Replies

There is a difference between heterosexuals dating until they find an acceptable long-term partner, and short-term gay liasons.
Men and women enter into long-term relationships even without the benefit of marriage (common law marriage). Without getting into a discussion of the rise in the divorce rate; long-term relationships constitute the majority of adult male-female relationships. On the other hand, despite the fact that long-term gay relationships do exist, they are in the minority.
The other issue is the "equality" argument. The fact that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women does not imply they aren't "equal". A man cannot marry his sister either. Is that not also "unequal"? After all, if they are consenting adults and promise to stay together the rest of their lives, isn't that what counts?
When decisions are made based on someone's concept of "fairness" or some sort of general all things are "equal" type of premise, then anything goes.

"There is a difference between heterosexuals dating until they find an acceptable long-term partner, and short-term gay liasons."

Okay, but I don't really see it. A lot of heterosexuals I know date and sleep around in very short "relationships," and a lot of gay people I know date and sleep around in very short "relationships." Some of each end up settling down with a partner.

"Men and women enter into long-term relationships even without the benefit of marriage."

Certainly. That would apply to both gay and straight men and women.

"long-term relationships constitute the majority of adult male-female relationships."

I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that at any given time, more straight adults are in long-term relationship than are in short-term relationships. However, I think that the overall number of short relationships for the average individual is much larger than the overall number of long ones.

"On the other hand, despite the fact that long-term gay relationships do exist, they are in the minority."

That may well be. My point is that we don't have good data documenting the nature (or causes) of this discrepancy. There are a lot of problems with the study that was cited.