• Marriage, cohabitation and mortality in Denmark: national cohort study of 6.5 million persons followed for up to three decades (1982–2011)

    Fristch and Simonsen studied mortality according to marital status using a database of 6.5 million Danes that were followed over 12 years. Because of Denmarks extensive civil database system, they were able to access data on health and mortality without relying on self-reports. The causes of mortality were grouped according to marital status and for cohabitation for opposite sex and same sex unions. Studies of this type are particularly useful because they provide a large amount of data from the whole population over a long period of time. In addition, Denmark is relatively tolerant of homosexuality, which means that ‘homophobia’ or discrimination is less likely to a factor in any outcomes. For the purposes of comparison, they assigned ‘opposite sex marriages’ a hazard risk of 1.0 and compared other arrangements to this. For example, A hazard risk of 1.5 means that the arrangement was associated with 50% higher risk of mortality than opposite sex marriage.

    They did the same with cohabiting relationships (assign opposite sex cohabiters a hazard risk of 1.0 and compare other ‘cohabitation’ arrangements to this). This means that they did not directly compare same sex married men/women with same sex cohabiting men/women. It is well-known however that hazard risks for married people are lower than those for cohabiters. For example, a study from Finland (Mortality differences According to Living Arrangements (Koskinen et al, International Journal of Epidemiology 2007; 36:1255-1264). This study was chosen because Finland has a population similar in many ways to Denmark and the authors analysed >200,000 deaths from 1996-2000. They found that cohabiting women and men had approximately 65% higher mortality than married ones. Although we are importing findings from another study, we can use them as modifiers to estimate the values that this study did not measure. Therefore the hazard ratios for cohabiters could be estimated at 1.5 when compared to married people at 1.0.
    Key findings from the Danish study include:
    1. People in opposite sex marriages had consistently lower mortality rates than ALL OTHER ARRANGEMENTS. This is consistent with previous research which shows significant health benefits to being married. It should be noted that vast majority of these studies were on OPPOSITE SEX couples as same sex ‘marriage’ is a relatively recent phenomenon. (For the purposes of comparison, they assigned opposite sex marriage a hazard ratio of 1.0
    2. Widows, divorcees and unmarried mortality rates increased 40-70% for women and 20-70% for men.
    3. Men in same sex marriages were 40% more likely to die from all causes than men in heterosexual marriages.
    4. Same sex cohabiting men had 70% greater risk of mortality than opposite sex cohabiters . As discussed above, opposite sex male cohabiters already had 65% higher mortality than married men so same sex marriage drops mortality by AT BEST 5%.
    5. Women in same sex marriages were 70-350% more likely to die than women in heterosexual marriages depending on age. Same sex cohabiting women had 104% greater mortality than opposite sex cohabiters who already had 65% higher mortality than opposite sex married women. This means that same sex marriage has made no significant difference to mortality rates for women.
    6. Women in same sex marriages were >6 times more likely to commit suicide as those in opposite sex marriages.
    7. Men in same sex marriages were 4x more likely to die from suicide as men in heterosexual marriages. These numbers are consistent with data from Sweden (Andersson et al, 2016) which showed that men in SSM were nearly 3x more likely to suicide.
    8. Like other western societies, the most common causes of death for men were cardiovascular disease and cancer. Even when these were removed, along with suicide AND HIV/AIDS, Men in same sex marriages were still 60% more likely to die from ‘other causes’ than men in heterosexual marriages.

    CLICK HERE to view full article

Leave a reply

Cancel reply

Please find below key points you may wish to consider when sending a message of opposition to your local Member of Parliament if they support same sex marriage.

These points should be used as a foundation of your email but we recommend you personalise the email to ENSURE YOUR IMPORTANT MESSAGE IS NOT IGNORED.

Be friendly, polite and urge your MPs to let the people vote on this issue.

YOUR MESSAGE OF OPPOSITION TO MPS WHO SUPPORT SSM SHOULD CONTAIN AT THE VERY LEAST THESE 4 KEY POINTS:

  1. I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. I am strongly opposed to the redefinition of marriage to allow Same Sex Marriage (SSM)

  2. You have been identified as a supporter of SSM on the ‘Australians for Marriage Equality’ (AME) website. If you do not support SSM, then I urge you to have your name removed from the AME website

  3. If you do indeed support SSM then I will be unable to vote for you at the next election. I will also be unable to vote for ANY POLITICAL PARTY that officially supports SSM.

  4. I will be telling my friends and family to do the same thing. ‘

IF YOU WISH TO ADD MORE DETAIL, THEN SOME OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING 4 POINTS COULD BE INCLUDED

  1. I believe that the primary purpose of marriage is to ensure that wherever possible, children are raised by their biological mother and father. Marriage is therefore about what is best for our kids, not about validating the desires and feelings of adults.

