Amendment

Has absolutely nothing to do with the distinction between rights and other things, as far as I can tell. It simply guarantees equal rights, which as I have said all along I support.

Then why are you against same-sex marriages? You are a walking contradiction.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: StormRider
But then people would refer to your children as the little bastards.

Right, but I suppose it would have less of a negative connotation if everyone's children were bastards.