  2. I urge you to examine the significant body of evidence that shows that the gold standard for children is to be raised by MARRIED BIOLOGICAL MOTHER AND FATHER. Please see: www.thebigdealaboutmarriage.com.au/category/marriage-children.

  3. Marriage is the foundational institution of our society and any redefinition to allow SSM has the potential to have significantly negative effects on our society.

  4. The LGBTI population represents only 3% of the Australian population and only 0.7% of cohabiting couples (Australian Bureau Statistics). These couples ALREADY HAVE all the same rights as heterosexual de facto relationships. Why are we risking major societal change changing marriage laws for a small minority of Australians to give them much the same rights as they ALREADY HAVE?

SOME POSTCODES MAY SHOW MORE THAN ONE MP. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ALL THE MPS SHOWN

×

Please find below key points you may wish to consider when sending a message of support to your local Member of Parliament if they oppose same sex marriage.

These points should be used as a foundation of your email but we recommend you personalise the email to ENSURE YOUR IMPORTANT MESSAGE IS NOT IGNORED.

Be friendly, polite and urge your MPs to let the people vote on this issue.

YOUR MESSAGE OF OPPOSITION TO MPS WHO SUPPORT SSM SHOULD CONTAIN AT THE VERY LEAST THESE 4 KEY POINTS:

  1. I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. I am strongly opposed to the redefinition of marriage to allow Same Sex Marriage (SSM). It is my understanding that you also support marriage remaining between a man and a woman and I congratulate you for that.

  2. This issue will decide my vote in future elections. If you continue to oppose SSM then I will vote for you.

  3. If you change your position then unfortunately I will be unable to vote for you or ANY POLITICAL PARTY that officially supports SSM.

  4. I will be telling my friends and family to do the same thing

IF YOU WISH TO ADD MORE DETAIL, THEN SOME OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING 4 POINTS COULD BE INCLUDED

  1. I urge you to examine the significant body of evidence that shows that the gold standard for children is to be raised by MARRIED BIOLOGICAL MOTHER AND FATHER. Please see: www.thebigdealaboutmarriage.com.au/category/marriage-children.

  2. The LGBTI population represents only 3% of the Australian population and only 0.7% of cohabiting couples (Australian Bureau Statistics). These couples ALREADY HAVE all the same rights as heterosexual de facto relationships. Why are we risking major societal change changing marriage laws for a small minority of Australians to give them much the same rights as they ALREADY HAVE?

  3. Marriage is the foundational institution of our society and any redefinition to allow SSM has the potential to have significantly negative effects on our society.

  4. I believe that the primary purpose of marriage is to ensure that wherever possible, children are raised by their biological mother and father. Marriage is therefore about what is best for our kids, not about validating the desires and feelings of adults.

SOME POSTCODES MAY SHOW MORE THAN ONE MP. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ALL THE MPS SHOWN

×

This following document sets forth the Privacy Policy for The Big Deal About Marriage website, www.thebigdealaboutmarriage.com.au.

We are committed to respecting your privacy and are bound by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), which sets out a number of principles concerning the privacy of individuals.

Collection of your personal information

There are many aspects of the site which can be viewed without providing personal information, however, for access to some features or information you may be required to submit personally identifiable information. This may include but not limited to a your name, email address and postcode.

Sharing of your personal information

We may occasionally use other companies or organisations to provide services on our behalf, including but not limited to handling analysing information or sending emails. Those companies or organisations will be permitted to obtain only the personal information they need to deliver the service. We take reasonable steps to ensure that these organisations are bound by confidentiality and privacy obligations in relation to the protection of your personal information.

We may occasionally share contact information with like-minded not for profit organisations to provide services such as, but not limited to handling analysing information or sending emails. Those organisations will be permitted to obtain only the personal information they need to deliver the service. We take reasonable steps to ensure that these organisations are bound by confidentiality and privacy obligations in relation to the protection of your personal information.

Use of your personal information

For each visitor to reach the site, we expressively collect the following non-personally identifiable information, including but not limited to browser type, version and language, operating system, pages viewed while browsing the Site, page access times and referring website address. This collected information is used solely internally for the purpose of gauging visitor traffic, trends and delivering personalized content to you while you are at this Site.

From time to time, we may use customer information for new, unanticipated uses not previously disclosed in our privacy notice. If our information practices change at some time in the future we will use for these new purposes only, data collected from the time of the policy change forward will adhere to our updated practices.

Changes to this Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to make amendments to this Privacy Policy at any time. If you have objections to the Privacy Policy, you should not access or use the Site.

Accessing Your Personal Information

You have a right to access your personal information, subject to exceptions allowed by law. If you would like to do so, please let us know. You may be required to put your request in writing for security reasons. We reserve the right to charge a fee for searching for, and providing access to, your information on a per request basis.

Contacting us

E-mail: thebigdealaboutmarriage.gmail.com

×